Back when Rudy Guiliani said there were no attacks on Bush's watch I said it wasn't a mistake. I said it was an attempt to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. After all, if there were no attacks during Bush's watch, that big attack called 9/11 that happened sometime around the turn of the century. The voters are getting younger and younger and yes, the day will come when a large proportion of voters don't know the exact year 9/11 happened. But when they're watching Fox News, or sadly even the so called "liberal media" and somebody says there were no attacks on Bush's watch what are they to think? But it's not only the "no attacks on Bush's watch" that are attempts to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. "Bush kept us safe" also implies that the largest terrorist attack in the history of the United States didn't happen on his watch. And as for "only one attack under Bush" statement, voters who don't remember 9/11, and don't remember the exact year, when they hear "only one attack" and they've been hearing over and over and over again that Bush kept us safe, they're going to assume that it was some small rinky dink attack. They're certainly not going to think "that must have been 9/11"