Author image
Matt Politicano
Content thumbnail 2016ers on 2011 Libyan Civil War
AI Content Chat (Beta) logo

2016ers on 2011 Libyan Civil War

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THE 2011 LIBYAN CIVIL WAR Christie CHRISTIE COMPARED REAGAN’S FIRING OF STRIKING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS TO HIS INTERVENTION IN “A LIBYA THAT SUPPORTED TERROR” Christie Said The Ronald Reagan “Who Attacked A Libya That Supported Terror Was The Same Reagan Who Stood Up Years Before To PATCO At Home.” Christie: “President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries. If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well. Principle would not stop at the water’s edge. The Reagan who challenged Soviet aggression, or who attacked a Libya that supported terror was the same Reagan who stood up years before to PATCO at home for what he believed was right.” [Reagan Library, 9/21/11] CHRISTIE SAID PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD TAKEN LEADERSHIP ROLE IN LIBYAN CONFLICT Christie Said President Obama Had Taken The Leadership Role In Libyan Conflict—“He's Calling The Shots, And We All Know That.” MORGAN: “Would you like to see a spreading of that load going forward, where America's not the go-to country -- for military support, for helping out with despotic regimes and so on?” CHRISTIE: “Well, America's always got to be the leader in that regard.” MORGAN: “Does it have to be?” CHRISTIE: “I think it does –” MORGAN: “I mean, look at Libya and the way President Obama dealt with that. You know, he quite deliberately decided America wasn't going to be the leader.” CHRISTIE: “Yes. But we really are. I mean, come on, let's face it, we are. He's calling the shots, and we all know that. And so, let's not be kidding because they call it something different. America's taken the responsibility.” [Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN, 6/14/11] 2009: CHRISTIE SAID “GADHAFI WOULD NOT SET FOOT IN NEW JERSEY” UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION 2009: Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi Planned To Stay At A Property In New Jersey Ahead Of A United Nations Meeting. “Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi won't be pitching a Bedouin tent on the grounds of an Englewood estate if he comes to the United States for a United Nations meeting next month, the State Department announced Friday night… The Libyan government bought the estate in 1982 and is now renovating it, and many officials assumed it was in anticipation of Gadhafi's visit next month. Local and state officials said they believed that Gadhafi, who is known to stay in a tent village with a massive entourage that joins him on his travels, planned to set up camp at the Englewood estate. And they weren't happy about it.” [The Record, 8/29/09] Christie: “Gadhafi Would Not Set Foot In New Jersey In A Christie Administration.” “Press of Atlantic City on the reaction of New Jersey's elected officials to speculation that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi might visit the state: So who was the most opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi coming to New Jersey? Was it Gov. Jon S. Corzine? ‘Gadhafi is not welcome in New Jersey by anybody's standards,’ Corzine said. Was it Corzine's Republican opponent, Chris Christie? ‘Gadhafi would not set foot in New Jersey in a Christie administration,’ Christie said.” [Editorial, Press of Atlantic City, 8/31/09] Cruz RICK PERRY CALLED FOR REBELS TO FORM A UNIFIED CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN LIBYA THAT GUARANTEED “PERSONAL FREEDOMS” Rick Perry Called For Rebels To Form A Unified, Civil Government In Libya That Guaranteed “Personal Freedoms.” “But on Monday evening, as the rebels surged through Tripoli, Mr. Romney told Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network that ‘the world celebrates the idea of getting rid of Qaddafi.’ And instead of assessing Mr. Obama’s actions, he called on a new Libyan government to extradite the man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. […] The developments were cause for ‘cautious celebration,’ said Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, one of the first candidates to release a statement. ‘The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries.’” [New York Times, 8/22/11] AFTER GADHAFI’S DEATH PERRY WANTED THE U.S. TO “WORK CLOSELY WITH LIBYA TO ENSURE THE TRANSITION IS SUCCESSFUL” AFTER THE KILLING OF QADDAFI, AND “TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE”

Perry Said The United States “Should Work Closely With Libya To Ensure The Transition Is Successful” And “Take An Active Role In Ensuring The Security Of Any Remaining Stockpiles Of Qaddafi’s Weapons.” “Gov. Rick Perry today released the following statement on the death of Muammar el-Qaddafi: ‘The death of Muammar el-Qaddafi is good news for the people of Libya. It should bring the end of conflict there, and help them move closer to elections and a real democracy. The United States should work closely with Libya to ensure the transition is successful, and that a stable, peaceful nation emerges. The U.S. must also take an active role in ensuring the security of any remaining stockpiles of Qaddafi’s weapons. These weapons pose a real danger to the United States and our allies, and we cannot help secure them through simple observation.’” [Perry Press Release, 10/21/11]  Los Angeles Times: Perry “Seemed To Be Calling For Some Sort Of American Boots On The Ground.” “Texas Gov. Rick Perry, on the other hand, seemed to be calling for some sort of American boots on the ground. ‘The U.S. must also take an active role in ensuring the security of any remaining stockpiles of Kadafi’s weapons,’ Perry said in a statement. ‘These weapons pose a real danger to the United States and our allies, and we cannot help secure them through simple observation.’” [Los Angeles Times, 10/20/11]  Perry Made No Mention Of “President Obama Or The Role Of The U.S. Military.” “But Huntsman and Perry’s statements shared one thing in common: no mention of President Obama or the role of the U.S. military.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/20/11] Jindal Bobby Jindal Blamed The Obama Administration’s Policies For “More Bombing In Libya.” “The Republican governor blamed the administration's policies, particularly its failure to keep a residual military force in Iraq, for the current multi-continent international crisis. ‘It has brought us the rise of ISIS and the capture of Mosul, Russia's expansion and invasion in Crimea and Ukraine, new heights of crisis in the Middle East and Israel, genocide and destruction of religious minorities in Iraq, more Chinese aggression and conflict in the South China Sea, more bombing in Libya, more saber rattling from North Korea, a dangerous trend of anti-Semitism, and a refugee crisis on our own border,’ Jindal said.” [The Times-Picayune, 10/6/14] Bobby Jindal Argued That Putin Felt Emboldened To Take Crimea From Ukraine Because Of Obama’s Foreign Policy Including His Handling Of The Attack On The Embassy In Libya. “The governor argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin felt emboldened to take Crimea from Ukraine because of Obama’s foreign policy. ‘This goes back to 2009 when we withdrew the missile interceptors out of Poland [and] when we didn’t let Georgia quickly join the NATO,’ he said. ‘This goes back to the reset with Russia … to drawing the line in the sand that had no consequence … to the response to what happened to the embassy in Libya.’” [Politico, 6/14/14] Bobby Jindal Criticized The Obama Administration Including The Bergdahl Prisoner Exchange And Benghazi And Implied We Were Witnessing The Most Radically, Extremely Liberal, Ideological And Incompetent President Of Our Lifetime. “Jindal used humor in criticizing the Obama administration on several fronts, referencing the Bergdahl prisoner exchange and the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. ‘Are we witnessing right now the most radically, extremely liberal, ideological president of our entire lifetime right here in the United States of America, or are we witnessing the most incompetent president of the United States of America in the history of our lifetimes? You know, it is a difficult question,’ he said. ‘I've thought long and hard about it. Here's the only answer I've come up with, and I'm going to quote Secretary Clinton: 'What difference does it make?'’” [Associated Press, 6/22/14] JINDAL’S MENTOR, BELIEVE AGAIN SUPER PAC FOUNDER, AND DISGRACED FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB LIVINGSTON WAS HIRED TO LOBBY FOR LIBYA DURING GADHAFI’S REIGN. Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston Will Head Jindal’s Believe Again Super PAC. “A Bobby Jindal campaign for president is moving closer to launch with the formation of a fundraising political action committee that’s headed by former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La. Jindal, Livingston said Thursday, ‘is an incredibly bright guy and a very capable guy, and frankly, he can do anything he puts his mind to.’ … The Jindal Super PAC is called Believe Again, according to Guy Harrison, a Washington-area consultant assisting in the effort. Rolfe McCollister, of Baton Rouge, is treasurer; he has previously worked as a campaign finance director for Jindal. Organization documents for the committee were filed Thursday with the Federal Elections Commission, Harrison said. Livingston, who represented the 1st Congressional District in Southeast Louisiana from 1977 to 1999, said he played a role in Jindal’s introduction to Washington politics, bringing Jindal to his office as a youthful intern.” [Gregory Roberts, The New Orleans Advocate, 1/22/15] Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston Was A Mentor To Jindal And Played A Role In Introducing Jindal To Politics By Bringing Jindal Into His Office As An Intern. “A Bobby Jindal campaign for president is moving closer to launch with

the formation of a fundraising political action committee that’s headed by former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La. Jindal, Livingston said Thursday, ‘is an incredibly bright guy and a very capable guy, and frankly, he can do anything he puts his mind to.’ … The Jindal Super PAC is called Believe Again, according to Guy Harrison, a Washington-area consultant assisting in the effort. Rolfe McCollister, of Baton Rouge, is treasurer; he has previously worked as a campaign finance director for Jindal. Organization documents for the committee were filed Thursday with the Federal Elections Commission, Harrison said. Livingston, who represented the 1st Congressional District in Southeast Louisiana from 1977 to 1999, said he played a role in Jindal’s introduction to Washington politics, bringing Jindal to his office as a youthful intern.” [Gregory Roberts, The New Orleans Advocate, 1/22/15] Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston Was A Registered Lobbyist For The Libyan Government During Gadhafi’s Reign. "In keeping with prior arrangements, the Englewood, N.J., property is not available for any use in connection with the upcoming visit," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement, while offering no elaboration. Earlier on Friday, Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, said he had been told by a Republican former congressman who now lobbies for the Libyan government that Gadhafi will not be staying at the Englewood estate when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly next month. The estate, on East Palisade Avenue, is owned by the Libyan government. "The Libyans will not be coming to Englewood," Rothman said in a phone interview. Robert Livingston, a Republican who resigned in 1998 in the midst of the Clinton impeachment debate after disclosing he had an extramarital affair, told Rothman the news, Rothman said. Livingston, whose lobbying firm has been retained by the Libyan government, told Rothman he'd been conducting back-channel negotiations with Libyan officials.” [The Record, 8/29/09]  Former Rep. Bob Livingston Resigned After Disclosing He Had An Extramarital Affair. “Robert Livingston, a Republican who resigned in 1998 in the midst of the Clinton impeachment debate after disclosing he had an extramarital affair, told Rothman the news, Rothman said. Livingston, whose lobbying firm has been retained by the Libyan government, told Rothman he'd been conducting back-channel negotiations with Libyan officials.” [The Record, 8/29/09] Paul MARCH 2011: RAND PAUL CALLED INTERVENTION IN LIBYA AN “AFFRONT TO THE CONSTITUTION” Rand Paul Said It Was An “Affront To The Constitution” That Intervention In Libya Was Not First Debated In Congress. RAND PAUL: “Well, you know, it's never that easy to remove people from power, even in Serbia and in Iraq we found that bombing alone didn't do it. Actually ground troops had to go in and do it. There are many here in Washington now advocating ground troops. I think it's a slippery slope and it could engage us in a third war, and I think by any means or definition, bombing -- both troops and bombing installations is war and really it's an affront to the constitution that we're not debating this in Congress.” [Fox News, 3/31/11] Rand Paul Said That By Definition, Bombing Or Ground Troops In Libya Were War, Which Needed To Be Debated In Congress. RAND PAUL: “Well, you know, it's never that easy to remove people from power, even in Serbia and in Iraq we found that bombing alone didn't do it. Actually ground troops had to go in and do it. There are many here in Washington now advocating ground troops. I think it's a slippery slope and it could engage us in a third war, and I think by any means or definition, bombing -- both troops and bombing installations is war and really it's an affront to the constitution that we're not debating this in Congress.” [Fox News, 3/31/11]  Rand Paul Called Bombing Or Ground Troops In Libya A “Slippery Slope” Toward A Third War. RAND PAUL: “Well, you know, it's never that easy to remove people from power, even in Serbia and in Iraq we found that bombing alone didn't do it. Actually ground troops had to go in and do it. There are many here in Washington now advocating ground troops. I think it's a slippery slope and it could engage us in a third war, and I think by any means or definition, bombing -- both troops and bombing installations is war and really it's an affront to the constitution that we're not debating this in Congress.” [Fox News, 3/31/11] Rand Paul Suggested America’s Attempts To Support Freedom Fighters In Libya Could Actually Have The Unintended Consequence Of The U.S. Supporting Rebels Who Were Supporters Of Al Qaeda Or Fundamentalist Islam. ANDREW NAPOLITANO: “Some of your colleagues notably, Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, I haven't heard his comments on the speech, but before the speech, applauded the president's invasion and said something to the effect of ‘This is a beautiful opportunity for freedom and democracy.’ How do you respond to that, Senator Paul?” RAND PAUL: “I'll tell you, it's kind of unclear. You know, when we went in the 1980s, we supported some people called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. It turns out one of the freedom fighters was Osama Bin Laden. That didn't turn out so well. I mean, the unintended consequences from going into a country like Libya where some of the fighters have been linked to al Qaeda, some of them have actually traveled to Afghanistan and have fought against us in Afghanistan that we would actually be supporting rebels who may be supporters of fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Jihad.” [Freedom Watch, Fox Business, 3/28/11]

RAND PAUL FORCED A VOTE ON A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS REGARDING LIBYA The Senate Voted 90-10 To Shelve Rand Paul’s Resolution Saying The President Could Not Act Unilaterally In Libya, Which He Forced To The Floor By Threatening To Hold Up Senate Action Until It Was Voted On. “On a 90- to-10 vote, the Senate on Tuesday voted to shelve a resolution proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the U.S. involvement in Libya, four days after Paul and a fellow freshman, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), threatened to hold up Senate action until Paul’s measure was brought to the floor…The Paul resolution is comprised of one sentence: a statement made by then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2007 that the president cannot unilaterally act on matters of war.” [Washington Post, 4/5/11] RAND PAUL SAID THE PRESIDENT’S ACTION IN LIBYA WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE WAR POWERS ACT AND OPPOSED A RESOLUTION GRANTING HIM AUTHORIZATION May 2011: Rand Paul Said The President Was In Violation Of The War Powers Act With His Action In Libya. On the president asking for a Senate resolution approving the mission in Libya: RAND PAUL: “Well, actually, I think he's been in violation of the War Powers Act for some time now. But now he's getting ready to be also in violation of the 60-day requirement that he report to Congress and get authorization within 60 days.” [Anderson Cooper 360, CNN, 5/21/11] Rand Paul Said A Resolution To Authorize A U.S. Military Mission In Libya Was “A Day Late And A Dollar Short” And Said The President Was Already In “Direct Defiance” Of The War Powers Act. BLITZER: “Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, they've co-sponsored a resolution that would authorize, that would approve the U.S. military mission, together with NATO, in Libya. Are you on board with that?” RAND PAUL: “Well, it's sort of a proposition that's a day late and a dollar short. The Constitution implied and said, basically, that foreign policy would be a shared responsibility between Congress and the president. The initiation of war was given to Congress, a declaration of war. This was debated, discussed. The Federalist Papers talk about it. Our founders wanted that power to be in the legislature, and we've abdicated that power, and then we passed the War Powers Act in the '70s because we didn't want another war like Vietnam to go on without really the approval of Congress. And so we passed the War Powers Act, and the president is in direct defiance of that.” [Situation Room, CNN, 6/21/11] Rand Paul Planned To Vote Against A Resolution Authorizing Force In Libya And Introduce His Own Resolution Calling For The President To Disengage. On a resolution authorizing U.S. action in Libya: RAND PAUL: “On that particular contention, I don't think Libya is in our national security interest and I don't think we can afford to be in a third war.” WOLF BLITZER: “So you'll vote against that resolution?” PAUL: “Yes. I will have a resolution that will replace it. In my resolution, I will say that the president is in violation of the War Powers Act and he should obey the War Powers Act and disengage.” [Situation Room, CNN, 6/21/11]  Rand Paul Planned To Introduce A Resolution Calling For The President To Disengage From Libya Until He Was Granted Formal Authorization. “And Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he plans to offer a resolution calling on Obama to seek formal authorization and ‘cease armed engagement’ in Libya until such authorization is granted.” [National Journal, 6/26/11] Rand Paul Claimed He Would Not Have Voted In Support Of Engagement In Libya If The President Had Initially Come To Congress. “Admitting the president violated the Constitution won’t change our situation in Libya. It will, however, send an important message to the chief executive that our Constitution is to be honored and respected. Who’s to say that if he had come to Congress initially he would not have gotten the approval he needed? I would not have voted in support of the engagement, but others likely would have.” [Rand Paul op-ed, Washington Times, 6/15/11] RAND PAUL DID NOT THINK THE U.S. HAD A NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN GETTING INVOLVED IN LIBYA. Rand Paul Argued That It Was Not In America’s Best Interest To Be Involved In Libya And That We Should Not Be Engaging In Nation-Building Or Using Our Force To Protect Other Countries When Our First Loyalty Should Be To America. “Not only is Mr. Obama’s lack of congressional authority for war unconstitutional, the war also is not in our best interest. Our country is in the midst of an economic crisis, and we do not have the funds to subsidize the rest of the world. Because of our ever-increasing deficit, our current expansive foreign policies are no longer fiscally possible to sustain. Protecting and rebuilding other nations should not be our priority - our first loyalty should belong to America. Libya is a prime example of our problematic, overreaching and sometimes unnecessary foreign policy. We need to implement new policies that reflect conservative and constitutional values and ethics using our military to protect the American

