Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Bret Baier of Fox News that if he had been elected president, the crisis in Syria would not have “gotten to this stage.”
“Well, first of all, let me say that this Syrian situation is a mess because of the President’s actions leading up to this point … there was a time early on when Assad was literally on the ropes and the US should have engaged...” Rubio said Tuesday, claiming that there are few options available for the US at this point.
“I don’t believe we should take military action unless we have a clear and achievable goal in mind,” Rubio said. “And one of the clear goals of this action he’s arguing for is to impede Assad from using chemical weapons in the future. I am highly skeptical. Now we have a closed hearing tomorrow where classified information will be discussed, and I’ll wait until then to reserve judgment. But I remain very skeptical that the kind of attack they’re contemplating, this limited attack, is going to actually achieve that goal of preventing Assad from using chemical weapons in the future.”
He said President Barack Obama never should have waited this long before some form of US action. He claims the President Barack Obama “led from behind.”
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
“Well, first of all, we have to outline what should have been done because that’s important,” Rubio said. “We have to understand, if I had been in charge — or someone else, hopefully — we’d have never gotten to this stage. So if we inherited this mess, which we have now, I think our obligation is to try to figure out what is the least worst option available to us because they’re all bad. And part of that equation, I can’t tell you right now until we go through that intelligence briefing tomorrow because one of the key questions we have to ask ourselves is, ‘Who are these so-called moderates on the ground in Syria and are they even capable of taking control of the country and giving us a rational, secular, stable government?’ That’s a key question.”