(CNN) - Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made it clear for the last two years that inaction in Syria is a bad idea.
Because the U.S. chose to "lead from behind," and didn't help moderates overthrow a weaker President Bashar al-Assad early in the rebellion, it now has no good options for a military intervention, Rubio said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.
Now Congress has a chance to save our nation in the eyes of the world. We are in a terrible place. I have three sons and a daughter and believe me I don't want war. That being said we don't have a choice. The question is are we going to do nothing and wait for attacks here? That is the next logical step because our "leader" is weak and our country is failing. Please do not let us just wait. The longer we wait the longer and harder this action will be.
Lead from behind.... Another Fox News talking point. I really have to laugh when I read either on these blogs or one of the obstructionist republikkkans, repeating the same words I heard on Fox.
"Rubio: Assad falling could trigger another civil war"
Because the U.S. chose to "lead from behind," and didn't help moderates overthrow a weaker President Bashar al-Assad early in the rebellion, it now has no good options for a military intervention, Rubio said ... ... ...
Thanks for the hypocrisy, Marco. I just love shining a light on it, whereever it may be found. "Leading from behind" is a phrase that conservatives just love to throw out there. Must be some sort of an inside joke.
Rubio says that Assad falling could trigger a civil war, which he feels is a bad thing. I agree. The problem is that the other side of his mouth says that U.S. mistakenly didn't help overthrow Assad sooner. Well, wouldn't that most likely have led to civil war, too? Rubio is suggesting opposite courses of action at the same time. "We don't want to start a civil war, but we should have started one two years ago." That's what Rubio is actually saying.
Wasn't the dread of triggering a civil war the reason the U.S.? The whole point of not getting involved was to not put the U.S. in a position where we could be blamed for the inevitable civil war. Anyone who thinks that toppling Assad two years would not have led to a civil war is living in a Bush/Cheney fantasy.
Careful there. Don't go out on that limb too far. Just another day in the life of Mr. Obvious.