Since Donald Trump insinuated that George W. Bush was partially to blame for the 9/11 attack, there’s been quite a lot of talk within the media over who is or isn’t to blame. Though this really all started during the second GOP presidential debate when Jeb Bush insisted that his brother “kept us safe.” Quite the strange claim considering nearly 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001 during his brother’s presidency. I’m not really sure how you can claim he “kept us safe” when that many people died on his watch, and he had intelligence about an attack beforehand.
And it’s rather subjective how “safe” we are thanks to Bush considering his Iraq war destabilized the Middle East, which led to the creation of ISIS – quite possibly the most dangerous terrorist group the world has ever seen.
But while there have been plenty of asinine comments concerning this whole thing, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio might have topped all their idiocy when he put the blame for the 9/11 attack on Bill Clinton – and his reasoning behind it is even more absurd.
Via Right Wing Watch:
Trump’s attack on Bush was “wrong,” Rubio said, because “the truth is that George W. Bush inherited all sorts of things from the Clinton administration, including intelligence agencies and others who were not doing a very good job and were siloing off and not sharing information across agencies, including a government under President Clinton that had not taken seriously al Qaeda and the threat that they posed, even after the USS Cole, even after the first Trade Center bombings, and all of the other challenges that we faced around world.”
“President Bush was only in office nine months when this happened,” Rubio continued, omitting the fact that the Bush administration ignored al Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks, “but that plot to conduct 9/11 and the steps that it took to bring it about, those began well before he was even sworn into office. It happened under the watch of President Clinton.” (Source)
Notice how he never once mentions that the Bush administration was given intel about the attack beforehand? And his assertion that he was “only in office nine months” is absurd.
First, nine months is the better part of a year – which is just about 25 percent of an entire term as president. It doesn’t “take time” to be handed CIA intelligence and react to information pertaining to a potential terrorist attack. The moment he was given that intelligence, his administration could have began acting on it. Security measures could have been put in place and Americans could have been alerted of the potential threat. But they didn’t do any of that.
To blame Bill Clinton – but not Bush – is laughable. If you’re going to fault the perceived inaction by Clinton, than you have to do the exact same thing for Bush. It wasn’t as if Bush was doing anything to address terrorism prior to 9/11.
Then I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t point out the irony of Rubio saying Bush hadn’t been in office long enough to blame him for the attack – despite the fact Republicans were essentially blaming President Obama for the economy the moment he took office. An economy, by the way, that was left in shambles by the Bush administration.
But the bottom line is, the only people to blame for the 9/11 attack are the terrorists who carried it out. There’s no way of knowing for sure if there was anything any president could have done to actually prevent what happened. This back and forth over “who’s to blame” nonsense is just more of the same childish behavior that’s becoming the norm among Republicans.