people. I am uninterested in using U.S. forces for the process of nation-building. We must take care of our nation before we attempt to rebuild or support others.” [Rand Paul op-ed, Washington Times, 6/15/11]  Rand Paul Questioned Why The U.S. Was Spending $700 Million To Support A War Effort In Libya That Was Not Of Any Interest To Our Well-Being. “Thus far, the United States has provided 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships and 50 percent of the planes in this Libyan mission. The resources provided are estimated to cost roughly $700 million. I do not see any logic behind such expenditures. Why is America, in a time of economic emergency, spending $700 million to support a war effort that is not of any interest to our nation’s well-being?” [Rand Paul op-ed, Washington Times, 6/15/11] Rand Paul: “I Don't Think Libya Is In Our National Security Interest And I Don't Think We Can Afford To Be In A Third War.” RAND PAUL: “Well, there are two separate arguments. One is, should Congress authorize force? And that's very important, so I'm a big fan and very much in favor of having the debate and having the vote on use of authorization. So, one, it's Congress' obligation to have that vote, whether we should go to war or not. And then, two, there's a second question and a very important debate -- is Libya in our national security interest, and can we afford to be in a third war? On that particular contention, I don't think Libya is in our national security interest and I don't think we can afford to be in a third war.” [State of the Union, CNN, 6/21/11] Rand Paul: “I Do Have Questions About Whether Libya Has Anything To Do With Our National Security.” ANDERSON COOPER: “Are you talking about this because in part you're opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya or would you be talking about this if it was any military action that had gone 60 days without congressional authorization?” RAND PAUL: “I do have questions about whether Libya has anything to do with our national security. But the thing is, what's really most important is not the specifics of the war, but the specifics of the Constitution, because what I fear is an unlimited presidency and some day we have a president who starts World War III without permission of Congress.” [Anderson Cooper 360, CNN, 5/20/11] Rand Paul Called For The Senate To Follow The House’s Lead And Demand Answers On The Logic Behind U.S. Involvement In Libya. “On June 3, the House passed a resolution demanding that the president provide the American people with specific answers and rational reasoning. So far, Mr. Obama has failed to provide compelling and legitimate logic behind U.S involvement in the Libyan mission. The House is requesting that the president be held accountable for his actions and provide the American people with answers. The U.S. Senate should follow their lead.” [Rand Paul op-ed, Washington Times, 6/15/11] Pence Pence Thanked Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton For Her Efforts To “Isolate Libya During A Time Of Extraordinary Tragedy In The Streets.” “Thank you, Chairman. And I want to thank the Secretary of State for her testimony and her service to the country. It’s good to see you back before the committee. I also want to thank you, specifically, for the efforts by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we're probably only partially aware. I – I want to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand with those that are standing in that now bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to provide support and certainly associate myself with Mr. Royce’s comments about isolating radio communications and – and would express appreciation for your efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated -- a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone. Gadhafi must go. And I'm – I’m grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the administration take that position unambiguously.” [Hearing on Assessing U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities and Needs Amidst Economic Challenges, House Foreign Affairs Committee, 3/1/11] Pence Urged The Obama Administration “To Use All Means At Our Disposal To Provide Support” To Libyan Rebels. “Thank you, Chairman. And I want to thank the Secretary of State for her testimony and her service to the country. It’s good to see you back before the committee. I also want to thank you, specifically, for the efforts by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we're probably only partially aware. I – I want to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand with those that are standing in that now bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to provide support and certainly associate myself with Mr. Royce’s comments about isolating radio communications and – and would express appreciation for your efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated -- a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone. Gadhafi must go. And I'm – I’m grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the administration take that position unambiguously.” [Hearing on Assessing U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities and Needs Amidst Economic Challenges, House Foreign Affairs Committee, 3/1/11] Pence: “Gadhafi Must Go.” “Thank you, Chairman. And I want to thank the Secretary of State for her testimony and her service to the country. It’s good to see you back before the committee. I also want to thank you, specifically, for the efforts

by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we're probably only partially aware. I – I want to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand with those that are standing in that now bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to provide support and certainly associate myself with Mr. Royce’s comments about isolating radio communications and – and would express appreciation for your efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated -- a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone. Gadhafi must go. And I'm – I’m grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the administration take that position unambiguously.” [Hearing on Assessing U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities and Needs Amidst Economic Challenges, House Foreign Affairs Committee, 3/1/11] Pence: “I Certainly Support The Decision To Enforce A No-Fly Zone [In Libya] With The Wanton Slaughter Of Civilians That Was Taking Place At The Hands Of Muammar Gaddafi.” “COTTO: Let’s get into this budget thing, but for starters, because obviously Libya is pretty significant in the news today, can I just get your initial thoughts on us getting involved over there? Do you think it’s a good idea? A bad idea? Too late? What are your thoughts? PENCE: Well, I certainly support the decision to enforce a no-fly zone with the wanton slaughter of civilians that was taking place at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi. I think the international community responded in a proper way. I’m disappointed that the President consulted with the UN and didn’t consult or seek resolution for the use of force from the Congress. It’s also disappointing for me to see us yield the lead role to the French in this matter. I mean, the French are essentially leading the world community in confronting Muammar Gaddafi.” [Radio Interview, WLS-AM, 3/21/11] Pence Said He Was “Disappointed” That France Was “Essentially Leading The World Community In Confronting Muammar Gaddafi” Instead Of The United States. “COTTO: Let’s get into this budget thing, but for starters, because obviously Libya is pretty significant in the news today, can I just get your initial thoughts on us getting involved over there? Do you think it’s a good idea? A bad idea? Too late? What are your thoughts? PENCE: Well, I certainly support the decision to enforce a no-fly zone with the wanton slaughter of civilians that was taking place at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi. I think the international community responded in a proper way. I’m disappointed that the President consulted with the UN and didn’t consult or seek resolution for the use of force from the Congress. It’s also disappointing for me to see us yield the lead role to the French in this matter. I mean, the French are essentially leading the world community in confronting Muammar Gaddafi.” [Radio Interview, WLS-AM, 3/21/11] Pence Said President Obama’s Use Of Force In Libya Represented “A Significant Deployment Of U.S. Military Power.” “COTTO: There is something about saying – I mean, it almost seems like the value is placed more on getting the approval of the international community as opposed to the people who actually represent his constituents here in the U.S. PENCE: Well, I mean, I don’t know how you could take it any other way. The President went off the lead of the French and waited on a UN Security Council resolution and then acted… The firing of one hundred or more cruise missiles, probably the majority of which were fired from the decks of U.S. naval vessels and from submarines, represents a significant deployment of U.S. military power, and I believe it would have been appropriate for the President to request authorization from Congress to do that.” [Radio Interview, WLS-AM, 3/21/11] March 2011: Pence Attended A Classified Briefing On The Situation In Libya With Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates, Director Of National Intelligence Lt. General James Clapper, And Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. “U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, attended a classified briefing today on the situation in Libya with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Lt. General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neil Wolin. Tomorrow, Pence will participate in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Libya where Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg will testify.” [Press Release, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, 3/30/11] Pence: “I’m Troubled By How We Went To War In Libya.” “We’re at war in Libya. I know there’s careful parsing of words to describe our military action -- no-fly-plus and the rest -- but we’re at war in Libya. And while I’m troubled by how we went to war in Libya, I will never jeopardize support for our troops. But I don't believe the president of the United States has the authority to take America to war without congressional approval where our safety and vital national interests are not directly threatened. I also don’t believe in limited war. I believe if America chooses to go to war then by God, you go to war to win.” [Remarks, “Libya: Defining U.S. National Security Interests” Hearing, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 112th Congress, 3/31/11] Pence: “I Think It’s Important That We Say We Are At War In Libya.” “I think you heard in my opening statement I’m -- I think it’s important that we say we are at war in Libya, and while I'm troubled about various aspects of how we began this conflict I will never jeopardize support for our troops and I will always attempt to maintain the level of deference and respect that is due and owing to the commander in chief and to the executive in matters of war. But I want to say -- and this is something I question -- I don't believe the president has the unilateral authority to take America to war without congressional approval where our safety or vital national interests are not directly implicated.” [Remarks, “Libya: Defining U.S. National Security Interests” Hearing, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 112th Congress, 3/31/11]

