There is a logical fallacy that is called, roughly, "after the thing, therefore because of the thing." Aristotle first identified it, I believe, so that gives it some legs; and Miss Pfeifer taught it to my fourth grade class back in Canton, Ohio. She would have pointed at that example of no terrorist attacks since 9/11, and she would have looked at how that was being credited to current government policy, and she would have done a fair amount of laughing.
She would have asked me if I'd bought a lucky rabbit's foot on September 12, and I would have said, "No, Ma'am," and she would have said, "Well, pretend you did."
With Miss Pfeiffer, you didn't want to fool around, so I would have changed my statement very quickly. "Yes, Ma'am, I guess," is what I would have said, and you could have put money on it.
"Now aren't you powerful?" she would have said. "Because of you, there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11."
"You got as much proof as that Balladeer fella," she would have said, "with his funny talk about the administration being responsible for all that safety. Just because one thing comes after another, doesn't mean that was the cause. Just because Nobody's blown up something here in the U.S. while the Republicans have been getting people to step out of their shoes at the airports doesn't mean that's why nothing's been blown up. It could have been your rabbit's foot or your daddy's new job. It could be they think it's funny watching what Bush is doing to the country's constitution. That's more damage than they could ever do by blowing up a building.
"Probably no connection either way, but you can't say," that's what Miss Pfeifer would say. "Because that Balladeer fella's spouting another of them logical fallacies. Probably thinks nobody'll notice that what do you call it."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, I think it was, yessir. I'm almost sure of it. Or something like that.