In a November 19 "analysis" of President Bush's current political standing, Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker asserted that “Bush ... does better when he has a foil to play off of,” and specifically named Osama bin Laden, among others, as an example of a past Bush “foil.” The article continued: “Through much of 2005 and 2006, as he cratered politically, Bush had no particularly prominent rival to contrast with.” In fact, if bin Laden is no longer a Bush “foil,” it is not because of any success on Bush's part in capturing him.

While bin Laden has remained at large since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has released numerous videotapes since then, Bush has, at different times, highlighted bin Laden as a priority, and at other times, downplayed his significance. In March 2002, when asked if he “believe[d] that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive,” Bush answered that “Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. 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. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.”

In November 2002, after an audiotape allegedly from bin Laden became public, Bush was asked at a news conference: "[I]s bin Laden alive? And whether or not he is, does the recording signal the potential for an imminent terrorist attack?" Bush did not specifically mention bin Laden in his reply, but said that the contents of the tape “should remind all of America, and remind our friends and allies, that there is an active enemy that continues to hate, is willing to use murder as a way to achieve their goals.” He continued: “Whoever put this tape out has put the world on notice yet again that we're at war, and that we need to take these messages very seriously, and we will. ... And we'll take them seriously abroad by continuing our hunt. We'll chase these people down, one at a time. It doesn't matter how long it takes, we'll find them and bring them to justice.”

More recently, as Media Matters for America noted, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes reported in his September 13, 2006, column that Bush had told him that capturing bin Laden is not, in Barnes' words, “a paramount goal of the war on terror.” On the September 14 edition of Fox News Live, Barnes reiterated that Bush had said sending U.S. Special Forces into “the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan” to capture bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

Moreover, Bush has made seemingly contradictory statements about whether he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan to capture or kill bin Laden without the permission of the country's government. At a September 15, 2006, press conference, Bush said the United States would not send troops into Pakistan to hunt for bin Laden unless it was “invited” to do so, because Pakistan is a “sovereign nation.” Around the time of that press conference, Bush also made repeated pledges that he would bring bin Laden to justice, and, during a September 20, 2006, interview on CNN, said that he "[a]bsolutely" would order U.S. troops into Pakistan to capture bin Laden.

The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland," concluded that Al Qaeda “has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.” As Media Matters noted, in a July 18 article on the NIE, The New York Times reported that "[i]n identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region." In that article, reporters Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger also wrote that the Bush administration had “reluctantly endorsed” the deal. They further reported that “the accord seems to have unraveled.”

From the November 19 Washington Post article headlined “For Bush, Advances But Not Approval”:

Bush, like other presidents, does better when he has a foil to play off of, whether an international enemy such as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, or a domestic political adversary such as Al Gore and Sen. John F. Kerry. Through much of 2005 and 2006, as he cratered politically, Bush had no particularly prominent rival to contrast with. But now he has the Democrats, who took over Congress in January and have provided him ammunition as their poll numbers fall.