No, that is not what I am saying.
Actually, that's exactly what you're saying.
Let's connect the dots:
1. From you: Shiner, I don't even think Rubio lied.
2. From Rubio: He was the “son of exiles,” he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power. Note that Rubio claims his family left Cuba AFTER Castro took power.
3. Fact: Castro took power New Year's Day 1959.
4. Fact: Rubio's parents came to the US 2.5 years before Castro took power.
You are (intentionally?) confusing the issue by ignoring the specifics of what Rubio said and the dates involved, and now using generic words like "left Cuba because of Fidel". Did the Rubio's leave b/c of Fidel? Probably. No shame there.
Your convoluted WWII example really does no service here. Rubio was wrong with his facts. Your only argument of Rubio not lying would be based on Rubio himself not being aware of the specific dates, therefore he had not intent to deceive. But Rubio should have known, so at least he was "constructively" lying.
This isn't that difficult. Rubio was fluffing up his story to make it seem like his family's exit was based on a purer motive than economic and he did so for political reasons. Is it bad that he did that? I don't think so. But it's still a lie. At least be honest with yourself and call a spade a spade. It doesn't mean Rubio is a bad guy, or a bad politician, but you don't have to go around making up excuses for him.