At least Bush is consistent.
At a White House press briefing, March 13, 2002:
“As I say, we haven’t heard much from [bin Laden]. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
In a Washington Post interview last week:
The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?
Bush: Because he’s hiding.
The Post: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?
Bush: We’re on the hunt.
The Post: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?
Bush: Yes.
The amazing thing is Bush’s unwillingness to elaborate. In response to almost every question, in almost every interview, Bush uses a question to filibuster and repeat carefully-crafted talking points ad neaseum. The more he goes on, the fewer questions he has to endure. It’s a clever little technique his handlers have come up with.
But when the discussion turns to the terrorist who orchestrated the murder of 3,000 Americans, Bush, all of a sudden, has very little to say.
It’s too bad our “accountability moment” has passed, isn’t it?