WIBC: Pence Suggested That President Obama’s Military Action In Libya Differed From That Of President Reagan’s Because “Back Then, Reagan Authorized A Couple Of Missiles In One Single Strike.” “Indiana 6th District Congressman Mike Pence says he has some concerns about America's military action in Libya… Pence believes if the U.S. is going to be ‘all in’ then Congress should declare war. He says the deputy secretary told him the President has the ability to project American military power in limited manners where vital national interest is at stake. Pence says if we are going to be at war, which he believes we are, then Congress should declare it and the U.S. should be in it to win. According to Pence, this offensive differs from when President Ronald Reagan took action against Libya in 1986. Back then, Reagan authorized a couple of missiles in one single strike. Pence says this current operation has already taken more personnel, firepower, and resources.” [WIBC, 3/31/11] Pence Claimed That President Obama’s Military Action In Libya Took More Personnel, Firepower, And Resources Than That Of President Reagan’s In 1986. “Indiana 6th District Congressman Mike Pence says he has some concerns about America's military action in Libya… Pence believes if the U.S. is going to be ‘all in’ then Congress should declare war. He says the deputy secretary told him the President has the ability to project American military power in limited manners where vital national interest is at stake. Pence says if we are going to be at war, which he believes we are, then Congress should declare it and the U.S. should be in it to win. According to Pence, this offensive differs from when President Ronald Reagan took action against Libya in 1986. Back then, Reagan authorized a couple of missiles in one single strike. Pence says this current operation has already taken more personnel, firepower, and resources.” [WIBC, 3/31/11] HEADLINE: “Pence, Lugar Slam Libya Intervention” [Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 4/1/11] Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: Pence Claimed That President Obama “Had Failed To Spell Out The Reasons, Objectives And Costs For Airstrikes In [Libya].” “Indiana congressmen raised more objections Thursday to U.S. military actions in Libya. During hearings of the House and Senate foreign relations committees, Reps. Dan Burton, R-5th, and Mike Pence, R-6th, and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said President Obama had failed to spell out the reasons, objectives and costs for airstrikes in the North African nation… Fellow panel member Pence said, ‘I don’t believe the president of the United States has the authority to take America to war without congressional approval where our safety and national interests are not directly threatened.’ Pence complained that with Libya, unlike Iraq, the U.S. has ‘no clear objective, no congressional approval, uncertain and wavering international support ... we are on a different road.’” [Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 4/1/11] Pence Suggested That U.S. Military Action In Libya Differed From That In Iraq Because There Was “No Clear Objective, No Congressional Approval, [And] Uncertain And Wavering International Support.” “Indiana congressmen raised more objections Thursday to U.S. military actions in Libya. During hearings of the House and Senate foreign relations committees, Reps. Dan Burton, R-5th, and Mike Pence, R-6th, and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said President Obama had failed to spell out the reasons, objectives and costs for airstrikes in the North African nation… Fellow panel member Pence said, ‘I don’t believe the president of the United States has the authority to take America to war without congressional approval where our safety and national interests are not directly threatened.’ Pence complained that with Libya, unlike Iraq, the U.S. has ‘no clear objective, no congressional approval, uncertain and wavering international support ... we are on a different road.’” [Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 4/1/11] Pence Called For A More Aggressive Approach In Libya, Saying He Did Not Believe In “Limited War.” “On March 19, the U.S. and its United Nations allies launched air strikes to protect civilians under attack for protesting the repressive regime. President Obama insisted that Muammar el-Qaddafi ‘must go’ but argued that broadening the mission to force him from power would be a costly and dangerous venture. Among the Republicans calling for a more aggressive approach is Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who told a House committee Thursday that he doesn’t believe in ‘limited war.’ He added, ‘I believe that if America chooses to go to war, then by God, you go to war to win.’ Earlier that day, when he addressed the crowd of tea party activists at the Capitol, Pence railed against ‘the mountain of debt that threatens our children’s future.’ He didn’t mention Libya, the latest burden on the federal budget.” [National Journal, 4/2/11] Pence Suggested That The Obama Administration Had Drawn The United States Into A War By Undertaking Military Action In Libya. “The ongoing situation in Libya has a number of lawmakers concerned. Among them, Indiana Sixth District Congressman Mike Pence. He says that even though military action is now under the command of NATO, American personnel and equipment are being utilized. Pence said that he raised concerns with the Obama Administration over the lack of Congressional approval for the operation, which is being characterized by the administration as a ‘kinetic military action.’ Pence said that he believes that the Obama Administration has drawn the United States into a war. The Columbus Republican added that barring a direct a threat to our vital national interests, or a direct attack on the United States or our allies, the President has a duty to seek congressional approval on these types of uses of our military. Pence says that he and other lawmakers will continue to monitor the situation in Libya and act accordingly.” [WKKG, 4/6/11]

Pence Suggested That U.S. Involvement In Libya Represented The First Time The Country Had Engaged In A War That Did Not Constitute An Imminent Threat To National Security Without Congressional Input. “On April 12, members of the JINSA New York Cabinet enjoyed lunch with U.S. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN)… In looking to our own country, the Congressman commented on the course and objectives of U.S. foreign policy. He believes that there is a lack of vision and clarity among the current foreign policy decision makers. He remarked that we are at war in Libya and that this is the first time that the United States has engaged in a war that did not constitute an eminent threat to our national security without congressional input, remarking ‘Congress wasn’t asked and therefore the American people were not asked.’” [The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, 4/21/11] PENCE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED THE PRESIDENT FROM SENDING GROUND TROOPS TO LIBYA June 2011: Pence Voted For H. Res. 292, “Declaring That The President Shall Not Deploy, Establish, Or Maintain The Presence Of Units And Members Of The United States Armed Forces On The Ground In Libya, And For Other Purposes.” [H. Res. 292, 112th Congress, Vote 411, 6/3/11]  Pence Said He Supported The Boehner Resolution Because It Would Require The Obama Administration “To Finally Justify Why It Committed Our Military Resources In Libya Without Seeking Consultation From Congress.” “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner resolution, H. Res. 292… Speaker Boehner's resolution before the House today, H. Res. 292, will prevent the President from committing American ground forces in Libya and requires the Administration to finally justify why it committed our military resources in Libya without seeking consultation from Congress. When passed, this resolution will also force the Administration to report to the Congress the political and military objectives regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn… In this instance, where the Administration has not demonstrated how American military involvement advances our national security interests and where the President has failed to provide the American people with a compelling reason to commit our Armed Forces, there is no clear objective to win. The Boehner resolution will force the Obama Administration to bring its case to the American public before further committing our men and women in Libya and I urge its immediate passage.” [Remarks, U.S. House of Representatives, 6/3/11]  Pence Said He Supported The Boehner Resolution Because It Would “Force The Obama Administration To Bring Its Case To The American Public Before Further Committing Our Men And Women In Libya.” “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner resolution, H. Res. 292… Speaker Boehner's resolution before the House today, H. Res. 292, will prevent the President from committing American ground forces in Libya and requires the Administration to finally justify why it committed our military resources in Libya without seeking consultation from Congress. When passed, this resolution will also force the Administration to report to the Congress the political and military objectives regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn… In this instance, where the Administration has not demonstrated how American military involvement advances our national security interests and where the President has failed to provide the American people with a compelling reason to commit our Armed Forces, there is no clear objective to win. The Boehner resolution will force the Obama Administration to bring its case to the American public before further committing our men and women in Libya and I urge its immediate passage.” [Remarks, U.S. House of Representatives, 6/3/11] PENCE VOTED AGAINST THE HASTINGS RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZED THE USE OF U.S. ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF NATO IN LIBYA June 2011: Pence Voted Against H. J. Res. 68, “Authorizing The Limited Use Of The United States Armed Forces In Support Of The NATO Mission In Libya.” [H. J. Res. 68, 112th Congress, Vote 493, 6/24/11]  Pence Said He Voted Against The Hastings Resolution Because He Could Not “Support An After-The-Fact Effort By Members Of Congress Who Seek To Justify The President’s Use Of Force In Libya.” "I endeavor always to maintain the proper level of deference and respect due the Commander in Chief in matters of war, but I opposed the Hastings Resolution (H.J. Res. 68) because for more than 90 days this Administration has refused to come to the Congress to seek authorization for the use of force in Libya. I cannot support an after-the-fact effort by Members of Congress who seek to justify the president’s use of force in Libya. If the president believes that continued U.S. military action in Libya is proper, he must come to the Congress and the American people to seek authority to proceed.” [Press Release, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, 6/24/11] PENCE VOTED AGAINST THE ROONEY RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED FUNDING FOR U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS IN LIBYA WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS June 2011: Pence Voted Against H. R. 2278, “To Limit The Use Of Funds Appropriated To The Department Of Defense For United States Armed Forces In Support Of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified

