Marco Rubio Tries To Start Another Iraq War by Claiming ISIS is More Dangerous Than al Qaeda

X Facebook Email Flipboard Pinterest Print Reddit

Don't Miss Sarah Jones's Essay On Kristi Noem Titled Predatory Is The Point On The Daily.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) tried to scare the American people into supporting invading Iraq again by bringing up 9/11 and al Qaeda.

Video:

Transcript via Face The Nation:

MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Well, certainly potentially more dangerous today than al Qaeda.
They are an extremely radical group with increasing capabilities, and a very clear design. They want to establish an Islamic caliphate in sections of both Syria and Iraq, and other places. Potentially, Jordan is next at some point. And then they want to launch attacks in the exterior, external operations, including targeting our homeland.

This is an extremely serious national security risk for the country if they were to establish that safe haven of operation.

O’DONNELL: I know you have said that, that what is happening in Iraq has a direct bearing on the future security of every American. How so?

RUBIO: Well, if you look at what happened before 9/11, the reason why al Qaeda was able to carry out the 9/11 attacks is because they had a safe operating space in Afghanistan that the Taliban had given them.

And now history is trying to repeat itself here. ISIS is trying to establish the exact same thing in the Iraq-Syria region that they’re increasingly controlling. And then from there, from this caliphate that they’re setting up, they will continue to recruit and train and plot and plan and eventually carry out external operations in Europe and potentially even here in the United States.

So, this is a very serious national security risk for the immediate and long-term future of our country.

O’DONNELL: So, you believe our future involvement in Iraq is a direct threat to our national security?

RUBIO: Without a doubt.

I think this is an urgent counterterrorism matter. I know a lot has been talked about the future of Iraq as a country, and that is a very legitimate issue that needs to be looked at.

But, for me, this is not about nation-building or imposing democracy. This is a counterterrorism risk that we need to nip in the bud. It is my view that we will either deal with ISIS now or we will deal with them later. And, later, they’re going to be stronger and harder to reach.

By comparing Iraq to Afghanistan and ISIS to al Qaeda, Rubio was trying to evoke the same threat in an attempt to lay the groundwork for more war. Comparing the situation in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan is fearmongering at its worst.

Sen. Rubio, just like Dick Cheney on ABC’s This Week, had no solutions to offer. Rubio was trying to mine the fear of the American people to advance his own political ambitions. George W. Bush got reelected in 2004 by playing war president, so Rubio can see a path to the White House in 2016 by playing potential war president.

Marco Rubio is also trying to position himself in the 2016 Republican primary field as the anti-Rand. If Paul’s position is that the US needs to stay out of Iraq, Rubio’s position is that the terrorists are coming, so we better get them before they get us. What Sen. Rubio was advocating was a new twist on the old George W. Bush line about fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.

Rubio wouldn’t come out and say directly that he wanted another war, but he did say that he hoped that the 300 troops that Obama is sending to Iraq would be the first step.

It isn’t difficult to imagine what the second, third, and fourth steps are when Rubio is using terms like al Qaeda and 9/11.

Ten years of bloodshed wasn’t enough, as Republicans like Marco Rubio are aching for another war.

Jason Easley

Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and Professional Memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association