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)

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep