```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6488-S6490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to talk 
briefly about an amendment on which we may or may not get a vote. It is 
an amendment by my colleague, Senator Paul. It really is directly 
related to the issues that have happened around the world in the last 
week and a half. We certainly watched in horror as our Ambassador, a 
fantastic and honorable American, along with three of his colleagues in 
the American consulate in Benghazi, was murdered last week. So I wanted 
to talk briefly about that because it really is an important moment in 
our foreign policy in the region.
  Let me begin by expressing our deep condolences for that loss. All 
the members of the families of those folks who have died over there, 
our hearts are with them, our prayers are with them. We thank them for 
their brave service to our country and to the cause of freedom.
  We have the right to be angry. The American people are angry and 
rightfully so. For years we have been investing our taxpayer dollars in 
aid to that region, and yet we turn on the television and we see these 
protests

[[Page S6489]]

against us. On one hand, every single year we send billions of dollars 
and hundreds of millions of dollars to help people in the region. We 
help them to stand and fight for themselves, to get rid of dictators. 
Then we turn on the television and we see people attacking our 
embassies or burning images of our President and burning our flag and 
chanting anti-American slogans. So the American people are both 
confused and angry. How can this be happening? But I think it is 
important for us that while we have the right to be angry, we should 
still remain smart in our foreign policy.
  What I would like to talk about today is what it means to have a 
smart foreign policy, a pro-American foreign policy in that region of 
the world given these factors we are facing.
  The amendment on which Senator Paul is asking for a vote would 
condition foreign aid to three particular countries. Let me begin my 
conversation by saying that this is a complicated issue, and not all 
these countries are the same. Let me contrast two of them, for example.
  Let's talk about Egypt for a moment. Now, of course, the Egyptian 
people got rid of a dictator. They had an election. It was a very close 
election that was won by the current President, Mursi, who comes from 
the Muslim Brotherhood. But Egypt has a well-organized security 
apparatus, a well-organized and well-funded security apparatus. Egypt 
has the capability to conduct counterterrorism in Egypt. Egypt has the 
capability, they have the people and the resources to protect our 
Embassy in Egypt. They have no excuse for not doing that, if they fail 
to do that, because they are able to do it.
  What was really troubling to me about Egypt, however, was that 
President Mursi, rather than immediately condemning the attack against 
the United States and the murder of our Ambassador, his first reaction 
was to condemn a YouTube video. That is what we are talking about 
here--a YouTube video. Anybody can make a YouTube video.
  Now, there is a belief, by the way, in the Muslim world that because 
in their countries, if you produce a YouTube video or any movie, for 
that matter, your government had to approve it--they think, well then 
in America, your government must have approved it as well. But that is 
not true, and their leaders know better. The leaders of these countries 
know better. Some of these leaders in the Egyptian Government were 
educated in this country. They know full well that anyone can make a 
YouTube video. But instead of standing and explaining that to their 
people, they go along with this stuff. They say one thing in Arabic to 
their people and another thing to the rest of the world in English.
  There is a long pattern of double-playing behavior that we should not 
stand for and should not tolerate. It is, in my mind, unacceptable that 
a full 2 days went by before the Egyptian Government clearly condemned 
the attack on Benghazi and clearly condemned these actions against 
America.
  Contrast that with Libya for a moment. Libya had an election as well 
where two-thirds of the Libyan people rejected the Islamists and they 
elected pro-Western, pro-modern, pro-progress leaders to their 
government. But, unlike Egypt, Libya does not have the ability to 
protect our consulate as well. They did not inherit from Qadhafi a 
well-organized security apparatus. In fact, it was one of the reasons 
why I argued for a more forceful American engagement in Libya. I did 
not want the conflict to last that long. That protracted and long 
conflict in Libya--what it did is it created more time and more space 
for these independent militias--these are literally independent gangs 
who got their hands on weapons and fought in this revolution against 
Qadhafi, but now the central government cannot get these groups to give 
up their arms because to do so would be to give up their power. That is 
why having this go on for as long as it did is a terrible idea. The 
fact is, though, the Libyans do not even have control over large 
portions of the country. There are entire areas of Libya that the 
government does not control.

