I found myself chatting with Ryan just now over the real Bush legacy and what seems to be getting bantered around by supporters on the matter. One thing we really noticed was that at some point, you’re going to find someone saying something like the following:

You have to give Bush credit. Thanks to him, after 9/11 there wasn’t another terrorist attack on American soil.

The idea, I guess, is that every president is allowed a mulligan, so we have to be proud of Bush because after the first time his administration completely dropped the ball and let a few thousand Americans die in an inferno plus the hundreds (thousands, maybe?) of rescue workers who have permanent health problems as a result of working in the wreckage, by God he made sure he didn’t do that again, no sir.

There’s been an odd duality that went on concerning 9/11, the time since, and how much involvement Bush had at any point on this timeline. The basic message tended to be if something bad happened, Bush couldn’t do anything about it, and if something good happened, thank Bush for it.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, everyone blamed Clinton for not doing enough to eliminate al Qaeda. No one applied this to the 1993 WTC bombings and Bush Sr, but I digress. Roughly eight months into Bush’s presidency, a terrorist attack on American soil wasn’t his fault, and the lack of terrorist attacks since are his credit. The implication is that it takes some amount of time before the “are terrorists killing us” question can be controlled by the president. I’m wondering if we’ll have until September before any attacks in 2009 will be Obama’s fault.

Then there’s the fact that by Bush’s own (tacit) admission, terrorists haven’t really been trying to attack us. Oh sure, Bush trumped out a little handful of supposed foiled attacks, amongst them an attack on a building in Los Angeles that he misidentified and that the mayor of LA was completely in the dark about, or the Miami 7 who were “planning” on blowing up the Sears Tower despite lacking materials, transportation, or any idea what they were doing. The pathetic nature of the attacks he “prevented” tells us that nothing more serious ever came down the pike.

I could spend some time now yammering about why there aren’t many attacks, but let’s examine the “reformations” put in place after 9/11. A few new federal agencies, restructuring of the already existing ones, a color coded threat-level indicator, stricter security, illegal wiretapping, two wars. Even many who disagree with the Iraq invasion agree that some amount of these new measures were necessary. The war’s greatest supporters argue that they were all necessary.

We’re left with a big question, then: weren’t they necessary before 9/11? Everyone likes to act like the world was different before the towers fell, but the reality is it wasn’t. All that happened was on that day we had a massive failure of leadership. Maybe until that day the right didn’t believe in the dangers of terrorism. Al Franken in Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them spent a lot of time detailing how, despite the warnings heaped upon him by the outgoing Clinton administration and even his own team, Bush failed to take the terrorism threat seriously. At least until after he saw what happens.

We can tie Katrina in as well. Now, naturally, the blame doesn’t entirely lie at Bush’s feet. That said, we saw hilariousy cronyism, Bush partying while New Orleans drowned rather than, y’know, being in Washington to organize relief, and a complete lack of attention paid during the early meetings (video even showed Brownie warning that the levees could be topped if the storms kept up).

Afterwards? When the storms started up just prior to the Republican National Convention, suddenly Bush was taking things very seriously. Even before the storm hit land, whereupon it ultimately fizzled out, we saw the president with a new sense of urgency, showing up on TV and warning of the upcoming storm, the GOP considered suspending their convention, FEMA was all over the place.

In both instances, we found our president completely disregarding upcoming threats, claiming “no one could predict” when they hit, and then playing the part of the courageous leader afterwards. After, y’know, the country had already been ravaged by the first disaster he did absolutely nothing to prevent.

When the history books are truly written, we find that presidents who completely protected their country are likely unappreciated by the people at the time. When the years go by and the gates remain secure, people may become placid, believing that they are under no threat at all. Years down the road, we find out that the enemies were just outside our doors and our leader kept us safe, then we appreciate the work he’s done.

On the flipside, a leader who lets an attack slip through and then makes a big show of appearing brave may be hailed as a fearless protector, but when the final verdict is laid down it cannot be ignored that he let his country down. Bush claims history will vindicate him, but seems hell-bent on proclaiming his greatness to the country now all through a transparent “humble down-home country boy” veneer.

You can say he’s a great leader because there hasn’t been “another” 9/11, but you cannot pass over the fact that there was “a” 9/11. Maybe he did restructure everything to keep us safe, but he did it after ignoring the threat entirely and 3,000 Americans died. A great president is not one who waits to be attacked, who waits for disaster before taking decisive action. A great president is one who recognizes threats before they come and prevents them.

That’s what we’ll find in the history books. Not Bush’s “strength” in preventing “another” 9/11, but his weakness in preventing 9/11 in the first place.