"There have been no attacks on our nation since 9/11"

Lots of folks are using this statement as basis for saying that history will judge Bush more favorably than we may think.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose this is sound logic -- that since there were no further attacks on American soil after 9/11, history will judge Bush favorably.

But the thing is, there was 9/11 itself. That happened on the Bush watch. It ranks with Pearl Harbor as one of the most devastating attacks by a foreign enemy on American soil. So if it is so great for the Bush legacy that there were no attacks since 9/11, then isn't it a terrible blight on the Bush presidency that there was 9/11 itself? After all, most American presidencies saw no foreign attacks on American soil. By the logic of the original quoted statement, all these other presidents will be judged more favorably than Bush. So, once again, Bush comes in at or near the bottom.

Saying that no further attacks after 9/11 on American soil is a sign of quality in Bush is like saying that God is with you if a tornado strikes your town but leaves a few buildings unscathed. It's just rhetoric.

Here's a secret message from one Republican to all others: stop treating me like I'm stupid. I can tell a lousy argument when I see one. Get your act together and lay some policy groundwork that makes sense. Then I might bring my vote back to you. Maybe. But I'm pretty pissed off right now.