Rubio Defends Bush, Blames Clinton for 9/11

February 17, 2016

Writer

The Context

During one shouting match at the South Carolina debate, Donald Trump attacked Jeb Bush with claims that his brother, President George W. Bush, was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and didn't keep Americans safe. Trump --- who is running as a Republican --- spouted all the radical liberal talking points about 9/11.

"First of all, you're blaming George Bush for 9/11, which is only what the worst left-wing nutjobs do," Stu said Tuesday, filling for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program. "Most people would say, 'Look, was he perfect? No.' But was he responsible that a few months after he came into office, there was a terrorist attack? No sensible person blames him for it."

It's also very poor form to attack a former Republican president at a GOP debate, especially with outrageous claims.

True Colors

Donald Trump’s liberal talking points about 9/11 showed his true colors.

“How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down -- the World -- excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the [Bush administration]” Trump said in between boos. “He kept us safe? That's not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.”

Better Than Gore

Coming to the defense of George Bush, Marco Rubio may have had the single best line of the night.

“I just want to say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore,” Rubio said.

Rubio's comment received thunderous applause from the audience. The senator also made the accurate and valid point that it was President Bill Clinton who failed to take out Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance.

“All right. The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him,” Rubio said.

Bill Clinton's Regret

The Washington Post fack-checked Rubio's claim about Clinton. Was Rubio right or wrong?

"They had nine examples of times where Bin Laden may have been killed or at least there was an effort to do that. And, of course, it did not occur during the Clinton administration," Stu said. "Some of them were not his fault. Some of them were CIA plans that were abandoned."

Stu went on to explain one specific instance in August 1998 when Clinton vacillated over signing a memo to authorize killing Bin Laden. The language was weakened, leaving CIA officials under the impression they did not have permission to kill Bin Laden.

According to Stu, it's one of Clinton's biggest regrets.

Common Sense Bottom Line

George W. Bush was not on the stage Saturday night, and should not have been attacked viciously. Rather than talking about substantive solutions, Trump resorted to more name-calling and finger-pointing.

"The fact that he's using [9/11] for his own political gain is another thing that even most Democrats wouldn't attempt," Stu said. "The lengths this man will go to for his own personal benefit are jarring."

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: On Saturday night, Rubio and Trump and Jeb Bush all got into this 9/11 thing. I mean, this is just a fiasco with Donald Trump.

JEFFY: It sure is.

PAT: And the whole George W. Bush is responsible for 9/11 and he should have been impeached and all that kind of stuff.

So I thought Jeb had a pretty good defense of his brother. Also, Rubio stepped in. And here's what he had to say.

MARCO: I just want to say at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.

PAT: Yes.

(applauding)

PAT: Excuse me.

MARCO: I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but no matter what you want to say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions, an open violation, and the world wouldn't do anything about it. And George W. Bush enforced what the international community refused to do. And, again, he kept us safe. And I'm forever grateful to what he did for --

DONALD: How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down -- the World -- excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the --

(booing)

DONALD: He kept us safe. That's not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.

MARCO: All right. The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.

(applauding)

DONALD: And George Bush -- by the way, George Bush had the chance also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.

PAT: Okay. So there's Trump. I mean, he is really doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on George W. Bush responsible for 9/11 essentially. He didn't keep us safe on 9/11. All of that. What are the facts about Bill Clinton's involvement there? You have to turn on your microphone.

JEFFY: And while he's doing that, I will say, if you go back and look at the video of when Donald Trump is saying, he didn't get the facts of his CIA. He looked so --

PAT: Oh, he was pissed.

JEFFY: -- angry.

PAT: Very much so.

STU: First of all, you're blaming George Bush for 9/11, which is only what the worst left-wing nutjobs do. Most people would say, "Look, was he perfect? No. But was he responsible that a few months after he came into office, there was a terrorist attack." No sensible person blames him for it.

PAT: Not even Jeb mentioned that. He took office in January, we were hit in December. Okay. It was just the very beginning of his presidency.

STU: The planning obviously started long before that.

PAT: Long before that.

STU: It's just a ridiculous criticism that even most normal Democrats abandoned a long time ago.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Not to mention, he's using to win arguments in a debate that lives of, you know, people who are killed in these attacks -- he claims to have lost hundreds of friends. Whether he even has hundreds of friends I think is a question. Most people don't. At least people you would actually consider friends. But the fact that he's using that for his own political gain is another thing that even most Democrats would attempt.

So there's a whole 'nother thing there besides the fact that it's ridiculous as far as the facts of the matter. The lengths this man will go to for his own personal benefit are jarring. And he pulled that off there.

The question about Rubio claiming that Clinton had chances to kill them -- Washington Post did a fact-check on this. And I kind of assumed they were just going to say, "Yeah, well, false."

PAT: False.

STU: Actually they had nine examples of times where Bin Laden may have been killed or at least there was an effort to do that. And, of course, it did not occur during the Clinton administration.

Some of them were not his fault. Some of them were CIA plans that were abandoned. But there are nine of them including time -- this one, to give you a brief example. I mean, we can go through all of them. It's probably not worth necessarily going through all of them.

But he had a memo -- he vacillated over signing a memo that would have authorized the killing of Bin Laden. This is August 1998. He first authorized only a capture, then agreed to allow Bin Laden's killing, only to weaken the language later. CIA officials were under the impression they did not have permission to kill Osama bin Laden.

PAT: Seems to me that Clinton has admitted that since.

STU: It's definitely one of his biggest regrets, I think he said.

PAT: Yeah. So I thought it was true when Rubio said it. And it seems like the post -- or is it the TIME's? Or is it the Post?

STU: The Post.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) participates in a CBS News GOP Debate February 13, 2016 at the Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina. Residents of South Carolina will vote for the Republican candidate at the primary on February 20. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep