War on Osama bin Laden: Low Priority Requiring Only Defensive Measures

President Bush’s excuse for attacking Iraq (where Osama bin Laden was not) goes something like this. Why play defense when one can run a good offense? Of course, Bush’s offense reminds me of Wrong Way Riegels. It’s sort of like running over the cheerleaders on the sidelines because one is too afraid of the linebackers in front of you.

But check out Faiz who brings us Fred Barnes on Fox News:

HOST: Alright Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the President, right? And he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one?
BARNES: Well, he said, look, you can send 100,000 special forces, that’s the figure he used, to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and hunt him down, but he just said that’s not a top priority use of American resources. His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people, to get tips, to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur. That’s what happened recently in that case of the planes that were to be blown up by terrorists, we think coming from England, and that’s the top priority. He says, you know, getting Osama bin Laden is a low priority compared to that.

That sounds like a defensive strategy to me. In other words, President Bush is afraid to play offense when he comes to Osama bin Laden.

: In his Weekly Standard column, Fred Barnes has a lot more to say including:

Bush said the price of gasoline, which has been falling rapidly, is one of the “interesting indicators” that the press should watch carefully. “Just giving you a heads up,” he added.

Dan Froomkin wonders:

Does Bush have some insider information about gas prices, which appear to be conveniently dropping just in time for the mid-term election?

I have to wonder if the Iranians are pumping more oil so as to keep the incompetents fully in control for another two years (hat tip to AB reader wfeather who is in no way responsible for my speculation here).