Protector With Respect To Libya, Unless Otherwise Specifically Authorized By Law.” [H. R. 2278, 112th Congress, Vote 494, 6/24/11]  Pence Said He Voted Against The Rooney Resolution Because Congress Had “An Obligation To Stand By Our Troops And Do Everything In Our Power To Make Sure Our Soldiers Have The Resources They Need To Get The Job Done And Come Home Safe.” “Finally, today I also voted against the Rooney Resolution (H.R. 2278) denying funding to U.S. military operations in Libya, because I cannot and will not cut off funding to our troops in the field. Once American military personnel are engaged in hostilities, this Congress has an obligation to stand by our troops and do everything in our power to make sure our soldiers have the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe.” [Press Release, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, 6/24/11] Pence Suggested That The United States Intervened In Libya Under The Pretense Of Humanitarianism. “Whereas Paul’s antiwar and anti-militaristic position was known, it was the opposition from Republicans that brought out the unpopularity of the U.S. engagement in Libya. Congressman Mike Pence, a conservative Republican from Indiana, and Congressman Jeff Duncan made scathing statements about the hypocrisy of the Libyan intervention, demanding that the cover of humanitarianism be lifted. When the bombs started raining down on Libya, the Obama administration had claimed that actions in Libya were not subject to the War Powers Resolution because they did not meet the definition of ‘hostilities.’” [Horace Campbell, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya, 2013, p. 151] September 2012: Pence Called The Attack In Benghazi, Libya “An Assault On America And Freedom.” “The attack in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, is an assault on America and freedom and I condemn this despicable act of violence in the strongest possible terms. Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues dedicated their lives to representing the United States and advancing American ideals in the world and we will always remember and honor their careers even as we pray for their families in this time of loss.” [Press Release, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, 9/12/12] Rubio RUBIO WANTED THE U.S. TO HELP REMOVE GADHAFI FROM POWER MARCH 2011: RUBIO SAID OBAMA WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID GADHAFI MUST GO Rubio Said President Obama Was Right To Say Moammar Gadhafi Must Go. “Well, I wish he would have done it a little bit sooner, because if he had...this thing would have moved a lot more predictably at a lot lower cost, and -- but the result is, the president was right when he determined that Moammar Gadhafi must go. And you know what? The people of Libya agree with him. And I think we should continue to degrade his ability to attack and kill civilians.” [Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, Fox News, 3/30/11] APRIL 2011: RUBIO DEMANDED A VOTE TO AUTHORIZE MILITARY ACTION TO REMOVE GADHAFI Rubio Demanded Senate Vote To Authorize Military Action To Remove Gadhafi. “Rubio wasn't that specific in his letter to Senate Majority Harry Reid demanding a vote to authorize military action to remove Qaddafi. Asked about the costs of such an undertaking, Rubio said through a spokesman: ‘I am concerned that at a time we have a debt of $14 trillion we have this new expenditure.'’ But he added, ‘If he survives our military engagement against him and hangs on to power, we will spend a lot more dealing with an angry and emboldened Qaddafi all over the world for years to come. We are already in. Now we have no choice but to win.’” [National Journal, 4/2/11] APRIL 2011: RUBIO WANTED TO MAKE THE REMOVAL OF GADHAFI THE EXPLICIT GOAL OF THE U.S. Rubio Wanted The United States To Make Ousting Moammar Gadhafi An Explicit Goal. “Sen. Rubio has been coy about whether he would support the use of U.S. troops into Libya, claiming that it would be poor military strategy to signal what the nation would do. His office did not respond to a request for clarification. But he asked Senate leaders to put U.S. involvement in Libya to a vote. He wants the United States to make ousting Moammar Gadhafi an explicit goal. President Obama and leaders of Britain and France have said they want the Libyan dictator to leave, but regime change is not a stated goal of the United Nations/NATO operation in Libya. Sen. Rubio called for a no-fly zone even before one was established and wants to aid Libyan rebels.” [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 4/21/11] Rubio Said Congress Should Go Beyond President Obama’s State Goals In Libya And Authorize The Removal Of Gadhafi. “While many Republicans have questioned U.S. military strikes in Libya and the Obama administration has emphasized limits on America's role, freshman GOP Sen. Marco Rubio says Congress should go beyond President Obama's stated goals and authorize the removal of Moammar Gadhafi.” [Palm Beach Post, 4/1/11] Rubio Issued A Letter Calling For Regime Change While The U.S. Was Handing Off Command Of The Air Campaign To NATO; Rubio Did Not Address Ground Forces, Saying It Should Be At The President’s Discretion.

“Rubio's call for regime change circulated on Capitol Hill while the United States was handing off command of the air campaign to NATO and Defense Secretary Robert Gates was reiterating that the U.S. would not commit ground troops to Libya. Gates also said he would like to see any assistance to anti-Gadhafi rebels come from nations other than the U.S. ‘The question of what kind of assistance to provide to the opposition is clearly the next step in terms of non-lethal or weapons,’ Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. ‘All the members of the coalition are thinking about that at this point, but as with our government, no decisions have been made.’ … Rubio's letter does not address whether ground forces would be needed to remove Gadhafi. A Rubio spokesman said the president should have discretion on how to achieve that goal.” [Palm Beach Post, 4/1/11] Rubio Said Leaving Gadhafi In Power Was Not An Option. “Criticizing Mr. Obama for publicly restricting the U.S. intervention to air assaults only, the freshman senator said, ‘I don't think you go into a military engagement saying what you will not do.’ Mr. Rubio said that whatever missteps have been made, leaving Col. Moammar Gadhafi in power was not an option. ‘Look, the stated goal of this engagement is to protect civilians and prevent genocide,’ he said. ‘As long as Gadhafi is in power, you can't protect civilians or prevent genocide.’” [The Washington Times, 4/4/11] Rubio Said He Did Not Want To See Ghadafi Survive. “Instead of complaining about the cost of attacking Khadafy, he urged Congress to take stronger action. ‘If he survives, it is fair to say he will probably be upset,’ Rubio said of Khadafy. ‘It's important that he not survive.’” [Boston Globe, 4/1/11] Rubio Said Congress Should Go Beyond President Obama’s State Goals In Libya And Authorize The Removal Of Gadhafi. “While many Republicans have questioned U.S. military strikes in Libya and the Obama administration has emphasized limits on America's role, freshman GOP Sen. Marco Rubio says Congress should go beyond President Obama's stated goals and authorize the removal of Moammar Gadhafi.” [Palm Beach Post, 4/1/11] JUNE 2011: RUBIO PUSHED FOR THE REMOVAL OF GADHAFI IN LIBYA Rubio Pushed To Remove Gadhafi From Power In Libya: “Whether You Agree With It Or Not, The United States Is Engaged In A Fight. And It Is A Fight That Only Has Two Possible Endings. It Can End With The Fall Of A Brutal, Criminal, Anti-American Dictator. Or It Could End In The Dictator's Victory Over Our Allies And Us. I Would Suggest That, Given These Two Choices, The Best Choice For America Is The First One, The Fall Of The Anti- American Dictator.” “With most of the Republican presidential field expressing deep skepticism about the allied mission in Libya, Florida Sen. and all-but-certain VP shortlister Marco Rubio dissents in a strongly worded floor speech: ‘This is not about Hawks versus Doves, or Interventionists versus Isolationists, or any of the other labels that people throw around here. And this cannot be about how upset we are at the President for botching the handling of this matter. What we need to do next should be decided based on what is in the best interest of our country. And here is the reality: Whether you agree with it or not, the United States is engaged in a fight. And it is a fight that only has two possible endings. It can end with the fall of a brutal, criminal, anti-American dictator. Or it could end in the dictator's victory over our allies and us. I would suggest that, given these two choices, the best choice for America is the first one, the fall of the anti-American dictator.’ Rubio has taken a staunchly hawkish position in the GOP during his first months in office - so much so that by the summer of 2012, he could very well be an extreme outlier in his party on foreign policy or a guy who's respected for keeping the faith on Bush-era interventionism all along. Or both.” [Politico, 6/28/11] AUGUST 2011: RUBIO SAID THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITH GADHAFI NOT IN CHARGE OF LIBYA Rubio: “The World Is Going To Be A Better Place That Moammar Gadhafi Is Not In Charge Of Libya.” “Well, unfortunately I think on Libya, the policy was too late to come to a coherent policy even took a very day look. I'm very happy that Moammar Gadhafi is not going to be around in Libya. And I actually think the administration didn't handle that well because they waited too long to move one way or the other. You know where they wanted to go. But they had to make a move early and be decisive. And not doing that actually hasn't allowed this to go on longer. But we should be happy for the people in Libya. The world is going to be a better place that Moammar Gadhafi is not in charge of Libya.” [Hannity, Fox News, 8/23/11] OCTOBER 2011: RUBIO ON THE DEATH OF GADHAFI: “JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE” Rubio Said “Justice Has Been Done Today,” In Response To The Death Of Former Libyan Leader Muammar Gadhafi. “U.S. Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding the death of former Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi: ‘Justice has been done today. For decades, Muammar Qaddafi terrorized the Libyan people, bankrolled international terrorism and spread instability among its neighbors. He masterminded numerous terrorist attacks that resulted in the death of hundreds of fellow Americans. We are impressed with the tenacity of the Libyan people in reclaiming their freedoms and honor the service of American and NATO forces that courageously assisted on this endeavor. Qaddafi has now joined the list of failed and disgraced tyrants that have faced justice from their own people. We still have a long and arduous road ahead as we partner with the free Libyan people to build a more prosperous and democratic future.’” [Press Release, Office of Senator Rubio, 10/20/11] RUBIO PUSHED FOR MORE U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA

MARCH 2011: RUBIO CALLED FOR IMMEDIATE U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTION IN LIBYA Rubio Echoed Senator John Kerry’s Call For Immediate U.S. Military Intervention In Libya. “In a debate that is so far defying party lines, senators on Thursday voiced starkly opposing views of the wisdom of potential American intervention in Libya. The deepening rift was put in sharp relief at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing where senators discussed possible U.S. participation in a ‘no fly’ zone over Libya -- which is essentially in the throes of a fierce civil war -- and debated whether intervention is truly in the U.S. national interest. In a reversal of traditional party tendencies, it was Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., who made the strong call for immediate military intervention, saying in his opening statement that ‘the international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as the Libyan people's quest for democratic reform is met with violence.’ Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and freshman Marco Rubio, R-Fla., echoed his call. … Menendez and Rubio pushed William J. Burns, undersecretary of State for political affairs, even more forcefully on potential U.S. action and why our government has yet to intervene.” [Congressional Quarterly Today, 3/17/11] APRIL 2011: RUBIO WANTED THE U.S. TO GO BEYOND OBAMA’S GOALS IN LIBYA Rubio Called For Further Wading Into The Libyan Conflict. “Outside the Capitol, hundreds of tea party activists rallied Thursday to pressure congressional Republicans to cut the budget to the bone. Inside, one of the movement's heroes, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, was calling for the U.S. to expand its already costly mission in Libya. These potentially competing interests are poised to shape the early stages of the 2012 presidential election in still-unpredictable ways. While tea party activists are trying to maintain a singular focus on taming the deficit, a growing number of Republicans, including former presidential nominee John McCain, are urging the U.S. to wade deeper into a conflict that's topped $600 million. It's a clash of quintessential GOP themes cutting government spending vs. getting tough on terrorists that's forcing presidential contenders to redefine in a rapidly changing world what it means to be a Republican.” [National Journal, 4/2/11] Rubio Said Congress Should Go Beyond President Obama’s State Goals In Libya And Authorize The Removal Of Gadhafi. “While many Republicans have questioned U.S. military strikes in Libya and the Obama administration has emphasized limits on America's role, freshman GOP Sen. Marco Rubio says Congress should go beyond President Obama's stated goals and authorize the removal of Moammar Gadhafi.” [Palm Beach Post, 4/1/11] Rubio Began Calling For Stronger Action Against Libya Early On. “Rubio has been calling for strong U.S. involvement in Libya since February, shortly after Gadhafi began cracking down on citizens who took to the streets to protest his regime. More than three weeks before the March 19 launch of airstrikes in Libya by the U.S. and other nations, Rubio accused Obama of an ‘inadequate’ response and said the U.S. should consider a no-fly zone to prevent Gadhafi from launching air attacks on citizens. Rubio's call for toppling Gadhafi drew a skeptical response…from U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. ‘Before I would agree with Rubio on that -- and maybe Rubio's right -- we need to have a long, serious, sober debate about the pros and cons of why we are in Libya,’ Rooney said. ‘During that time I maybe can be convinced that Libya is in our vital national interest. At this point, it's a huge question mark.’” [Palm Beach Post, 4/1/11] SEPTEMBER 2011: RUBIO PUSHED FOR MORE U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYA THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WANTED Rubio Pushed For More U.S. Involvement In Libya Than The Obama Administration Was Willing. “A report by the website Malta Today said the senators expressed thanks for Malta's role in assisting the evacuation of hundreds of American citizens from Libya during the uprising in February. Rubio backed the U.S. engagement in Libya and pushed for more involvement than the Obama administration was willing. The effort comes as other Republicans have called for a lower U.S. military presence abroad due to cost issues. Rubio, a member of the foreign relations committee, has said he has a strong interest in world issues -- an interest that would seem to dovetail with his political ambitions.” [Herald/Times blog, 9/29/11] DECEMBER 2014: RUBIO BLAMED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT SUPPORTING THE NASCENT LIBYAN GOVERNMENT AFTER GADHAFI’S OVERTHROW Rubio: “Not Adequately Supporting The Nascent Libyan Government Following The 2011 Removal Of Moammar [Gadhafi] Was A Key Failure Of The Obama Administration.” “Additionally, the U.S. military should increase capacity- building and training efforts for willing governments that need our support. Not adequately supporting the nascent Libyan government following the 2011 removal of Moammar Gaddafi was a key failure of the Obama administration.” [Marco Rubio, Washington Post, 12/11/14] RUBIO SAID THE U.S. GOT INVOLVED TOO LATE IN LIBYA DURING THE REVOLUTION MARCH 2011

