Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rubio Speech Drops Hammer on Anti-Israel President
If Marco Rubio keeps talking like this, he’ll be the GOP front runner before we know it.
Two days after Benjamin Netanyahu’s big victory in Israel, one day after Obama’s peevish reaction, and on the same day the White House stated that they foresee “terrible days” for Israel ahead, Rubio spoke up. In 15 minutes, Florida’s junior senator vivisects Obama’s Israel policy before dispatching it once and for all into the depths of hell.
Who would have thought the man who nodded approvingly for two decades in a Farrakhan-friendly “church” would be the one to grant Iran nuclear weapons and sever the ties with the only Jewish state on earth?
Published in Foreign Policy
Thought you might enjoy watching the Marco Rubio farewell speech to the Florida House.
ET,
Of course, Israel is very important to me. I am very happy that Senator Rubio said what he said in defense of Israel. However, the speech your comment links to is just fantastic. In a way, because it isn’t topical but rather deals with what it means to be an American and what it means to be a human being, it is even more powerful and all the more reason to consider Rubio for the toughest job in the World.
Regards,
Jim
Thanks Jim. I loved this speech because it was so unpolished and frankly, joyful.
I crossed Rubio off my presidential short list when he signed onto the Gang of Eight amnesty bill. As Professor Rahe points out in the flagship podcast today, getting rolled by Chuck Schumer doesn’t inspire confidence. But Rubio is climbing steadily in my estimation now that he has owned up to his mistake and articulately makes the case for a commonsense path forward on immigration.
Rubio gives a great speech, is solidly Reaganesque on the issues that matter, hails from a key swing state and is uniquely positioned to build a bridge with immigrants, particularly Latinos.
He could be our guy. Time will tell.
Since we are talking about numbers let’s take a look at them:
What have the strategic benefits been to the U.S. for all of this aid. Here is a partial list:
If you factor out the treaty obligations you have about $80B dollars in aid that all flowed back to the U.S. There are many in Israel who argue that aside from the treaty obligations, they should not receive solicit any more aid from the U.S. They believe that this would allow them much more freedom of action. The country is certainly wealthy enough that the aid is not needed. Also, with the coming online next year of the Leviathan gas field they will have plenty of diplomatic leverage and should start to look towards the east. There is continued talk on Israel of a joint Chinese\Israel project to construct a rail line between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean so as to avoid the Suez canal. With modern container technology it would probably just add two days for transit. The benefits would be enormous.
The question then should be is it worth the loss of influence with an ally to withdraw aid in what amounts to a rounding error in the U.S. budget? Also, should the U.S. abrogate its treaty obligations as well?
Iran is already is waging something like an undeclared, non-conventional, war against the U.S. already. Our policy should be to end this war by ending the Iranian regime that is conducting this war against us.
It sounds like Sen. Rubio is on board with Andrew Klavan:
I know I sound like Chris Matthews, but that farewell speech literally gives me goosebumps and brings tears to my eyes. And he’s not just an empty speaker. As you mention, he was speaker of the Florida house. And from what I’ve read of others saying about him, he seems to be a man of far more executive skill, ability to work with others, and powerful ideas than the man in the White House now. We shouldn’t reject him just because he has similarities to President Obama. We should consider the president’s weaknesses and decide how confident we are that the senator won’t suffer the same problems.
Gil, what similarities? One reveres this country and the other is openly contemptuous of it.
One-term U. S. Senator, young, “clean, articulate, etc.”
Obama in 2007 and Rubio in 2015 were both young senators who rose to prominence largely because they moved people with their speeches, and this may have helped people ignore their youth and inexperience. But I agree with you about the differences.
I have plenty of answers. I also have a life to lead.
(1) Your chart offers nothing to disprove that President Obama is anti-Israel. The congress appropriates all foreign aid. If anyone would like a complete primer on the subject – please see this document from the Congressional Research Service via The Library of Congress
(2) This is my last response to the troll “AIG”
All future comments will be via a handy text expansion keyboard shortcut that pastes the following phrase:
I was already skeptical about AIG based on comments made in other threads, but this one solidifies my view and removes any doubt. AIG is clearly a troll. Anyone that claims they agree with Obama’s foreign policy decisions at a time when Russia is invading Ukraine, ISIS has taken over a large swath of Syria and Iraq and has claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack in Tunis, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, we are easing sanctions on Cuba and the list goes on, is clearly out of step with the vast majority of Conservatives.
Going forward I will simply ignore these outrageous comments from AIG just like I ignore spam in the comment threads of other websites. We should refuse to let one bad apple spoil the Ricochet barrel.
Clearly a difference of opinion, but conservatives shouldn’t try to drive people off the conversation simply because the latter disagree.
Yes, it’s much more fun to detail their logical fallacies.
