WASHINGTON, June 7, 2015 — This week’s Marco Rubio scandal is that the junior senator from Florida and his wife are not good drivers. That bombshell hit the New York Times on Friday, riveting media attention for much of the evening.
If anything, their need for speed provides the best argument for electing Rubio president: It will keep the Rubios off the road for four to eight years and protect American motorists, since the Secret Service will do all their driving for them.
Unfortunately, the public good done by electing Rubio president would be undone by his foreign policy approach. On Thursday, Rubio appeared on Fox News’ “Outnumbered” and gave his thoughts on nation-building.
So Rubio doesn’t support nation-building, but he does support “assisting them in building their nation.” The difference between the two is as clear as mud from this clip.
HotAir’s Allahpundit takes a shot at explaining the difference: “Rubio fans will find some way to split hairs here on what constitutes ‘nation-building’ versus ‘assisting them in building their nation.’ Sending a 100,000-troop invasion force is nation-building; sending weapons and economic aid to the government while it tries to defend itself is assisting the building. I could buy that if not for the fact that we’re already getting closer to sending American soldiers to take on ISIS, a project which, if it happens and if it works, will inevitably be followed by calls for a long-term American presence in Iraq and Syria to prevent an ISIS resurgence.\
“The difference between Rubio and Lindsey Graham, I guess, is that Graham will tell you that flat out while Rubio will dance around the reality of it with absurd parsing like this. But then, that’s been his approach consistently on questions related to Iraq lately. He subscribes to Dubya’s foreign policy but can’t admit that given how toxic Bush is to the general electorate.
“That’s how we ended up with the ‘who’s on first?’ routine between him and Chris Wallace on whether we should have invaded Iraq and this nation-building/assisting-the-building distinction yesterday on Fox News.”
Marco Rubio has not only failed to learn anything from 2003, he hasn’t learned anything from 1919. The first American president who wanted to “make the world safe for democracy” was Woodrow Wilson. That infamous line was from Wilson’s request for a Declaration of War against Germany and American entry into World War I. The U.S. entry into the war was a mistake for many reasons, not least of which was that Germany was not a direct threat.
The result of our entry into the war was the defeat of Germany. Afterward, Wilson sought to create a League of Nations to prevent future war and promote self-determination for all peoples. He also believed he could restrain his British and French allies from exacting vengeance on Germany. He failed on most counts.
The League of Nations devolved into just another alliance, as its membership only included Allied nations. The British and French divided up former German and Ottoman holdings, laying the seeds for future conflict in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
Finally, the Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh conditions on Germany that led to rise of Hitler and World War II.
Rubio unveiled his Rubio Doctrine earlier this month. He has already gone well down the road of Woodrow Wilson. American national interests were referenced only once in the speech, and only in the context of “defending human rights” and “strong support of democratic principles.”
All throughout the speech were references to promoting democracy and freedom (except here at home) and “advancing the rights of minorities and the vulnerable.” Woodrow Wilson would have been proud of Rubio’s performance, including his attacks on civil liberties.
Since Rubio seems unwilling to learn from history, American voters should pass on electing him president and give him time to study. Unless it’s really important to keep the Rubios off the road before they cause a wreck.