Rubio Criticized The Initial U.S. Response To Libya Saying “When Is That Resolution Going To Happen, After The Bloodbath, In The Middle Of The Bloodbath?” “Senators, in turn, expressed frustration with the lack of progress by the United States in responding to Gadhafi beyond sanctions and warnings, as the U.S. tries to build international consensus for any military intervention. ‘When is that resolution going to happen, after the bloodbath, in the middle of the bloodbath?’ asked Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.” [CNN, 3/17/11] Rubio On The U.S. Response To The Revolution In Libya: “The United States Quite Frankly Looks Weak In This Endeavor.” “Son of Cuban exiles fleeing Fidel Castro, freshman Senator Rubio frames the case for a US military role in Libya as avoiding a bloodbath of innocents. If anything, Obama did not respond swiftly enough to oust Qaddafi, he says. ‘The United States quite frankly looks weak in this endeavor,’ he said at a March 17 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ‘The president of the United States has specifically said Qaddafi must go, but has done nothing since saying that, except to have internal debates about it for a week and a half or two,’ he added.” [Christian Science Monitor, 3/22/11] Rubio Said President Obama Was Three Weeks Behind On How They Should Have Reacted To Gadhafi In Libya. “On Wednesday, Rubio said the United States was right to support the no-fly zone in Libya. In an interview with a Miami radio station, Rubio said that if the international community allowed Qaddafi to repress the uprising in his country ‘without any international repercussions, he will have created the blueprint for every other country on how to crush these rebellions.’ The problem, Rubio said, is that Obama waited too long to back up his call for Qaddafi to step down with concrete action. ‘Now we are engaged in a conflict that is going to cost a lot more money and take a lot more time and in which the outcome is a lot less certain,’ he said. The administration ‘should have basically done what they did last Thursday ... three weeks ago.’” [Congressional Quarterly Today, 3/23/11] Rubio Said He Wished That Obama Got Involved In Libya “A Little Bit Sooner.” “Well, I wish he would have done it a little bit sooner, because if he had...this thing would have moved a lot more predictably at a lot lower cost, and -- but the result is, the president was right when he determined that Moammar Gadhafi must go. And you know what? The people of Libya agree with him. And I think we should continue to degrade his ability to attack and kill civilians.” [Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, Fox News, 3/30/11] APRIL 2011 Rubio Said The Obama “Administration Moved Too Slowly In Libya And The Result Now Is Probably The Worse Possible Scenario - A Stale-Mate. During a Pensecola, Florida, town hall meeting in April 2011: “Though most in the audience identified themselves as Republicans, Rubio did not shy away from political and philo-sophical differences between him and the crowd. A few people expressed their dissatisfaction with the United States' recent involvement in Libya, but Rubio - an early supporter of military action in the North African country - reiterated his belief that action is needed. ‘This administration moved too slowly in Libya and the result now is probably the worse possible scenario - a stale-mate,’ Rubio said. ‘We can't go around and get involved in every conflict, but we do have a role to play.’” [Pensacola News Journal, 4/27/11] AUGUST 2011 Rubio Said President Obama’s Libya Policy “Was Too Late To Come To A Coherent Policy.” “Well, unfortunately I think on Libya, the policy was too late to come to a coherent policy even took a very day look. I'm very happy that Moammar Gadhafi is not going to be around in Libya. And I actually think the administration didn't handle that well because they waited too long to move one way or the other. You know where they wanted to go. But they had to make a move early and be decisive. And not doing that actually hasn't allowed this to go on longer. But we should be happy for the people in Libya. The world is going to be a better place that Moammar Gadhafi is not in charge of Libya.” [Hannity, Fox News, 8/23/11] OCTOBER 2011: Rubio Criticized Obama For Getting Involved Too Late During The Revolution In Libya. “The emergence of 30 somad militias, not all of them good guys, many of whom may be unwilling to lay down their arms. My point is if the U.S. had gotten involved early, aggressively and decisively today would've happened months ago. Libya wouldn't be as destroyed, it wouldn't cost as much money to rebuild them, there wouldn't be as many people dead or injured and there wouldn't be as many militias or rockets missing. So look. It's great that it turned out well, but there are consequences. Sometimes you don't just have to do the right thing. You have to do the right thing at the right time and I think this administration failed to do that. That was my criticism of it, but that's in the past so I think we have a chance to move forward.” [Rubio Media Availability on Jobs, 10/20/11] Rubio Said If The U.S. Went Into Libya Earlier There Would Have Been Less Destruction And Less Deaths. “My point is if the U.S. had gotten involved early, aggressively and decisively, today would have happened months ago. Libya would not be as destroyed. It wouldn't cost as much money to rebuild them. There wouldn't be as many people dead or injured and there wouldn't be as many injured or rockets missing. So, look, it great that it turned out well, but there are consequences. Sometimes you don't just have to do the right thing. You have to do the right thing at the right time. And I think this administration failed to do that.” [Breaking News 3pm, CNN, 10/20/11]

MARCH 2011: RUBIO WANTED TO BACK LIBYAN REBELS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS Asked If The U.S. Should Arm The Rebels In Libya, Rubio Said “We Need To Learn More About Who These Folks Are.” Asked if he supporting arming the rebels in Libya, Rubio said, “Well, I think we need to learn more about who these folks are. And I'm happy to see that - Secretary Clinton engaged with them a little bit yesterday, and we'll continue to learn about them. And as we do, we can make those decisions. So I think it was wise for the President not to take it off the table, to leave that open as an option. But right now, the primary focus and mission, I think, is to continue to degrade the ability of, of Moammar Gadhafi to carry out atrocities in Libya.” [This Week, ABC, 3/30/11] Rubio Said U.S. Should Recognize The Rebel Government In Libya Only If The U.S. Can Verify That It Would “Be Representative Of The Libyan People” And They “Reject Terrorism.” “In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Rubio cautions that the United States should recognize the rebel government only if we can verify that it will ‘be representative of the Libyan people and take demonstrable measures to protect the basic human rights of the Libyan people.’ Further, it must ‘reject terrorism’ and ‘cooperate with international counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts.’ In fact, there's no way to obtain such guarantees. And if the rebels turn out to be Al-Qaeda sympathizers, do we commit more troops to oust them?” [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 4/21/11] RUBIO CALLED FO A NO-FLY ZONE IN THE AREA DURING THE LIBYA REVOLUTION Rubio Wanted To Aid The Libyan Rebels And Called For A No-Fly Zone In The Area. “Sen. Rubio has been coy about whether he would support the use of U.S. troops into Libya, claiming that it would be poor military strategy to signal what the nation would do. His office did not respond to a request for clarification. But he asked Senate leaders to put U.S. involvement in Libya to a vote. He wants the United States to make ousting Moammar Gadhafi an explicit goal. President Obama and leaders of Britain and France have said they want the Libyan dictator to leave, but regime change is not a stated goal of the United Nations/NATO operation in Libya. Sen. Rubio called for a no-fly zone even before one was established and wants to aid Libyan rebels.” [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 4/21/11] APRIL 2011: RUBIO HAD DIFFERENCES WITH HARRY REID OVER LIBYA POLICY Rubio And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Jabbed Each Other Over Libya Policy. Rubio, “stepped into foreign policy, sending a letter (‘perhaps the boldest move any freshman senator has made,’ the Weekly Standard crooned) to Senate leaders urging Congress to authorize the military to force a regime change in Libya. But it did not play out smoothly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office responded that Rubio seemed ‘oblivious’ to the troops' lives he could put at risk, not to mention the cost to U.S. taxpayers, a seeming jab at Rubio's persistent focus on government spending. ‘My concern for the well-being of our troops is no less than yours,’ Rubio wrote back. ‘I understand that reflexively attacking the ideas proposed by another member of the opposing party has sadly become the way of the modern Senate. It nonetheless remains my hope that the Senate will endeavor to at least make an exception when it comes to issues of national security.’” [St. Petersburg Times, 4/4/11] JUNE 2011: RUBIO WISHES OBAMA CAME TO CONGRESS TO USE FORCE IN LIBYA…”BUT WE CAN’T RE- LITIGATE THE PAST” Rubio Wished Obama Came To Congress Before Sending Forces Into Libya, “But We Can't Re-Litigate The Past.” “‘The reality of it is Moammar Gadhafi needs to go, and the day he goes will be a good day for America and a good day for the world,’ Rubio told the St. Petersburg Times. ‘We should do what we can to help that come about.’ The Florida Republican hedged when asked about President Obama’s contention that he does not need Congressional approval, but criticized the president for not engaging early enough, saying it had been ‘mishandled.’ Many House members say Obama is in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that requires approval of the legislative branch within 60 days, with a 30-day extension. ‘I think those who are upset with him not coming to Congress have a right to be upset,’ Rubio said. ‘I think had he come to Congress in the early days of this engagement, he would have gotten the support that he wanted. I'm not sure why they didn't do that. But we can't re-litigate the past.’ He added: ‘The reality is what we're facing now. Moammar Gadhafi's hands are dripping with American blood from years of terrorist activity. His own people want to get rid of them and to the extent that we can afford to help them and can help them, we should. Had the president committed to that early and forcefully, I think this conflict would have been over a long time ago and it would have saved us a lot of money. I think it's been mishandled.’” [UMCI News, 6/22/11] JUNE 2011: RUBIO PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE USED THE GADHAFI REGIME’S FROZEN FUNDS TO REIMBURSE U.S. MILITARY EXPENSES IN LIBYA Rubio Proposed Amendments That Would Use Frozen Libyan Funds To Help Reimburse To The U.S. For Military Costs. “The panel adopted several additional amendments to the resolution. One, sponsored by Rubio, said it was the sense of the Senate that the Qaddafi regime's frozen funds should be used to reimburse the United States for its military expenses in Libya, as well as any humanitarian or reconstruction funding.” [Congressional Quarterly Today, 6/28/11]