Snirtler, don’t play high stakes poker .. poker is a game of people played with cards, if you don’t understand the core of the other players at the table then you’ll lose your bank account.
I don’t play poker. I take part in conversations. I’ll pat the guy on the back who agrees with me, but I’ll listen to the fellows who don’t. I might learn something from them. If not, I don’t let it bug me. They paid their $5 to get in on the conversation.
Wait a second: I really like AIG’s comments. I don’t think they are condescending at all. He gets annoyed and expresses his impatience very well.
I always learn from his comments, and I always enjoy knowing his point of view.
Disagreement is fun. The more the better.
Isn’t that the point of Ricochet? For us to be immersed in the world of different opinions? Like jury trials, we’ll eventually see some of the truth in a situation.
Gil, I’m so disenchanted by Obama I can’t let this one go! Rubio spent 12 yrs in the Florida House serving as both majority leader and then Speaker. He didn’t have time for ‘community organizing’ or fence-sitting by voting ‘present.’ He had a lot of impressive legislative and executive experience as he worked quite closely with our governor in Tallahassee.
Contrarianism is not a discussion or a learning exercise.
Also, we were talking about Rubio, and now we’re talking about AIG. Again. Which is pretty much the definition of trolling.
This actually has nothing to do with AIG. I wind up ignoring the posts by certain posters in any thread, more or less, because a) if it’s AIG, it’s trolling and b) I’ve found discussions with one or two other Ricocetti to be less than helpful, so I tune out.
It’s like a buffet. You take what you want and leave the rest. But don’t ask me to agree that everything in the chafing dishes is delicious and deserves my respect. Because that’s not true, and never will be.
I find that I really enjoy the opinion extremes on Ricochet as long as they are within the conservative spectrum, which is pretty wide.
There’s no question that we can pick and choose whose posts and comments we want to read.
I just don’t want to chase away people and end up with a monotone here.
And I have some extreme views on some things, and those views are different from the views of other conservatives here. I’m not a troll.
Unless I don’t know what “troll” means, which is entirely possible.
And on the subject at hand: I like Rubio a lot too. Excellent speaker.
I am maniacal in my support for Israel’s safety. It’s what I want most of all to see.
Just watched Rubio’s speech. If he runs, he gets my vote.
It’s about time we had candidates with a pair on them. He’s calling out Obama for his cowardice, his failure to support democracy in Israel and democratic efforts in places like Iran, and these failures and outright cowardly behavior need to be broadcast loudly and often.
I’d also get Churchill’s bust shipped back to the WH and put on Barry’s desk.
Having a different view is not trolling. It’s the antithesis of trolling. Trolling is posting a comment to elicit a desired response, or effect – it’s not about having a discussion.
There’s nothing wrong with extreme views. It’s the infantilization of the conversation that becomes tiresome, like kids asking how far it is when you’re with them on a long drive somewhere.
If you’re not adding to the conversation, you’re taking away from it. I think that’s what happens with the majority of trollings.
But we’re talking about Rubio here, not AIG.
I’m going to offer a native american name for Senator Rubio:
Stands With A Pair
There. I feel better now.
AIG has made good comments on other threads. The problem with his approach to this one is that he clearly hasn’t viewed the video. Or, if he viewed it, he decided he would ignore all the evidence that Rubio put forth demonstrating that the Obama administration is hostile to Israel, not to mention the reminder that we have a moral obligation, in the wake of the Holocaust, to support the existence of a Jewish state.
Dick from Brooklyn has a great refutation, but that doesn’t change the fact that AIG’s behavior in this thread–doubling down on ignorant comments when called out for them–is the definition of trolling.
So, AIG, chance to come clean: at what point in the thread did you take 15 minutes to watch the video? If you fess up, I’m happy to return you in my mind to the category of “passionate, misguided curmudgeon.” I’m sure just about all of us have let our thoughts fly a little too quickly from time to time.
Right now, though, you’re in the troll category.
Since no one is talking of reducing US aid to Israel, I don’t see the relevance of the question.
US aid to Israel has increased, substantially, under Obama.
Who was in charge of the Congress prior to 2014? Look at the chart again.
So “out of step with self-proclaimed conservatives” = troll.
Got it. Thanks for a definition of the term.
Please go ahead.
Disagreeing with you =/ contrarianism.
1) The first part of your argument is an appeal to emotion. Given that no one is arguing about “the Jewish state” etc etc…certainly not Obama…then both yours and Rubio’s comments are irrelevant (see I did watch the video :))
2) Rubio’s comments get even more irrelevant when he goes on about how Obama hasn’t called Bibi to congratulate him. Again, an appeal to emotion. Typical for a politician, hardly worthy of consideration.
