In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News while on the campaign trail in South Carolina, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) fired off against fellow Republican potential candidate nominee Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) blaming Rubio for the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans. Ineligible candidate against ineligible candidate has the Breitbart article exploding.
According to Cruz, Rubio’s backing of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now 2016 Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, and Barack Obama in their deposing of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi resulted in the spiraling of that nation into control of Islamic jihadists who perpetrated the attacks on the US consulate in Libya.
When asked by Breitbart News why he’s “better for America’s national security than Rubio,” Cruz remarked:
On foreign policy, Sen. Rubio’s foreign policy judgments have been consistently wrong. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made the decision to intervene in Libya, to topple Qaddafi, Sen. Rubio chose once again to stand with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Now, Qaddafi was a bad man. He had a terrible human rights record, and he himself had sponsored terrorism for many, many years. But in response to U.S. strength, Qaddafi had changed course. He voluntarily handed over his nuclear program and shut it down. And he was actively cooperating with the U.S. government in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists. He was capturing radical Islamic terrorists and handing them over to America. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio led the NATO coalition in toppling Qaddafi. And the result of that was that Libya was handed over to radical Islamic terrorists and is now a chaotic war zone of battling Islamists. And that is much, much worse for U.S. national security. The tragedy at Benghazi, four Americans murdered including the first American ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the 1970s under Jimmy Carter, the tragedy of Benghazi was the direct result of the failed foreign policy in Libya that was championed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and supported by Marco Rubio.
In all honesty, Rubio didn’t do it by himself. Plenty of other were involved as well. However, Rubio is Cruz’s competition so it would make sense for him to place the blame squarely on Rubio while disregarding the role others played. What’s that saying, “win at all costs?”
Continuing to discuss foreign policy, Cruz consistently placed Rubio in bed with Clinton and Obama since the three have supported the same foreign policy in the Middle East.
Likewise in Egypt, Obama and Hillary opposed Mubarak. Mubarak had a lousy human rights record but had been a reliable ally of America. The Obama administration pressed to topple Mubarak and they handed that country over to the Muslim Brotherhood—a terrorist organization that finances jihadists all over the globe. That made U.S. national security worse off. And now, in Syria, once again, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing to topple another dictator—Assad. Now, Bashar Assad is a bad man. He has a horrible human rights record. He’s murdered his own citizens. And yet the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. There is a reason Prime Minister Netanyahu has said he has no dog in the fight in the Syrian Civil War, because if President Obama and Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio succeed in toppling Bashar Assad, the consequence will be radical Islamic terror will take over Syria. ISIS will govern Syria. That is worse from the perspective of U.S. national security interests.
It’s convenient for Cruz to speak of the failed foreign policy in the Middle East especially when talking about meddling in governments by Obama and Hitlery. Cruz fails to mention the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein waged by the first Bush in response to protect Saudi Arabia, who has as bad a human rights record as other Islamic governed nations, and Kuwait, all based on oil. If the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, he should explain Saudi Arabia. Then, Bush two went into Iraq again based on reports of weapons of mass destruction, deposed Saddam Hussein, which has led to a total failure in government for Iraq when US troops were withdrawn. US troops propped up the post Saddam Hussein government which struggled from the outset.
Presidents of the united States of America of more recent times have taken it upon themselves to meddle in governments that are none of their business. These so-called leaders started participating in installing “puppet” regimes they felt more palatable. The result has been a legacy of chaos in nations where US leaders interfered with the cost being paid by citizens of those nations along with our own.
Cruz accused Rubio, along with Clinton and Obama, of making similar mistakes as Jimmy Carter when president in the 1970s.
I will note the mistakes that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio keep making are reminiscent of the foreign policy mistakes made by Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s stood by while the Shah of Iran was toppled because Jimmy Carter—like Obama and Hillary and Sen. Rubio—believed there was an Arab Spring, a Democratic uprising. Well, the consequence of the Islamic revolution has been the birth of a nation that has been waging war with America for decades—filled with religious and theocratic fanatics who pledge ‘Death to America.’ And I very much agree with Ronald Reagan and Jeane Kirkpatrick who at the time said this is a catastrophic mistake. You shouldn’t be toppling governments and handing them over to radical Islamic terrorists. That’s what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton keep doing, and unfortunately Sen. Rubio keeps making the errors in judgment that have the effect of benefitting radical Islamic terrorists.
The united States has no business period in the meddling of the governments of any sovereign nation. Aren’t we doing what we accused the former USSR and more recently Russia of doing? It’s like being a friend trying to help out your two married friends who are having difficulty. You, as the friend, end up on the losing end regardless.
Are we all to understand that the US has to be the military force, the police force and a peacekeeping force in other nations, especially the Middle East? No, these nations need to provide for their own national security and defense against overthrow by rogue elements. Just as the federal government is charged with the defense of this nation on behalf of all the States, other nations are similarly charged with the defense of their own nations.
Our federal government, at this point in time, has become derelict in its duty to provide for the common defense and repel of invasions.
One thing that our leaders and politicians do not understand is the different factions of Islam will always wage war against one another. Shiite against Sunni, Sunni against Shiite, Wahabbist against Shiite, and so on. You cannot support Sunni without earning the ire of Shiite and vice versa. Again, it’s getting in the middle of a fight between a married couple and trying to help. You will be the one on the losing end. And, that has been the case with the US in the Middle East for quite some time now.
Breitbart will have the remainder of the interview with Cruz in another installment. It will be interesting to see what other missiles Cruz fires off.