You call it
Today's quiz: When will the United States announce that it has captured or killed Osama bin Laden?
A. Between now and Fourth of July.B. Between Fourth of July and Labor Day.
C. Between Labor Day and Columbus Day.
D. Between Columbus Day and the election.
E. None of the above.
| Posted at 4:26 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (19)
They already have him, but the announcement will be made during the 'd' range.
Posted by alan | February 24, 2004 5:50 AM
My gut says 'A'.
But my brain says 'D'.
Posted by Scott | February 24, 2004 6:00 AM
A challenge:
Jack, are you insinuating that we have him and that we are hiding that fact or are you saying that we're going to ramp up the effort to get him?
Posted by Klug | February 24, 2004 6:55 AM
I say "B". Since W. Bush is going to run a flag-waving "you're not a patriot unless you vote for me" campaign, it would only be fitting that an announcement be made during that time period.
Posted by Jason | February 24, 2004 7:19 AM
I think I'll dare to be different and say C. But it could be D also...
Posted by Claire | February 24, 2004 9:12 AM
E: They will announce it when it's true. Your implication is unwarranted. Take off the tinfoil hat.
Posted by brett | February 24, 2004 10:10 AM
E. Between Halloween and Election Day.
[Just two days for those you not near a calendar.]
Posted by Worldwide Pablo | February 24, 2004 10:11 AM
I would normally say that no one would be so stupid as to pull a "d.", but the Republicans have never been known for their sublety...
I vote actually for "e." because I think he's already dead, corpse location unknown.
Posted by Gordo | February 24, 2004 11:22 AM
When the hell is Columbus Day?! Give us some calendar dates to work with here.....
Posted by pdxkona | February 24, 2004 1:05 PM
I'm voting for C, with D as my backup.
Posted by betsy | February 24, 2004 1:44 PM
Late enough to influence the election but not early enough to clinch it and kill the fundraising.
Posted by Dave Lister | February 24, 2004 2:21 PM
"D," another October surprise. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, just as long as the truth is delayed until after the election.
Posted by Conrad | February 24, 2004 4:10 PM
I guess all good,liberal democrats hope we don't find him.Better for the election.Tell that to the good men and women of the Fire Department of New York.
While you are at it, give a medal to the lawbreaking mayor of San Francisco.
Posted by brother gary | February 25, 2004 4:27 AM
Salient points Bro. Gary. It is very hard to type an wipe the tears from my eyes when I think of those brave sweaty firemen.
Thank you for staying on topic and bringing up the root cause of terrorism----Homos!
How about a wall around San Fransissyco to keep those terrorists from crossing into our territory and making a land grab?
Posted by Stash | February 25, 2004 5:10 AM
Politicians and judges who rewrite laws seem to be favored by Democrats. I work in a job like they do. You take an oath to follow the law, not change it. You can demonstrate, pressure your legislators, and change laws through the system. The mayor of San Francisco is deciding that he is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Where does a mayor get that power?
Other reasons to hate San Francisco ?
They eat sprouts, cheer for that soon to be indicted cheater Barry Bonds and charge $35.00 to park at Fisherman's Wharf.
Posted by brother gary | February 25, 2004 8:46 AM
Brother Gary,
As responsible citizens of a democracy, don't you think it's our moral imperative to challenge laws we think are immoral? And besides that, the mayor of SF believes he IS following the law--the Constitutional law stating that discrimination is illegal even if it's codified in some locality.
What you're suggesting is following all laws at all costs and never questioning the wisdom of our forebears. Do you remember that there was a time when blacks counted as less than a whole person and couldn't vote? By your logic, they still would be and still couldn't.
Posted by Bryan Beel | February 25, 2004 8:55 AM
When the mayor decides that drunken drivers or gun toters deserve "equal protection", can he ignore those laws ?
If the mayor wants to reinterpret election laws under a claim of equal protection, can he extend terms of office ?
It is a slippery slope that you cross when you decide what laws have to be followed and which ones can be ignored. There is a lack of moral clarity present, which benefits no one.
Try explaining to you kids what laws you can ignore and which ones you have to follow.
Posted by brother gary | February 25, 2004 9:23 AM
While I fail to see the connection between capturing Bin-Laden and the situation is SF, I still think that what the mayor of SF is doing is wrong. As much as I think the law is stupid, he can't just ignore it. As brother gary suggests, there are other legal ways to do it in the system. As for the law, I tend to be on the conservative side of things, but I just don't get Right wingers obsession with the "sanctity of marraige" Since half of all hetero marraiges end in divorce, how is that protecting sanctity? And Bush's foolishness with a "contitutional ban on gay marraige" is the topper. Even if I agreed with him on the issue, you can't just change the constitution for such a narrowly focused issue.
Posted by Steve | February 25, 2004 12:05 PM
The last day of the Democratic National Convention - August 17th.
Posted by TimC | February 26, 2004 12:47 PM