As usual, the president doesn't answer

In today's Washington Post Dana Millbank write that the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg

asked Bush to be philosophical about bin Laden. "What do you think your own reaction would have been five years ago had you been told that toward the end of your term he would still be at large with that kind of capability, from Iraq no less?"

The answer went back to another restatement of the threat. "We are under threat," the president said. "Now some may say, 'Well, he's just saying that, you know, to get people to pay attention to him, or try to scare them for some reason.' You know, I would hope our world hadn't become so cynical that they don't take the threats of al-Qaeda seriously, because they're real."

This is not an answer in any meaningful sense of the word.

Question: What would you have said five years ago if you had been told bin Laden would still be at large and dangerous?
Answer: We're under threat. I'm not just trying to scare you! Don't be cynical - take al-Qaeda seriously.

What? That's what he would have said five years ago?

This should have been reported as "The president did not answer."