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)

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep