If terrorists are still on the loose getting ready to blow up airliners, why is the President partying?

Wouldn't you think that at a time of crisis, the President should be in Washington, DC, instead of partying and raking in the campaign cash for Republicans?

Last night I was watching some of a BBC News broadcast on C-Span and then Anderson Cooper on CNN. The BBC News broadcast was noteworthy primarily for a) the lack of botox in the face of the obviously-over-40 female newes anchor; and b) the coverage of the skepticism about the threat as a result of previous Chicken Little calls in Britain. Cooper's coverage was noteworthy because of his giving of airtime to an Islamic expert who insisted that the reason for this terrorist threat is not that "they hate our freedom", but that they hate our foreign policy. Not that this subversive notion completely counteracted the "TERROR IN THE SKIES!!!!" graphics and ominous music and advertisements for an upcoming special about Osama Bin Laden, but it was something.

Speaking of which, why IS Osama Bin Laden still out there, anyway? It's because it's clear that George W. Bush really doesn't "spend that much time on him...to be honest with you" -- as evidenced by his hearty partying in Crawford:

The Republican Party's big spenders were rewarded with a barbecue lunch with President Bush on Friday at a $750,000 fundraiser at a ranch neighboring the president's Texas home.

The fundraiser was closed to the public and the press, but the Republican National Committee reported that the attendees included 350 people who have each raised at least $15,000 for the party this cycle.

Nice. Real nice. I know that this gives me SO much faith in the president's concern for the safety of the American people.