Republicans' brilliant new line of defense: Baffle the bejesus out of everyone

Republican hypocrisy is too vast, too deep, too pathetically spavined and thus too characteristic of Republicanism itself to make much of the Republican outcry over Donald Trump's straightforward remark yesterday, that 9/11 occurred when George W. Bush "was president." On that last point, we are somewhat agreed. Like many artificially empowered athletes in the record books, George W. comes with an asterisk: Yes, he was president, but he wasn't elected president. Anyway, moving on to the less contestable, Trump added that "the World Trade Center came down during his reign."

As I recall Republicanesque history, 9/11 actually occurred on Bill Clinton's watch. It was the 42nd president who failed to keep us safe, for the Bush administration had merely inherited the inevitable outcome of Democratic weakness. It's that sort of political chutzpah that shames even the rankest of revisionist historians; no creative scholar has yet to match the sheer, mindbending depravity of that particular defense.

After the intellectual abomination of the Bush era, it was no large feat, then, for Republicans to hypocritically leap to cancelling Christmas in 2009, when the young Obama administration failed to prevent the "Underwear Bomber" from killing no one. You no doubt recall the horrified Republican howls: How could President Obama let this happen? After that, Obama "lost" Bush's paradisiacal Iraq, created ISIS, permitted his secretary of state to wantonly murder Americans in Libya, and in general exposed us to more Clintonesque 9/11s. Oh for the safety of Republican vigilance.

But then came Republican Donald Trump and his re-revisionism, the cad. He insisted on what we all first suspected: that 9/11 indeed occurred on Bush's watch. Well, I need not tell you how startling was Trump's history. After all, Brother Jeb had just recently reminded us that George kept us safe. What foul manner of mental trickery, from Trump, was this? For answers, I have consulted two pseudointellectual pseudoconservative sites.

The Daily Caller cites 2004 testimony to the 9/11 commission. Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton asked counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke: Assuming that we had flown reconnaissance missions in Afghanistan and aided the Northern Alliance, "assuming that that had all been adopted [in early] 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?" "No," responded Clarke. Pursued Gorton: "There was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else’s part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?" Said Clarke, "That's right."

Now you might very well be asking yourself: Just what in God's name does that testimony have to do with the Bush administration's failure to "connect the dots" — such as the massive blotch of an imminent Qaeda attack presented to President Bush* by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice — as to what was happening here, in the fall of 2001? You'll need to ask the Daily Caller. I haven't a clue.

RedState.com was, as always, even more bewildering. "Donald Trump let his crazy mask slip just a bit too much on camera Friday," writes one of RedState's diarists. "Trump [said] that the Twin Towers came down during Bush’s 'reign.' Nota bene, Mr. Trump: in republics we call them 'terms.'" Has this diarist ever listened to Republican talk radio? Obama doesn't "reign" — he leads a "regime." This, from the diarist, was even better: "Any presidential candidate who makes that kind of charge in 2015" — that is, that the Twin Towers came down when Bush was in the White House — "is well aware of what he’s saying. Trump was appealing to the conspiracy theorists that form his most ardent support not to flee as his poll numbers plummet." Say what? Trump's "charge" that the September 2001 attack occurred in September 2001 was an appeal to conspiracy theorists? I'm reluctant to ponder the RedState diarist's observation for long. I might catch whatever the diarist has.

All of which is to say, Republicans have transcended their once-unimaginable apex of political hypocrisy. They are, instead, substituting utter incoherence. It's a brilliant tactic. No one can really counterattack their "arguments," because no one has any idea as to what in the fuck they're arguing.

***

Update!

RedState's diarist, Loren Heal, responds:

Mr. Heal describes himself, in his Twitter account, as a former Marine, a "Constitutionalist," and an "Awful Christian." From his writing, I can see why he doesn't include "Writer," but he sure nails that awful Christian bit.    

Yours,

commie