  There is an increasing body of evidence that shows that what happened 
in Benghazi was not an anti-American protest, it was not as a result of 
a YouTube video; it was an orchestrated anti-American terrorist attack 
by terrorists--not by Libya, not by Libyans, by terrorists.
  In addition to evidence that this was a terrorist attack, not a 
Libyan anti-American uprising, look at the reaction in Libya since the 
attack. I wish the media in the United States would give more coverage 
to the Libyans in the streets protesting the terrorists, holding up 
signs apologizing.
  Our Ambassador in Benghazi was loved by the Libyan people, especially 
the people of Benghazi, who credited him for saving their lives when 
Muammar Qadhafi's troops were on the outskirts of the city about to 
massacre them. I wish more attention were paid to that. I wish more 
attention were paid to the ceremonies that are happening today in 
Tripoli honoring--our Under Secretary William Burns is there honoring 
the service of Ambassador Stevens. The demonstrations in Benghazi are 
going to occur tomorrow honoring him as well.
  I am not saying everyone in Libya is pro-American. I am saying we 
have a government in Libya that is trying to do the right thing. There 
is open source reporting in the press today. Fifty American FBI agents 
are there now investigating this. Those are the actions of a 
cooperative government. They are trying to help us, but they just do 
not have the resources to do it well. Cutting off aid to them does not 
make sense to me.
  On the one hand, we are demanding that they protect our embassies. 
They are saying: We want to, but we do not have the resources to do it. 
On the other hand, we are threatening to take away their resources.
  So not all these countries are the same.
  There are a lot of misconceptions floating around out there. I have 
heard some people say: You know what, maybe we were better off with 
dictators in the Middle East because they could maintain order. Let me 
tell you, that is a false choice. Here is why. These dictators were no 
friends of America.
  Let me give you an example of Egypt, where people now say: Well, this 
stuff did not happen when Mubarak was there. No, it happened but in a 
different way. Let me tell you about the deal Mubarak and other 
dictatorial leaders in the region cut with extremists. Here is the deal 
they cut with extremists: As long as you do not do anything against us, 
you can do anything you want anywhere in the world. Conduct all the 
terrorism you want. Attack Americans. Blow up a train in Spain. Do 
whatever you want, just do not do it here. Do it in your country. If 
you do it in our country, we will cut your head off. If you do it 
somewhere else, that is not our business.
  That is the deal these dictators cut with extremists.
  It was not a coincidence that there were Egyptians involved in the 9/
11 plot. These were not Egyptians who came from poor families; they 
came from prominent and distinguished families in Egypt, which leads me 
to the second point. These dictators allow anti-Americanism, because--
imagine if you lived in a dictatorial country--you are not allowed to 
protest the government. You are not allowed to protest your leaders. 
There are only two things you are allowed to protest--America and 
Israel. So that is what everybody does. It is almost a relief valve for 
frustration. Then they have a state-controlled media that feeds into 
anti-Americanism. Do you know that there were media outlets in Egypt 
under Mubarak and even now that tell the people in Egypt that in 
America denying the Holocaust is a crime? Denying the Holocaust is 
dumb, it is outrageous, but it is not a crime in America. Yet they 
spread these lies, these anti-American lies through the region. Of 
course there are people in the region who hate us because our so-called 
dictatorial friends and allies have allowed anti-Americanism to grow 
and be fostered because it has helped them hold on to the power.
  So these dictators are not good for the region, not good for America. 
And the choice should not be between dictators and democracy. The 
second fallacy is, well, we will just have an election and everything 
will be better. That is not true either. Democracies can elect people 
who do not like us too. So this is not an easy issue to confront, but 
disengaging from the region is not the solution.

[[Page S6490]]

  Now, I do not have a magic solution. I have only been here in the 
Senate for about a year and a half, so these are issues I am engaging 
in for the first time over the last year, but here are my opinions 
given what I have learned in the first 2 years I have been here, some 
points I would like to make.
