Image 01 Image 03

Marco Rubio comes to George W. Bush’s defense over 9/11

Marco Rubio comes to George W. Bush’s defense over 9/11

“Bush inherited all sorts of things from the Clinton administration”

Liberals have so convinced themselves that George W. Bush is to blame for 9/11 that any suggestion Bill Clinton shares responsibility for the attack is inconceivable to them.

Donald Trump recently pointed out that 9/11 happened on George W. Bush’s watch which turned into a narrative of Trump blaming Bush for 9/11.

Marco Rubio appeared on Newsmax TV this week and pointed out that Bush inherited a difficult situation from Bill Clinton.

BuzzFeed reported:

Rubio: Trump Lacks Basic “Understanding” Of 9/11, Clinton Not Bush Deserves Blame

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio says his opponent Donald Trump is wrong to suggest President George W. Bush bears responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, arguing that the majority of the failures that led to the deadly attacks should be attributed to President Bill Clinton’s administration instead.

“It’s just not true, it’s wrong. What he said is just not true,” Rubio told NewsMaxTV The Hard Line with Ed Berliner on Wednesday about Trump.

“The truth is that President George W. Bush inherited all sorts of things from the Clinton administration, including intelligence agencies and others who weren’t doing a very good job that were not sharing information across agencies. Including a government that under President Clinton had not taken seriously al-Qaeda and the threat that they posed,” Rubio continued, citing the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, and other terrorist attacks.

The video clip below was uploaded to YouTube by a group called Right Wing Watch. To people like them, every valid point Rubio is making is beyond belief:

Allahpundit of Hot Air offers some political analysis of Rubio’s intentions here:

Rubio counters Trump: Blame Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, for failing to prevent 9/11

With Rubio in the process of eclipsing Jeb and trying to consolidate Republican interventionists for the stretch run against Trump and/or Cruz, it would be highly foolish of him to alienate Bush donors and grassroots hawks by joining Trump in kneecapping Bush 43.

For all of the hype surrounding Rubio as a new face for the GOP, one of his strongest appeals, especially among older Republicans, is how familiar and comfortable he seems. They’ve been voting for decades for men who speak glowingly about the American dream and promise a muscular Republican foreign policy to cure Democratic weakness. Laying 9/11 off entirely on Clinton instead of Bush slides neatly into that image for Rubio.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I wonder where Harry Truman’s old “The Buck Stops Here” sign ended up.

“But Trump is a conservative”…

Rubio is trying to grab the Bush voters who will need someone to vote for when Bush drops out…

Those who blame Bush for 9/11 should be able to answer the question, “What did Bush fail to do in eight months that Clinton should have done during the eight years before?”

(Of course, one must remember the spectacle of Al Gore, clinging to the Transition Office while screaming “Mine! Mine!” all the way up to Inauguration Day, which is difficult for Bush Blamers and Clinton Apologists.)

    There is a stubborn edict, the captain is responsible for the safety of their ship, and presidents, their country.

    911 happened because it was not stopped and it happened on Bush 43’s watch.

    Bill Clinton had the first attack occur on one of these towers on his watch.

    Both are responsible, if, for no other reason than it happened on their watch.

    Both of these men are part of the DC Establishment, thus birds of a feather, in that regard.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 23, 2015 at 4:16 pm

      Here’s a funny wrinkle in the law of admiralty, poor old Crazy Cat Lady…

      If someone flies an airliner into your vessel on purpose as an act of terrorism, guess what…???

      Yeah, even you are half-bright enough to get that one…

    Erudite Mavin in reply to georgfelis. | October 23, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    You brought up an area that is rarely mentioned.
    After election night the winner can start in his
    administration and all the rest to put in gear a new Pres.
    As you mentioned, A few months lost with G. Bush having to prove his win over gore with the recount and hanging chads.

    Then the issue of Intel, Bush had to find out about the Gorelick Wall over time where the FBI and CIA thanks to Clinton, could not share info.

    What Bush was doing with his late start thanks to Gore,
    It was like running and putting on your close at the same time only worse.

    Unlike Clinton when the world Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the USS Cole 2000, and more, George Bush was setting up with others what needed to be done to counted this attack on America.

“The truth is that…”

When Rubio starts with “the truth is”…

Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan are all responsible for 9/11.

None of them did a damn thing.

    clintack in reply to Barry. | October 23, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Not Carter?

    Heck… Jefferson should have just paid off the Barbary Pirates. That’s why they really hate us.

      Barry in reply to clintack. | October 23, 2015 at 11:36 am

      I came back to correct that and posted before your comment. yes, left off the beginning off the whole damn American experiment in sucking up to the oilbags.

    Barry in reply to Barry. | October 23, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Well Mr. downvoter, have some courage and name what they did. Hey, start with Reagan.

    Of course, I left off the beginning suckup to islam, Carter hisself, the disgusting jew hater.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Barry. | October 23, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    By that measure, Roosevelt is responsible for Pearl Harbor.

    Except for a few conspiracy loons, no one blames anyone but the Japanese.

