Apology for the truth?

Seems to me that if there was another attack on US soil during the Republican's watch (as on 9/11), that would mean that Bush and company aren't doing their job of "keeping us safe".  So how would that be good for McCain's campaign?  Just wondering. 

Bobrinker,

Here's another view, subtle, perhaps.  Nuanced, maybe.  But pertinent.

Currently, McCain's #'s are a bit behind Obama's depending oh whose poll you believe.  Unless you are a "TRUE CONSERVATIVE," in which case polls mean nothing.  The implication being that it would take another attack for McCain to have more of a chance to surge ahead of Obama.  Unfortunately, it took some one a bit of time to realise the implications of the original statement & the possible harm it could do to McCain & the Republican party.

Now you can take that explanation on its own merit or combine it the explanation Sunflower gave.  Both are valid, I would think.  There is one other aspect that from which even the Bush administration has shied.  It's a two parter. 

Part one.  At first, the Bush administration began to proudly proclaim that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the six months post 9-11.  But some people started to put 2 & 2 together & figured out that yes, there was.  The anthrax scare.  They also put another 2 & 2 together & figured out that there wasn't an attack in the six months PRIOR to 9-11 either.  Big woof.  Spotlight on Bush, tail between legs & EXIT, stage right.  So much for administration bragging rights.

Part two.  When the above proved to be a complete failure, the Bush administration started saying that we haven't been attacked since the starting actions in Afghanistan & Iraq.  More people started to see the trend of Administration gobbledy gook & decided to put their old friends, 2 & 2 together again & came up with a real BS killer.  Case in point, Bush was desparately trying to justify his policies, or lack of them, by convincing us that because of him, his actions & his administration, nothing happened.  Think about it.  Go ahead, take your time.  Not to worry, this won't be on the test.

Using the same twisted logic, he would have us believe that because of him, the North did not invade the South.  Why?  Because it didn't happen.  Because of him, the planet has not been invaded by Klingons.  Why?  Because it didn't happen.  Another part of the problem, perhaps a larger part, is that there are a considerable amount of people who either are not capable or refuse to put that 2 & 2 together & read the BS meter.  Once again, spotlight on Bush, tail between legs & EXIT, stage left, this time.

It's not a very closely guarded secret that Bush is not exactly the brightest bulb on the marquee.  One look at the people he picked behind the scenes would confirm that. 

As far as apologising, maybe that was just CYA policy.  As far as offending any one, I would refer to one of my past blogs.  My policy is as stated:  If there was no actual harm &/or actual damage, I don't care if one is offended or not.  Live with & move along Douglas.  In other words, they have to "show me the money," before I apologise. Have a great day.  JATFUR.

RichK