President Bush is speaking to the press from the Rose Garden at the White House. New York Times Reporter Jim Rutenberg brought up yesterday's report from the White House that bin Laden had planned to set up a terrorist unit in Iraq to strike U.S. outside Iraq. Rutenberg asked "What would you have said five years ago if someone had told you that near the end of your term, bin Laden would still be at large and able to carry out orders . . . in Iraq no less."
To which Bush basically responded that Rutenberg must've not read the report thoroughly. No one said bin Laden was successful with his Iraq goals; only that he had PLANNED his Iraq goals. And, as Bush pointed out, all three of the al Qaeda ringleaders specifically mentioned in the declassified documents (particularly al Zarqawi) are now DEAD, as a result of U.S. combat operations. And bin Laden's plan was thwarted. Why is it that people do not understand that even if bin Laden is not captured -- and it would be great if he could be and will be great when he is -- that doesn't mean that great advances are not being made to defeat terrorism?
Rutenberg's brilliant response was, "Why is bin Laden still at large?"
Bush puts NYT reporter in his place!