      Spiny, there is quite a difference in subscribing to looney theory that Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, and knowing he did little to nothing to have the military prepared for such a possibility, one that had been predicted. The japs are to be blamed for the attack. Roosevelt should be blamed for not having Pearl prepared.

      It is the same for Carter/Reagan/Bush1/Clinton/Bush2. If you do not conduct the affairs of state properly you invite attack. They should be held accountable. They are all at fault.

Of course Clinton gets the lion’s share of blame for failing to defend against the clear and present Islamo-terrorist threat. He actually turned dereliction of duty into systematic rule-based policy.

Remember “the wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence” put in place by Clinton Hack Jamie Gorelick? That wall blocked law enforcement from opening the laptop of “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui until after 9/11, directly enabling the attacks to succeed.

But Bush absolutely must get a share of the blame for leaving this policy in place. He should have immediately directed his intelligence chiefs to search out and purge any wrongheaded garbage that the Clintons put in place but he obviously didn’t, and the wall of separation isn’t the only example.

Bush also left in place Clinton’s evil rule that our soldiers have to be disarmed when not deployed in active battle zones. Apparently our soldiers give up their right to bear arms when the join the military. Disgusting, and it has enabled several jihadist murder attacks on our soldiers here at home, including the Chattanooga murders that happened on Bush’s watch.

Bush held onto that rule even after it led to our soldiers’ deaths, and his failure to get rid of it when he had the chance made it easy for Obama to keep it in place despite many more of our soldiers’ deaths.

Bush clearly left our soldiers disarmed as an intentional policy choice and maybe he did the same with the wall of separation. There are many things I love about W but he had some glaring deficits, especially in his willingness to go along with leftist regulatory schemes, which gun control and the wall of separation both are.

@ByronYork: Romney 2012 donors have given more to Hillary 2016 than to Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Paul, Huck, Trump, Jindal, Santorum.”

If confirmed, it tells one a lot about the motives and goals of the Political Establishment donor class.

I have not vetted Byron York’s statement but I am sure vetting will be forthcoming on twitter and elsewhere.

Sammy Finkelman | October 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm

Someone can have responsibility for something even if it took place amonth after they took office, and someone else may have no real responsibility even if something took place along time after they took office.

It depends on the facts.

I do suspect that President Clinton knew about the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993 in advance because of his connection to the Mohammed T. Mehdi, Meir Kahane’s old debating partner, who had become the spokesman for Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman. (the “blind sheik”)

M.T. Mehdi had been the nominee for the United States Senate of the New Alliance Party in 1992, and the New Alliance Party had tried to knock Paul Tsongas off the Democratic primary ballot on New York in 1992 and they were prevented from being successful only by New York Governor’s Mario Cuomo’s personal intervention. The 1992 Clinton campaign denied any connection to the efforts of Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party to knock Tsongas off the ballot. I don’t believe it.

So he had close, secret, ties with some bad people.

In addition to this connection, Mehdi had been one of the people who had met with Governor Clinton in Little Rock in or about July 1992 as one of number of Arab American leaders.

Finally, Emad Salem (one of the names of the Egyptian double agent who has penetrated the world Trade Center terror cell) and who had been dismissed as an agent by someone who came from FBI headquarters because he wouldn’t wear a wire and because the cell was allegedly not a danger inside the United States, but only in Egypt, and who instantly knew who had done the World Trade Center bombing, asked FBI agent Nancy Floyd, whom he got back into contact with, who later got in trouble for getting in contact with him, in a conversation he secretly recorded (now he was willing to wear a wire, but he not only recorded the terrorists, he also recorded the FBI using the cassette tape deck of his car – prosecutors eventually arranged to dismiss William Kunster as a lawyer for the Sheik in order to prevent these tapes from being released – because when he went, that demand went too – but some were leaked to the New York Times and other places.)

Anyway, the double agent asked her if he should get in conact with President Clinton. This completely flummoxed Nancy Floyd, but I say, the double agent actually knew there was a back door channel to Clinton he might be able use, and that channel came from the terrorists. (The double agent did not suspect Clinton of complicity, of course, or he wouldn’t have brought up the idea.)

Now, here’s the point:

Mike McAlary reported one day in his column, which that day was a report of an interview with New York Governor Mario Cuomo, that the Governor’s car would have been parked where the bomb exploded. Every Friday he went to the WTC at 12:30 pm for ameeting, but this day he cancelled.

You may remember that some leaks appeared that it was President Clinton’s car that might have been there because the Secret Service would store a car there.

Probably at least a distortion of the truth, and most important, Clinton would not have been in it at the time the bomb exploded! A very curious mostly false leak, only intended to say that maybe he was the target. The leaks didn’t alert anybody to what Governor Cuomo had revealed.

N.B. Mario Cuomo was a potential rival to Bill Clinton for re-nominaiton in 1996, like Ted Kennedy was to Carter in 1980.

After the bombing, Clinton arranged with Ted Kennedy to have Supreme Court Justice Byron White (who had been appointed by JFK in 1961, and, although a conservative, was close to the Kennedy family) retire so as to create a vacancy. The thought obviously was that what Mario Cuomo really wanted was to be on the United States Supreme Court.

