Thanks Jack,

I'll take the last Friday before election day, October 29th.

If I may be so bold, I'd also like to predict Osama will be dead as a door nail when they produce him!

Either way the DNA will be a match!!! By the way it'll be a skinny dead guy with a mondo beard!

I just have a feeling about October 28th... It may be cutting it close, but they'll have to make sure there's not enough time for too much scrutiny before the votes are in.

I can't believe I changed my registration to California to vote against Arnold.

Anyway -- my bet is on OBL capturing Musharraf on the October 13th.

However, news for the second half of October will be dominated by a series of public missteps by the Olsen Twins -- starting with their being caught sloshed at a frat party with fake IDs.

The Keystone Kopps... er, the Bushies will probably never capture OBL with only 20,000 troops in the country. All he has to do is hide out in the Taliban-dominated southeastern section of Afghanistan. They love OBL and will gladly hide him. Now, if Bush had sent into Afghanistan the number of troops he sent into Iraq, the odds of capturing OBL would be better. Not great, but better.

I like one week before the election, October 26th.

I'd say October 27. Bush's convention bounce didn't last very long. He'll need to have people voting while he's still got a good bounce going.

I'll go with November 1. The Bush Administration will try to produce OBL around the middle of October, but being the Bush Administration they will inevitably botch it up, and won't actually get him until early Nov.

I wanted October 25th, not because it is B!x's birthday but because it is right around a week before the election and it is a Monday which will be good for the news organizations. However, since B!x took it, I'll take Sunday the 24th which still gives the news organizations time to rev up for the week.

I'll pick October 8th, if for no reason than it's my birthday and I always get horrific news on my birthday...

Since everybody wants Monday Oct 25, and somebody else picked Oct 24, I'm having to go with my third choice.

My slightly altered prediction: Saturday Oct 23. It will give all the Sunday preachers some gold-standard material for their sermons, thus combining the religious right and the chicken hawks into one frothing cauldron of wing-nuttery right before the election. It'll be like a giant Get Out The Vote effort.

Why do the left often sound like a bunch of 7th graders talking one kid down?

i'll take Oct. 17th then...a Friday evening news cast when everyone is home from work including a whole weekend to tout his capture around before the work week starts again.

this is pretty cool: http://www.octobersurprise.net/poll.php

I'll take October 20. He'll be "dead". Then, if al-quaeda throws up something on a website or video showing him alive, the trick will be proof that the Bush itel corps have smoked him from his cave and are closing in on him now.

Poison, meet well. When a Democrat finally is in the White House again, which may be a while, I can't wait to hear the righteous outrage from the left when that President is accused by the right of compromising national security for political advantage. Those accusations will sound just as idiotic to you as these do to sensible people now.

Tereeesa Heinz Kerry must have read this thread. And she's being described as a whack job. I think she's just sickeningly cynical.

Oh, Brett. I thought you liked a sense of humor. Come on, don't you want to win a bottle of wine?

Was it funny when the right blamed Clinton's aspirin factory demolition on political expediency? Ha Ha. Were you sipping the merlot on that one?

The site is loaded with people getting the "knickers in a knot." I admit to not learning yet when it's politically correct to do so.

I don't think the post was meant seriously, and I don't take it seriously -- but it's certainly true that there are lots of people, especially in this town, that actually believe that Bush will produce an October surprise, or that he would if he could.

I know I've heard plenty of people, whom I would otherwise have considered intelligent, say that with a straight face. I don't have any problem with this tongue-in-cheek post -- but it's symptomatic of something darker.

john/k -- I'm not sure what you mean about Clinton. (Why do you post under different names, anyway?) I voted for Clinton twice.

Brett- I'm referring to the missles Clinton put into the Sudanese aspirin factory. The right called it "wag the dog" to divert attention from Monica. It was thought, by some, to have been done for political expediency. I'm drawing a parallel with the theory Bush will find Osama at a politically expedient time.

Regarding the posting names, I use 2 different computers. I'll drop the k usage.

I voted for Clinton once. But I'm not sure why that's important.

