Obama has kept us safer than Bush did: A memo to moderate republicans

The Republican idea of success:

With 9/11 four days behind us it surprises me that no one has made what seems to me a fairly obvious point: Barack Obama has already protected this country better than President Bush did in a very measurable way... four days better. That means that everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, or claimed to reelect Bush for national security reasons, now has to vote for Obama by their own logic.

Let's look at the reasoning that was largely behind Bush's second campaign, and his reelection. Premise #1: If the single biggest terrorist attack on American soil happens while you're President... it's not your fault. This has to be one of the premises behind the logic that got Bush reelected. Certainly if people held him accountable for the deaths on 9/11 (which I'm not saying he should be) they wouldn't have voted for him. On a side note, I think people should know that as many people were killed from the increase in car travel, as opposed to air travel, that was generated by 9/11. So in reality, the death toll of 9/11 is at least twice that of those killed in the World Trade Center. Premise #2: Despite premise #1, the President is responsible for every terrorist attack that does not happen on American soil, i.e. the President gets credit for every day America goes terrorist-attack-free. Premise #3: If we then start a long, unprofitable war with another country on faulty intel, that too is not the President's fault. Obviously these premises make no sense, but it is indisputable that these were at the heart of any pro-Bush argument. Simply saying, "Bush kept us safe," which was a ubiquitous statement when he was running for reelection, requires all three premises.

“It takes a liberal to suggest or to say directly that liberating 53,000,000 people is a war crime. It takes liberals to say that keeping this nation safe from another horrific attack by terrorists amounts to a war crime.”
Tammy Bruce, O’Reilly Factor, January 27, 2009

If we apply these premises to Obama what we find is that, not only has he kept us safer for longer than Bush did, but we can still have one major terrorist attack on U.S. soil and he can start a long and unprofitable war on faulty intel, and one could still say, "Obama kept us safer than Bush." Do I think this is a ridiculous outcome? Yes. It cannot be that the President is only responsible for protecting us... when there aren't any terrorist attacks, but once we have an attack his responsibility resets; and the President cannot claim to keep us safe when he sends our brothers and sisters to die based on information that someone gathered off of a bathroom stall wall. The truth is obvious, the President is responsible for any attacks that happen on American soil, we just weren't allowed to say it because in Republican-America saying anything anti-Bush was unpatriotic and made you a terrorist sympathizer.

Although the logic that reelected Bush was poor, this logic is undeniable. 1. No major terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil while Obama has been President. 2. Obama has started no wars on faulty intel. If you're a "national security" republican, it's hard for me to see the logic in voting for anyone else in 2012. And since I know someone is going to say it, even if he is a "tax and spend liberal trying to socialize medicine," how many Americans have lost their lives because of him? Comparing the issues of healthcare and stimulus to 9/11 is an insult to those who gave and lost their lives on that day. Democrats protested a war in Bush's America, what the hell are Republicans protesting at their omnipresent "Tea Parties?" Higher taxes? Whose taxes have been raised? Government spending? Don't remember them complaining when Bush was President. Socialized healthcare? Ok, maybe. So I guess that means that they think providing all Americans with healthcare so that we aren't, as Russell Brand said, "letting people die in the streets," is as reprehensible an act as sending our bravest Americans to die for a lie. So I guess the real question is for the so-called "moderate Republicans..." what the f^ck are you thinking? You're on a sinking pirate ship, and you're sticking with the pirates.