Note that ? could mean he’s dead, he’s injured, or he is using this as a chance to relocate to a tropical isle and drink fruity rum drinks without the rum (he’s pretty devout in his religion, which bans alcohol).

Or maybe he forgot to pay the phone bill and can’t fax his latest screed to the media.

Wherever he is or isn’t, it’s Bush’s fault we don’t have his hide tacked to the wall. Bush took his eye off the ball, so now we’re reduced to opining as to Bin Laden’s location/health/intentions/actions/lack of same.

I blame Jing George.

Ed

So, no tape = Bad Bush

 Yes tape = Bad Bush

No Frank, it so much simpler than that: as long as Bin Laden is at large, it’s Bad Bush.

But since you insist on taking it a step further: as long as Bin Laden is at large and his name is used (or not used) selectively and strategically by the Administration, then it’s also Bad Bush.

Actually, it appears that Bush did bring him recently; a shorter version of this speech:

“Al Quaeda determined to strike in the U.S.”

I’d say he’s 4 years too late with that bit of wisdom.

Of course, if he had made a tape, that would have reminded you that Bush hadn’t caught him yet.

So, no tape = Bad Bush

“Yes” tape = Bad Bush

Wait, that can’t be right… ?

I predict that, come 2006, Bush and the rest of the Republicans will dust off the ol’ OBL tapes and whip up a fresh batch of fear mongering and gay baiting to scare the bigots and rednecks out to the polls.