For one week Mario Cuomo refused to take Bill Clinton’s call. Then he told him no. Why?

In 1994, he ran for re-election, but lost. At the same time, Bill Clinton began giving Mario Cuomo’s son, Andrew, jobs.

As for the Supreme Court in 1993, Clinton then had to find a substitute and it took him some time.

You can connect the dots maybe now. Well, some of the dots are here anyway.

Erudite Mavin | October 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm

Rubio is correct. He has the most knowledge of National Security and Foreign Affairs of the candidates.
• Clinton’s own admission that he could have extradited Osama bin Laden from Sudan – but he didn’t because he felt bin Laden was not a threat!

• Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers – and he ignored the warning!
• The FBI and CIA could have easily foiled the 9-11 attacks – but were negligent as two known terrorist gained entry into the U.S. with the CIA’s full knowledge. They would later participate in the 9-11 attacks.
• FBI agent Coleen Rowley says the FBI could have prevented 9-11, but refused to get a search warrant on one of the 9-11 terrorists.

• Bill Clinton refused to require driver’s licenses to expire at the time of expiring visas. If he had done this, one of the 9-11 terrorists would have been arrested or deported.
• The 1996 Clinton-Gore airline safety commission set the stage for 9-11.

    Knowledge is only useful when put to use. Rubio the liar is a pussy. He would do nothing useful.

    Memorizing a handful of talking points does not make one knowledgeable either.

You don’t reverse 8 years of Clinton being in office in 9 months.

“How Chinagate Led to 9/11
By: Jean Pearce | Tuesday, May 25, 2004

As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.

In April, staff writer Scott Wheeler reported that a senior U.S. government official and three other sources claimed that the 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick, who served as the Clinton Justice Department’s deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997, created “a roadblock” to the investigation of illegal Chinese donations to the Democratic National Committee. But the picture is much bigger than that. The Gorelick memo, which blocked intelligence agents from sharing information that could have halted the September 11 hijacking plot, was only the mortar in a much larger maze of bureaucratic walls whose creation Gorelick personally oversaw.

It’s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that Gorelick – now incredibly a member of that commission – has so far refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to the September 11 disaster.

Nearly from the moment Gorelick took office in the Clinton Justice Department, she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it under near-direct control of the White House. In the process, more than a dozen CIA and FBI investigations underway at the time got caught beneath the heel of the presidential boot, investigations that would ultimately reveal massive Chinese espionage as millions in illegal Chinese donations filled Democratic Party campaign coffers.

When Gorelick took office in 1994, the CIA was reeling from the news that a Russian spy had been found in CIA ranks, and Congress was hungry for a quick fix. A month after Gorelick was sworn in, Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office.

First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration. It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the time under direct administrative control. The job of the NCI was to “implement counterintelligence activities,” which meant that virtually everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent’s report to polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center that PDD 24 created.

NCI reported to an administration-appointed National Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with “discussing counterintelligence matters.” The NCOB in turn reported to a National Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board reported “directly” to the president through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA – which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence – and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.

And the woman charged with selling this plan to Congress, convincing the media and ultimately implementing much of it? Jamie Gorelick.”

“In the 1990s, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, a linchpin job in the Justice Department, she brought cases against Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheikh,” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and other terrorists. In 1998, long before 9/11, she filed a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden.”

Clinton obviously had better things to do.

“While the Bush Administration can be criticized for ignoring warnings that an attack like 9/11 might occur, it is the Clinton Administration which facilitated 9/11 by conducting a foreign policy that promoted the rise of radical Islam. As part of his pro-Muslim campaign in the former Yugoslavia, for example, Clinton pursued a controversial policy of approving the shipment of Iranian arms to Bosnian Muslims. The Clinton Administration was also allied with radical Islam when it waged a war on Serbia and ordered the CIA to assist the Kosovo Liberation Army, some of whose members were trained by bin Laden. That was 1999-two years before 9/11.

As we noted earlier, in a commentary entitled, “The 9/11 Conspiracy,” 9/11 was not the first time that the policy had backfired on the U.S. It was during the Clinton Administration that the Iranian-directed bombing of Khobar Towers occurred, and, according to former FBI director Louis Freeh, the Clinton national security apparatus worked long and hard to prevent the truth from coming out. Freeh wrote, “It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers.”

Berger would later plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified national security information from the National Archives on what the Clinton Administration did-or did not do-to prevent 9/11. Berger was desperate to cover something up.

Interestingly, Berger would later surface in an article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, “Talk to Tehran,” in which he advised that “diplomacy” with Iran, rather than military action, could produce a “breakthrough.” On January 14, 2005, the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, together with the American Iranian Council (AIC), had sponsored a symposium on “US-Iran Relations: A View from Tehran,” featuring the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif. Commentator Ken Timmerman would note that the involvement of the Open Society Institute in this event meant that Soros was helping Iran spread its propaganda. The event was held at the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York and the OSI is listed as an AIC sponsor.”