3) Following a slew of appeals to emotions, he then talks about the US’s position on Israeli settlements. Which has been standard US position for many years prior to Obama, even if not so under Bush. Hardly an “anti-Israeli” position, and hardly an “assault on Israel”.
4) Followed by another, rather absurd, equating of Netanyahu with Israel. (which seems to be a recurring theme)
5) Followed by another absurd, and plainly ignorant, comment about the “white house using arms supplies as a pressure point to Israel”. Maybe Mr. Rubio is not aware of other US presidents doing so regularly.
6) Followed by an…ignorant…argument that the US support for a 2-state solution is an “attack on Israel”. Even though this has been standard US position for a long time, including during Bush’s time.
7) Followed by a long appeal to emotion about why you can’t negotiate with the Arabs, no 2-state solution etc etc etc.
Which, again, has been standard US position for decades, including under Bush. And in no way constitutes an “assault on Israel”
This is arguably the most childish and juvenile speech on foreign policy given in a long time. Pure “he said she said nya nya nya”.
The question isn’t whether I watched the video or not. The question is, how exactly did you listen to this video and think it was anything other than a juvenile HS-debate style appeal to emotion, while directly contradicting established US position on Israel for decades?
Ok. Go ahead, call me a troll now. I’ve earned it :)
PS: The strangeness of Rubio’s speech doesn’t end in its endless appeals to emotions, or the direct contradiction with established US policy on Israel for decades.
The strangeness is even more profound, since it is almost entirely based on false arguments and outright lies.
1) The US, in the period of the Obama administration, has placed the most severe sanctions on Iran (in 2010). Kind of hard to spin that around.
2) His speech not supporting Israeli settlements has been established US policy since 1967.
3) Obama has not said he wants Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. That’s an outright lie.
4) Obama did not say he wanted to put “daylight between the US and Israel”. That is also an outright lie, and has been said by people who were present in said meeting (Rubio references an…anonymous source).
5) US military assistance to Israel has increased to record levels.
6) The US has vetoed any UN resolution against Israel under this administration.
These are the facts. What Marco Rubio did, was either an outright lie, twisting of the truth based on “anonymous sources” and “he said she said” nonsense that even in a HS debate would get laughed at, an appeal to emotion even though the subject of the appeal had no relevance to the reality of the facts…or directly contradict established US positions on Israel since 1967.
For this, he deserves praise?
We’ve reached some pretty low standards these days.
Thanks for your reply. Had you done this at the outset, I doubt many people would have referred to you as a troll. I’ll respond bit by bit. Perhaps the most important thing to establish at the outset is Rubio’s thesis: Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu is degrading the relationship with an important Middle Eastern ally, the support of which is not only a pragmatic matter but also a moral one.
Which part of my argument are you referring to? And why “certainly not Obama”? What comments, precisely, are irrelevant?
Here we disagree. Obama called, for example, the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran to congratulate them on winning their “elections.” Two of those countries are barely democracies, the other is not even one. Given his willingness to congratulate just about any leader who takes power for winning an election, his refusal to congratulate Bibi is a clear public snub of a prominent ally. It is perfectly reasonable to infer from this public snub that Obama wants to reduce his support for Netanyahu. That will inevitably have the effect of reducing support for Israel since Netanyahu is the leader for this election cycle. This reduction of support endangers Israel by emboldening its enemies.
This point on US policy sounds fair (I can’t say for sure). However, you left out a great deal: What about Rubio’s point about Obama’s moral equivalence between living conditions in Gaza and rockets being fired on Israel? ““This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.” I find this equivalence repellant as well. It suggests a further lack of support for the country that has to regularly defend itself from terrorist attacks launched against its civilians.
Can you be more precise about your point here? Are you trying to argue that Obama supports Israel, provided Netanyahu is not the leader? See my point above.
It would be interesting to see the details on how the White House has historically used arms supplies to pressure Israel. I don’t think, though, that Rubio’s argument hinges on this point.
This claim about appeal to emotion is utterly mendacious. (Yes, you read that right.) Rubio’s speech is loaded with facts. Consider, for example, the litany of evidence on the history of Palestinian negotiations, their terror budget, their schoolbooks, etc. You may dispute these facts, if you wish, but you need to use facts to dispute them.
I encourage you to read Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1, the opening thirty lines or so. Ask yourself why it is that Mercutio is accusing Benvolio of being hotheaded.
I’ll leave with one quote that makes the point your summary willfully ignores: “Allies have differences. But allies like Israel, when you have a difference with them, and it is public, you embolden their enemies. … This is a historic and tragic mistake.”
In my review of the video and your comments, it’s pretty clear that you’re engaging in highly selective reporting of the speech. In a way, you’re right; the question isn’t whether you’ve watched the video or not; you can’t even identify the man’s thesis, or correctly analyze his argument, when you do.
So I appreciate your efforts in this case, but in the future, no need to bother, at least on my account.