In the article I link, note the use of the "Selective Interview" trick.

In any group of hundreds of people--relatives of 9/11 victims, military veterans, or any other large category--I can find an opinion that matches exactly what I want to say. I guarantee you there are at least some relatives of 9/11 victims who think Bush walks on water, and if I was cherry-picking interviewees I could have written a different article. The article grudgingly quotes one such person.

After quoting two or three such people, the headline often reads something like, "Relatives of 9/11 Victims Think Bush Sucks." "Veterans support Kerry." Or some other generalization of specific cases. This implies that most or all of them agree with the author of the article, which is of course not backed up by the article, unless it contains an actual survey (rare.)

Watch for this trick.

Such as, the title of your post?

Here, btw, is the AP article on the topic.

Now - here's one of those rare occasions where we agree on principle:

To assume our judgment of the Bush administration can be somehow divorced from the attack on America, and how Bush dealt with it, is ridiculous.

The Republicans can and should talk about 9/11, and how Bush did the right thing after we were attacked.

The Democrats can and should talk about 9/11, and how Bush did the wrong things after we were attacked.

Fine.

But to put the subject off-limits, or to imply that it is wrong or insensitive to remind Americans what happened and what Bush did at the time, is inane. It would be like Roosevelt running against Dewey without talking about Pearl Harbor, and what Roosevelt had done about it afterwards.

The Waving of the Bloody Shirt was to expected - so is the reaction to it. The Bush campaign's real problem, a.f.a.i.c., is that 9/11/01 - and what his administration has permitted to be known about his handling thereof - is the only leg he has to stand on.