The right called it "wag the dog" to divert attention from Monica.

Was it OK for the right to say that? If not, how is it OK for the left and not for the right? I mention voting for Clinton because I wasn't part of "the right" then; I don't think I am now, either. Neither side seems attractive to me at the moment.

Don't you think that the fact that "otherwise intelligent people" are saying things like this "with a straight face" shows that this administration has proven that they are capable of just about anything?

No. I think it says a lot more about the people who are saying that than it does the administration. For some reason, you all think that another Bush presidency would be the end of the world. I still haven't figured out why.

Brett- I'm not being clear. I mentioned the aspirin factory because I didn't think it was appropriate for the right the imply Clinton's actions were suspect. I don't think it's correct for the left to say the same about Bush, especially for actions that haven't yet occurred. The post isn't serious. But it isn't funny either. It's just cynical.

bin who?

as for the poll, I would have chosen, "...US opens a new war front." It would, of course, be Iran...

and would probably require reinstituting the draft... and run our economy even deeper in the toilet... create more instability and misery worldwide...

btw, in 02 I do recall starting a similar "pool" on a mailing list for when the US would invade Iraq... I'd guessed three months, but it ended up closer to a year.

I think it's okay for anyone to say anything about the President, basically. I remember the "wag the dog" accusation that was made against Clinton, and I, as a Democrat who voted for him twice, didn't get the least bit angry. I think my reaction at the time was, "wow, do you think a politician would (or could) really do something like that?" When people suggest that Bush might produce Bin Laden before the election, I have the exact same reaction: "wow, do you think Bush would (or could) really do something like that?"

I think I have a healthy amount of cynicism about politicians of all political persuasions. I am also still optimistic and idealistic about them. There were reasons to be cynical about Clinton and there are reasons to be cynical about Bush. What's the big deal?

Something that I've noticed this election year is that a large number of Bush supporters seem to get personally offended by criticisms of Bush. They defend him vehemently against the smallest attack, even when those attacks come in the form of jokes or satire. I don't believe I have ever felt that way about a politician, so I don't quite understand it.

Bin Laden's dead. There is no body. Everyone knows it, and Karl Rove has no October surprise. That will be the surprise itself.

October 9th...It can't be too close to the election or it would look suspicious.

Also, I heart Bill Clinton, voted for him as many times as I could (once)...But, I thought that the bombing deal was a little weird right in the middle of Monicagate. Reflecting upon it now, though, it is not like they could shut down the executive branch because Clinton got some action.

Kari- Can you imagine the uproar if it became known that Bush declined to capture Bin Ladin when they found him - just because he feared it would look bad in the midst of an election?

Or Zawahri.

Man, I head away from the screen for a few days on a much-needed vacation, and I'm too late to get my dates.

I'll take Oct. 30, as it's about the only day left, and it's my 5th wedding anniversary, and blog-worthy events always happen on the days I can't blog them :)

Oh, wait, that did happen.

Of course it did. Because we all know that without Reagan's meddling, Carter surely would have sweet-talked the Iranians into letting our people go. It couldn't have been just that the Iranians were more afraid of Reagan than a guy who bravely fought off a killer rabbit.

A bit more recent evidence that politics supercedes national security:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it.

According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of U.S. casualties. Last week, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded two American civilians in Baghdad.

There you go Brett -- you've got the ad hominem argument down!

Oh, wait, that did happen.

Of course it did. Because we all know that without Reagan's meddling, Carter surely would have sweet-talked the Iranians into letting our people go. It couldn't have been just that the Iranians were more afraid of Reagan than a guy who bravely fought off a killer rabbit.

Posted by: brett | September 27, 2004 04:56 PM

There is nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- that would surprise me about this administration.

As Kerry called it during the primary, they are lying, corrupt and vicious.

But they are also incompetent.

I don't think they can get OBL...

I think that 4 days before the election we will have a breathless announcement that they have killed/captured Zarkhawi. With little time to have it verified.

I saw Osama last night. He appeared on television with Patty Murray. I know this is ridiculous but I really can't believe she said that.

