I'm George Bush, and I approve of making you pay for my party.

On January 16, 2005, Washington Post reporters Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei interviewed the President aboard Air Force One. They asked Bush about the $11.9 million non-reimbursement for Washington D.C.

The Post: Why should D.C., which is a top terrorist threat, why should they have to spend $12 million from their budget -- from their homeland security budget they get from the federal government -- to provide security for the inauguration?

THE PRESIDENT: The inauguration is a high-profile event, like a lot of other events that, unfortunately, in the world in which we live, could be an attractive target for terrorists. And by providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington and eat the food in Washington. We've got people coming from all around the country, and I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible.

Well, that's just great, George. You stated the bloody obvious without really answering the question. Then again, the reporters did a poor job of asking the question. The question should have said something about the long-term homeland security projects that D.C. must forego in order to pay for a three-day party. See, George, while the Inauguration is a high-profile event, D.C. will remain as a high-profile target for terrorists long after the Inauguration is over, and that $11.9 million could have helped make D.C. safer for longer than one week. Another question should have been "Is there any other way to pay for those costs, and if not, why not?"

UPDATE: In today's (January 18) Washington Post, Dan Froomkin has a concise analysis of Bush's response:

Bush didn't explain why Washington D.C. is having to spend $12 million from its homeland security budget to provide security for the inauguration, simply saying that he was in favor of the event being secure. That's a nonanswer.