  The first is that we should expect more. We should expect more from 
leaders in the region. We should expect Mursi and the Muslim 
Brotherhood and others to stand up to people and say: Look, we 
understand you are upset about this video, but you do not have the 
right to burn down an embassy. By the way, in America the government 
does not control these videos. Anyone can make a YouTube video. They 
are a free society.
  No. 2, we should expect them to say the same things in Arabic as they 
are saying in English. Do not express condolences and outrage in 
English on the attack against America but in Arabic completely ignore 
it and only talk about the YouTube video.
  We should expect more from them. They want a true partnership. They 
want American and Western aid. They want tourists to return. They want 
economic interchange between our two countries. We should expect more 
from them.
  Here is the second point. This stuff is not happening because of a 
video, because people are upset. You know what, let me explain 
something to you. For radical Islam, our entire culture is offensive. 
They are not just offended about a YouTube video. They are offended 
that women serve in the Senate. They are offended that women drive. 
They are offended that little girls get to go to school. In some of 
these countries, converting to Christianity is punishable by death. So 
our whole culture is offensive to them, not just a YouTube video.
  Here is the third point we have to accept. This is a critical moment 
not just for America, this is a critical moment for the Muslim world, 
where they have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves. 
Is this the future they want, a future isolated from the world, a 
future isolated from the promises of the 21st century, or do they want 
a different future? I know there are millions of people in the Muslim 
world who do not want this future, but they are afraid to speak up. 
They are intimidated from speaking up because of these radical forces 
that need to be defeated.

  This brings me to my last point. We need to be very clear. We will 
support those who want a better future, like we should have supported 
the Green Revolution in Iran when brave young Iranians took to the 
streets to protest a fraudulent election, and instead of taking their 
side, the President disengaged and said nothing. We will support those 
who want a new future and a better future for their region. We are not 
asking them to abandon their religion or their beliefs, but they have 
to respect ours. We are not asking them to walk away from the Koran, 
but they have to respect our beliefs and tolerate our beliefs as well. 
We will support those who are willing to do that. We want to work with 
them. It benefits no one to have violence and destruction in the 
region. But we also have to accept the hard cold fact that there are 
people, there are radical Islamists in that part of the world with whom 
you can never and will never be able to reason. They are never going to 
change their minds. They are never going to come around. They are never 
going to one day all of a sudden change their behavior because we 
engaged them more, because we give more speeches at their universities. 
They are radical Islamists, violent people. It is a very clear choice: 
Either they win or we win. And the sooner we accept that, the better 
off we are going to be.
  So we have to accept that on the one hand there are millions of 
people in that region who want a new and better future. We will side 
with them. We will support their aspirations. We will work with their 
hopes for civilian leadership and peace and economic prosperity. But 
for those who are radical Islamists, whose view is they want to conquer 
and bring under their control everyone who is not who they are, we have 
to defeat them. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. And the sooner 
we accept that, the clearer our policies are going to be.

  So this is not just a critical moment for America in our foreign 
policy; this is a critical moment for them as well, for they are going 
to have to decide. If Egypt truly wants a better future for their 
people, one where their economy is growing and prosperous and young 
people can fulfill their aspirations, they are going to have to 
unequivocally reject this type of stuff or they will be trapped in the 
18th century forever.
  In Libya, they are trying to cooperate with us. They are allowing us 
to move forward. We should work with them and strengthen them, not 
abandon them.
  And I didn't mention Pakistan, but that is important too. Let me just 
say that I think it is outrageous that doctor is being held there. I 
believe every charge against him is trumped up, and I think we should 
demand--I think it is right to condition some, if not all, of our 
foreign aid and cooperation with Pakistan on his status and on his 
release. So I hope Senator Paul and those who support his amendment 
will consider, at a minimum, restructuring that amendment to recognize 
there is a difference between Libya and Egypt and that we should take 
different approaches in that regard; that we have a right to be 
outraged; that we have a right to be angry, but we should never abandon 
being smart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```