Sorry, but, yes, you did. An ad hominem implies a personal attack. Claiming that Bush is part of a group of dangerous men with accompanying documentation is hardly an ad hominem.
It's a reference to the person(al), Neil. You're implying (and I mean that in the strict construction of logic and grammar) that Bush is *not only
* stupid *but also
* dangerous. Therefore, your opening comments are not a defense of Bush, but an attack.
This discussion is getting tiresome, and rehashing old debates.
Translation: "Uh oh... the thin facade of "defence of Bush" isn't holding up, no matter how dumb I thought the readers were