In these waning days of the Bush Presidency, there is much discussion about what President Bush did wrong (too numerous to count) and what he did right (short, debatable list) during his presidency. The most oft trotted out defense of the Bush boosters (a rare breed indeed) is "well, you have to admit, at least he's kept us safe since 9/11." Except that there are two important problems with this idea.
1) "He's kept us safe since 9/11" - So, he gets a pass for NOT defending us before or on 9/11? Is this some kind of Presidential mulligan? He took office promising to keep America and its Constitution safe from harm - which on 9/11 and thereafter he failed miserably on both counts. Why is not held responsible for not keeping America safe during his *entire* Presidency? Anyone remember "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America"??
2) You can't prove a negative - or the absence of proof is not proof of absence. Or something like that. What I'm trying to say is that these Bush defenders could just as easily say "But at least Bush has kept us safe from attacks from outer-space aliens since 9/11." Or "At least Bush has prevented Hitler from being cloned into a legion of the Peruvian army." Just because there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, that does not mean Bush prevented them (or that plots for these non-existent attacks existed at all). I'm not saying that law enforcement agencies, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the border patrol forces and the armed forces (etc.) have not been diligent or that security is up, but what are these supposed foiled plots from which we've been kept safe? Those shmucks in Florida? Or the pizza delivery guys in New Jersey? Really? Or is Bush being given credit he does not deserve for things that he did not do?