SEPTEMBER 2011: RUBIO TOOK A TRIP TO LIBYA AFTER THE REVOLUTION THAT TOPPLED GADHAFI Rubio Said People In Libya Were Excited That U.S. Senators Were Visiting The Region To See The Aftermath Of The Revolution. “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, fresh from a visit to Libya to meet with former rebels who ended the rule of Moammar Gadhafi, said he was touched by thankfulness and hope he heard from Libyans on the street. ‘These people are very, very proud of their revolution, and very excited about what it means for their future,’ he said in a conference call from Malta. Rubio and a small group of lawmakers including Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk visited the damaged former U.S. Embassy, met with transitional leaders and toured a prison and a medical center. ‘People were grateful, people were thankful, people were excited we were there,’ he said. He described pro-American graffiti and Libyans flashing ‘victory’ signs at the motorcade. ‘You could tell it was genuine. People wanted to talk to you,’ he said. ‘... I'm talking like, guys on the corner, young people at the cafe.’ There's still work to do, he said. Pro-Gadhafi forces still hold two major cities, and Gadhafi himself is at large. Meanwhile, Libyans face an immediate need for medical care that the United States should help to meet, he said. Rubio has strongly supported intervention in the country. ‘I shared with the rebels that their story is an inspiration to those who seek freedom all over the world,’ he said.” [Herald/Times, 9/29/11] Rubio Traveled To Meet The Libyan Rebels. “Florida Senator Marco Rubio and three Republican colleagues landed in Libya Thursday morning to meet with rebel leaders who are governing the war-torn country after forcing Moammar Gadhafi from power. Rubio, John McCain of Arizona, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina plan to meet with members of the National Transitional Council. It’s the first high-profile congressional trip to Libya since Gadhafi’s fall. The senators arrived from Malta, where they met with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi on Wednesday to talk about the transition in Libya. They plan a press conference later Thursday. Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will return to Florida late Friday night.” [Sun-Sentinel, 9/29/11] SEPTEMBER 2011: RUBIO CRITICIZED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON ITS RESPONSE TO THE VIOLENCE IN LIBYA Rubio Aggressively Questioned Undersecretary Of State William Burns On The Obama Administration’s “Troubling” Response To Rising Violence Levels In Libya. “Rubio aggressively questioned Undersecretary of State William Burns in a March hearing on what he called the Obama administration's ‘troubling’ response to the rising violence within the country. ‘Is the message that we're sending that when future conflicts arise, the United States' actions are difficult to predict? There may be none? That, basically, the way to repress and bring down resistance like this is to be brutal? What are we going to do if there's a bloodbath after this?’ Rubio asked, his voice rising.” [Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 9/10/11] OCTOBER 2011 RUBIO PRAISED U.S. EUROPEAN ALLIES MORE THAN THE U.S. AND OBAMA FOR THEIR WORK IN LIBYA Rubio Noted That U.S. Allies Conducted Much More Of The Libyan Operation Than The U.S. “Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, said Col. Gadhafi masterminded numerous terrorist attacks that killed Americans, while noting that U.S. allies such as Britain and France conducted much more of the military support operation than had American forces. ‘We are impressed with the tenacity of the Libyan people in reclaiming their freedoms and honor the service of American and NATO forces that courageously assisted on this endeavor,’ Mr. Rubio said. ‘Gadhafi has now joined the list of failed and disgraced tyrants that have faced justice from their own people. We still have a long and arduous road ahead as we partner with the free Libyan people to build a more prosperous and democratic future.’” [Washington Times, 10/21/11] Rubio Refused To Give The President More Credit On Libya – Insisting It Was To The Credit Of Europe. Asked if the President should get more credit for bring down Gadaffi, Rubio said: No, let's give credit where it's due. Number one, the French and the British carry the load on this and let's not forget that. Number two, the Libyan people. Actually, I should say it in the reverse. The Libyan people, OK? (Inaudible) -- those Libyans laying in those beds who fought for their freedom and were able to accomplish it. The British, the French and our NATO allies who were involved. I think the president did the right thing. He just took too long to do it and he didn't do enough of it and the proof is in -- is in -- is in -- you see it now before us. What has happened as a result of this being an extended conflict? A number of things. The country is now more beat up. It's going to cost more money to rebuild Libya. You have more people dead. You have more people maimed. And so people that instead of being able to go work have to go to rehab to be able to gain their functionality. You have thousands of rocket -- shoulder fired rockets that are missing all of that because of how long this took in the chaos.” [Rubio Media Availability on Jobs, 10/20/11] OCTOBER 2011: RUBIO WOULDN’T HAVE PUT AMERICAN TROOPS INTO LIBYA DURING THE REVOLUTION Rubio Said He Wouldn’t Have Put American Troops Into Libya After The Benghazi Attacks. O'REILLY: “Would you if you were in-charge have put American troops in that place?” RUBIO: “No and the Libyans didn't want that.” O'REILLY: “So you -- you would have bombed harder.” RUBIO: “We would have done a no-fly zone earlier in the process. If the rebels have had a no-fly zone when they asked for it, this thing would have been over in a week.” O'REILLY: “All right, so

you wanted -- you wanted more aggressive action quicker but not necessarily any more military presence.” RUBIO: “Not on the ground.” [O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 10/24/11] RUBIO SAID THE LIBYA REVOLUTION HAD AN IMPACT ON SYRIA Rubio: “What’s Happening In Libya Has A Direct Impact On What’s Happening In Syria.” In response to calls “for expanding U.S. military efforts in Libya to ‘capture’ Moammar Gadhafi,” an editorial in Gannett Newspapers, opined: “What's next - an expedition to Syria to depose Bashar al-Assad? Well, as a matter of fact, here's what Rubio had to say about that: ‘What's happening in Libya has a direct impact on what's happening in Syria - and Syria is basically a satellite state of Iran. So the first thing I would say to you is that the best defense is a good offense. The fact that Iran is worried about Libya and worried about Syria and ultimately worried about themselves is good. If they're tied up dealing with those things they can't be going around the world trying to undermine us.’ No, but we can undermine ourselves. It shouldn't be necessary to remind Rubio - whose other big cause in the Senate is controlling the deficit - that every dollar the U.S. spends in Libya is borrowed, as is every dollar we have spent, and are spending, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [Editorial, Gannett Newspapers, 4/6/11] MEDIA CRITICISM Palm Beach Post Criticized Rubio For Not Supporting A Higher Debt Limit While Simultaneously Calling For The U.S. To Get Deeper Into Libya's Civil War. In April 2011, the Palm Beach Post opined, “U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., voted to shut down the government and says he won't support raising the debt limit unless it comes with the whole GOP agenda. Yet he wants the United States, already warring in Iraq and Afghanistan, to get deeper into Libya's civil war. But even if spending weren't an issue, the U.S. should be wary of mission creep.” [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 4/21/11]  Palm Beach Post: “No Compelling National Interest To Justify Sending U.S. Ground Troops To Libya.” “There is no compelling national interest to justify sending U.S. ground troops to Libya with the mission of ousting Gadhafi. In that region, even if the rebels fighting Gadhafi are the spear point of a democratic movement, power be-stowed by U.S. military force could discredit any group accepting it.” [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 4/21/11]