 |
|
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Is Bush Wired?
What are you wearing tonight?
A former Special Forces officer of my acquaintance who served in Iraq during the first Gulf War says that the photos of Bush's back are not body armor. Bush often appears in shirtsleeves at public rallies with no visible bulges. Think about it: If you were George Bush, what would you fear more, going into a debate with John Kerry without body armor -- or without your prompter? Take a look at this device.
Postscript to the Debate: Oh, whatever was there for the first debate has been moved to a more secure location. But the coverup is not persuasive: The New York Times reports (Oct 9) that the White House first said that the pictures of the bulge might have been "doctored." When that didn't fly, campaign communications director Nicolle Devinish told the Times that the bulge was "most likely a rumpling...or a wrinkle in the fabric." White House and campaign officials also told the newspaper that Bush was not wearing a bulletproof jacket in the first debate, that there was nothing under his jacket, and that he wore no receiver.
What's the frequency, Karl?
[Editor's Note: Several readers suggested that the site reads better with our initial October 5 post remaining at the top. We made the change, but until we figure out how to effect it on the template, date stamps on subsequent posts will be inaccurate.]
***
New as of Friday p.m: mediachannel.org reports Bush campaign media director Mark McKinnon denied that the president has received "audio signals." Salon posted a story early Friday.
***
This site is a clearinghouse for discussion of whether President Bush uses an earpiece through which he's fed lines and cues by offstage advisers. His speech rhythms suggest this, as do some of his word choices and interjections, and his constantly shifting eye movements while speaking. And there's another form of evidence: Television viewers have sometimes heard another voice speaking Bush's words before he says them. When Bush spoke at D-Day ceremonies in France last June, for example, viewers watching on CNN, Fox and MSNBC, including mediachannel.org's Danny Schechter, were startled to hear another voice speaking Bush's words as if to prompt him. Some said this continued into a q & a. And on the night of 9/11, when Bush appeared on television to address the nation, viewers of one television station in Quincy, Massachusetts heard another voice speaking, slowly and carefully, a few words at a time -- words which were then recited by the president. The voice was nondescript, male, definitely not the president's voice, says Quincy resident Robyn Miller. This went on for at least four sentences, she says, and then the "extra" feed was cut off. [Postscript: A poster to IsBushWired comments that she heard the prompter for Bush's 9/11 address on a New York station: "I was watching ABC in NYC. I had no cable and I could only get ABC from my antenna at that time (the only station that transmitters on the Empire State instead of WTC). I definitely heard the prompter. I posted about it at the time at Salon."]
Reporters should have looked into this long ago. But for the past four years through Bush's first debate last week with John Kerry -- and even in the days after the debate -- the press has ignored the evidence of its eyes and ears, and failed to ask whether the president secretly relies on unseen handlers for some public events, including press conferences. If Bush wore a hidden earpiece to cheat in this way during his first debate with John Kerry (however unsuccessfully), it is urgent that the fraud be exposed before the election.
The agreement set by the debate commission barred shots of the candidates from the rear of the stage. (It also specified only hardwired podium microphones for the first debate, i.e. no lapel mics.) The networks refused to comply with the camera angle rules, broadcasting occasional shots of the candidates from behind. The images here are from the Fox video pool feed.
Many viewers thus saw a squarish bulge the size of a large battery pack under the back of Bush's suit jacket, with an S-shaped cord appearing to snake up the right side of his back. Several blogs have carried speculation that it was an audio receiver.
A poster to NYCIndymedia says, "Think 'passive transducer' earpiece." He writes, "The bulges under his jacket are likely receiver/repeaters that pick up the transmitter (and encrypted?) signals from his handlers and transmit them, at very low power, to the earpiece."
"Sure, Bush uses an earpiece sometimes," a top Washington editor for Reuters said to me last spring. "State of the Union -- he had an earpiece for that. Everybody knows it," he said, or assumes it. But everybody doesn't know it, I said. Why hadn't Reuters investigated? The editor shrugged and said it wasn't so different from using a teleprompter.
Except that a teleprompter isn't a secret. And Americans have the right to know if the president can't or won't speak in public without covert assistance.
Television hosts and news anchors wear earpieces, called IFBs (for internal [or interruptible] foldback, or feedback) which fit in the ear canal and are almost invisibly small, to receive cues from their producers. (Language scientists say that "shadowing," repeating the words someone else is speaking, is not at all difficult, but it is difficult not to move your eyes when listening.) Television journalists would be likely to spot the use of an IFB or at least to suspect it. So, why haven't they raised the question? I suspect it's untouchable in part because asking the question now points up all the years they let go by without asking it.
