Rubio Clarifies Whether He Thinks Bill Clinton Is Responsible For 9/11 – TPM


Mike Schilling

Mike has been a software engineer far longer than he would like to admit. He has strong opinions on baseball, software, science fiction, comedy, contract bridge, and European history, any of which he's willing to share with almost no prompting whatsoever.

Related Post Roulette

23 Responses

  1. Avatar Stillwater says:

    “So, are you blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11?”

    “No, I’m blaming 9/11 on Bill’s decision to not take out Bin Laden when he had a chance.”

    “So, you’re blaming Bill Clinton…”

    “No, damnit. I’m not!!”Report

  2. Avatar greginak says:

    “So Mr. Rubio you are criticizing all those republicans who said Clinton’s various missile attacks were just Wag the Dog style evasions? All those Republicans were wrong?”Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird says:

    There’s this thing called “false guilt”. “If only I had taken him out for ice cream for his birthday, he wouldn’t have been driving two weeks later to get some ice cream and he wouldn’t have been hit by a truck!” That sort of thing. Playing the “if only” game.

    It’s not really healthier to externalize it.

    (Though, sure, stuff like “if only he and I hadn’t been texting while he was driving, he wouldn’t have gotten in an accident” might be true… but the question is whether taking Osama out qualifies as a going out for ice cream kinda responsibility or a texting while driving kinda one. It’s not obvious that it’s the latter.)Report

  4. I originally titled this What I Tell You Three Times is True, but that was apparently deemed too snarky.Report

  5. Avatar Zac says:

    Yeah, this seems like bizarre logic. I mean, yes, it is trivially true that had Clinton taken out bin Laden back then, 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened. But couldn’t you also say, for example, that if the first Bush hadn’t stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War, bin Laden wouldn’t necessarily have directed his wrath at the United States? Or that if the CIA under Reagan had never funneled all that cash and weaponry to the mujahideen in the ’80s, it might not have set in motion the chain of events that so radicalized bin Laden? Or that if the Western powers hadn’t tried to so thoroughly colonize and exploit the former Ottoman territories, we might never have seen the kinds of violent religious fundamentalist arise in response in the first place? Or…? Or…? Or…? You can go on and on with this kind of thing. The point is that nobody actually employs this kind of logic in an honest fashion. This is just something people say to win, or at least not lose.Report

  6. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    I think I may be the only one here who doesn’t have a problem with this. I think you can look back and point out places in history where if you did X then Y might not have transpired in the exact way that it did, and not be saying say that the person who did not do X is therefor to blame for Y.

    If Clinton doesn’t sign into law several bills that dismantle certain financial regulation, the 2008 crisis likely does not happen the way that it did. This does not mean that I blame Clinton for the financial crisis.

    If Obama removes all embassy staff in Benghazi prior to the attack, then no Americans die there in the fall of 2008. This does not mean I blame Obama for those attacks.

    If Dred Scott of John Brown do not transgress the laws they do, 1860 likely does not see a Civil War. This does not mean that I blame Dred Scott or John Brown for the Civil War.Report

  7. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    Had a butterfly not flapped its wings in the rainforest, monkeys might not have learned to handle guns.

    Damn you butterflies!

    Damn you all to hell!Report