I'll take the 19th if that's still around. I would take the 20th but, man, a lot of people are hot to trot with this bet!

"October 9th...It can't be too close to the election or it would look suspicious. ..."

Christy, since when has this administration ever seemed concerned about things looking suspicious?

Think about it: -Secret meetings to develop energy policy -Appointing oil execs like Rice and Cheney to cabinet -Having a truckful of 20,000 Florida ballots "disappear" for 8 hours on election night -Having the election hinge on his brother's state govt. officials -Offering Katherine Harris a White House job after she certified W. the winner -Discussing Iraq invasion immediately after taking office -Administration members serving as counsel to Swift Boat Vets for Truth

I'm tired, but I'm sure there are more instances of suspiciousness. Anybody?

<h1></h1>

Does a successful bet against the bet win the wine? I wager OBL is not produced, and if he isn't, what is won?

In succinct, the October surprise is there isn't one -- a surprise to influence vendors selling it on back order.

But in certain stalls have been certainly tempting wares. My favorites included Frank Rich's 'The Passion of Bush,' in Sunday's NY Times, (Oct.3 Arts), naming Oct. 5th as the "perfect storm" day of a cresting wave under Bush about to imperil his craft and presumably then, the last time he has to pull whatever rabbit out of his hat is going to save him, else be lost. Rich didn't explicitly get in this pool, he only gave an implication that Osama time looms in the close life-raft horizon.

And I liked Chaim Kupferberg's entry, ( http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP408A.html ): "According [to] Getman's writings, al-Queda ... attaches significant symbolic value to the dates of September 17 and October 6 (or possibly October 7 ...). October 6 is the date of the Sadat assassination (which has symbolic value, as many of the Egyptian operatives involved with the 1993 bomb plots were born out of the Sadat "op" - and then subsequently run as CIA assets in Afghanistan.) So I regard these dates as "danger" dates. But somehow, I find myself wondering if the Official Legend would have far more credibility if any follow-up attack occurred under Kerry's watch. In other words, maybe all this "pre-election attack" speculation by the government is similar to the "millennial attack" warnings that lulled us into complacency when they didn't materialize." Anyway it lists hard October numbers, despite that Kupferberg then seems to retract them in deferrence to a later, Kerry time. (I don't remember how much of Kupferberg's precursor material it is necessary to review at the globalresearch.ca site to gather the context in which his latest announcement is set. Where he talks dates, as cited, in terms of a 'follow-up attack' to time a shock intended to galvanize some popular folklore, it may not be readily apparent that he is gauging 'Osama time,' but he is.)

[n.b.: Breaking news reports an explosion in the Egyptian Sinai, on Oct. 8 there, (but Oct. 7 here -- is allowance for the moving dateline given in the betting pool?), and Kupferberg deserves half a point for right place / wrong time, and not that far wrong -- the 8th instead of the 6th, and that's impressive. I'd award him half a liter if he had put his mouth on the money line here.]

There were other date proposals I fetched. I made it clear at the beginning that in the end I reject every date in October under the 'October surprise' rubric. But I fancied some of the methodologies that got to October results. You might see why in this, from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) Campaign Desk:

<h2>Hidden Angle</h2>

The Dark Arts of Predictive Punditry

At this late date in the election season, Campaign Desk is as weary as the next person of conflicting poll results and predictive partisan punditry. So we were game to go along with The Boston Herald's Stephanie Schorow when she suggested, in a piece in the Herald's "Lifestyle" section today, that readers "forget those pesky polls."

"Here's what tried-and-true folklore says about the White House smackdown," Schorow continues, before presenting a scorecard-like look at what psychics, numerologists, urban legend, and comparative sales of Bush and Kerry Halloween masks at one Boston-area store might tell us about who will win the White House.

Schorow reports that one Boston astrologist "says the planets favor Bush," but added ominously "that the position of the planet Uranus indicates some messy scandal will be revealed either right before or after the election." As for Halloween mask sales, Schorow notes, Bush leads at Boston Costume. Also among the "tried and true folklore," Schorow slips in one Ray Fair, a Yale econometrics professor, whose "mathematical and statistical model" has accurately predicted the winner in five of the last six elections. And according to Fair's "folklore," Bush will win in a landslide, with 57.5 percent of the vote. (It seems safe to say that Kerry devotees are not going to find Fair fair.)

But the best line, to our mind, comes from a local psychic who -- although she admits to "getting signals" that point to a Kerry advantage -- reminds Schorow that "while some things are predestined, the free will of all the people involved in the election...makes an absolute prediction impossible."

Something that all pollsters, pundits (and reporters) would do well to remember from here on out.

-- L.C.B.

<hr/>

It declares "what tried-and-true folklore says about the White House smackdown," which puts it in the vein of 'October surprise' but it states no dates, only "either right before or after the election," for a "messy scandal," which an Osama production might or might not fit with. Notice that the voice this specific is "one Boston astrologist." (Their word for themselves is 'astrologer'.) Some might say it is curious an astrologer can spot a telling interval close around election day but not locate it in front or behind, before or after.

And then there are all the dates dibsed on here and all over the popular media. If days are waves rolling past us in sets of seven, and sevens of seven, and so on, looking at the tops of the waves and counting froth markings is one way to pick one to ride. I try to add what I can tell in looking through the waves, underneath, where longrunning tidal cycles also pull up or down on the surface for events.

Here's what I see. There is a crisis breaking, alright. But it looks like Sunday, Nov. 7, which is supposed to be after the election. However, who knows how long the election status might go unsettled? It seems as though producing Osama isn't the point of it. (For that matter, what useful point is there for OBL time coming before the election? Once, maybe, finding his whereabouts meant victory, and then, what? the war's over the troops come home? If the posse don't come home how is that supposed to earn votes for Sheriff Dubya pursuing him? Is progress toward safety from terrorists at all affected in Osama either way -- we get him or we don't? Nah, he's not the point anymore.)

No, it's not Osama time. The point of Nov. 7 seems to be to test our commitment to election results. It's a crisis. Does the next president handle it or the present one? That depends on the popular consensus of what those two presidents' names are. First to mind is thinking the present president is Dubya and the next president is Kerry. There may be no consensus on what either of those names is by the time Nov. 7 gets here. Whatever that day brings, it looks pretty hairy. The front whiskers start on Friday, Nov.5, then the fur flies Nov. 7, before dawn PDX time, then the tail sticks all the way out to Wed.,Nov. 10, which is the most action packed of all, and it looks like Fri.,Nov.12 when the hide is finally stretched out to dry on the wall, where the moving hand writs, and having writ, moves on.

Yes, I see what one 'Boston astrologist' means where "planets favor Bush," on the surface. Underneath: not so. Completely sidelong, the forceful flows take him carried away. It is unclear that anyone cares.

What is this hairy event a week after the election? That question has danger in the answer, danger in the cause of the event and danger in the effect of the event. Perhaps the reliable standard to keep most in mind then is that what the cable TV spin presents is a lie and what the internet spam presents is true. A preview of the answer, in microcosm, appears soon, Wed., Oct. 13 -- pick it out of that day's news.

It might be better to look forward to Jan.20, Inauguration Day, which looks to be the beginning of a new cycle for Kerry. It looks like Mount St. Helens finally erupts in early February, which is a bitter and killing month, a dark before the dawn. Finally, a late spring, and the (northern hemisphere) world begins in fresh.

For now, relax, enjoy October free of surprises, but full of tricks and treats. As Kerry rises day by day, elation should be kept in balance with vigilance over what's being brought down. Animalism, being cornered and repressed, is erratically powerful.

So that's my pick: Nov. 7, for the election surprise. And it ain't Osama. (He's in Africa, btw, not Pakistan. Think about it. There's no oil in Pakistan. However, America might be, see below.) How's the wine? Where's mine? (Btw, this year's wine harvest, 2004 vintage, is a loss.)

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=841

War : The REP/DEM Invasion plans

[full article deleted. copyright violation. -ed.]