But these are the questions that must be asked now, by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and journalists: Does the president use an earpiece in his meetings with the public and with journalists? Did he wear one in last week's debate? How can members of the public who suspect he wore an earpiece be assured that he will not do so in the next debate? What was the object underneath his jacket?
--Ed.
Email tips and information to isbushwired@gmail.com
Postscript, Friday a.m: Salon just posted a story in which the debate commission confirms the candidates were not equipped with wireless mics, and that it doesn't know what the object on Bush's back was.
MORE LINKS:
The suspicions of Veritas were aroused by a moment in Bush's December 2003 news conference. Here is an excerpt from his post :
Q I know you said there will be a time for politics. But you've also said you wanted to change the tone in Washington. Howard Dean recently seemed to muse aloud whether you had advance knowledge of 9/11. Do you agree or disagree with the RNC that this kind of rhetoric borders on political hate speech?
THE PRESIDENT: There's time for politics. There's time for politics, and I -- it's an absurd insinuation.
- White House Press Conference, Dec. 15
A funny thing happened at the December 15th presidential press conference. Asked to comment on an earlier statement by Howard Dean regarding his alleged foreknowledge of 9/11, Bush stumbles about the stage, clearly caught off guard by the question, then delivers the line: "It's an absurd asinuation."
...it could not be more clear that Bush was provided the words with which to answer. At first, Bush stumbles about, repeating his previous line that "there's a time for politics." During this time, he's avoiding eye contact, shrugging, and delaying. Then, the answer is given to him, presumably through a wireless ear piece. Bush then suddenly delivers his line that "it's an absurd asinuation." The suddenness of his reply, after having been speechless, the smile in his eyes when he's given the correct answer, and his incorrect pronunciation of the word "insinuation" all lead to [the] conclusion that he was prompted to provide this answer.
More images below: The first is an AFP photo taken in July at a press event at a Michigan airport, where Bush spoke about six judicial nominees.. The debate images are from the Fox video pool feed.
Posted at 05:12 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Posted at 10:36 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Everyone Agrees - Bush Lost It
Pundits agree: BUSH WAS ANGRY! by thirdparty at Kos
Fri Oct 8th, 2004 at 23:40:18 PST
( From the diaries -- kos)
Andrew Sullivan: "There were moments early on... when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness."
Ron Forunier, AP: "As he fought to keep his emotions in check in a testy, personal debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president asserted 'That answer almost made me scowl.'... Several answers brought Bush's emotions to the surface, for better or worse, as he sought to curb Kerry's momentum.... Bush was the most aggressive, at one point overrunning moderator Charles Gibson's attempt to pose a question.."
David Niven, political science professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton (from the above article):"Bush seemed wound a bit too tight. He was a little like Nixon sort of jumping out of his suit... He looked bad on the TV close-ups.""
Jonah Goldberg, National Review: "WHY DOES BUSH... Sound like he's angry at the guy asking about making drugs cheaper?
UPDATED with more:
Paul Begala, CNN: "Good debate. The press will say it's a draw, but I think Kerry bested Bush -- or rather Bush made a few errors. Two words for President Bush: anger management. He spent much of the debate nearly yelling at the audience."
John Whitesides, Reuters: "An angry Bush at one point cut off moderator Charles Gibson to upbraid Kerry for criticising the size of the coalition backing the United States in Iraq, saying it denigrated allies like Britain and Poland."
Beth Gorham, CBC News: "It all added up to a major challenge for the president, who appeared angry and defensive during attacks from Kerry in a tense sparring match on Sept. 30 that was watched by some 62 million Americans."
Oliver Willis: "BUSH FLIPS OUT: Click here to watch your President flip out of his gourd. I've never seen anything like it.
Billmon (back from the dead): "If Kerry and the Dems can't make an issue out of the fact that the president of the United States is utterly incapable of controlling his hairtrigger temper, they don't deserve to win this election... I mean, the man is a walking time bomb."
UPDATED again:
David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com: "BUSH MAD, KERRY COMPOSED... Though Mr. Bush was more composed than in last week's first presidential debate, all agreed his tone was sometimes antagonistic and he again appeared uncomfortable being challenged. Kerry, on the other hand, was viewed as measured and articulate. " ---
Posted at 10:18 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
|
| Our Civil Liberties Are at Stake This November |
|
Please help us get our "Wrecking Ball" ad out there.
This campaign needs $275,000 to run ads in the states that matter most.
We are doing everything possible in these last days before the election to make sure voters in battleground states realize the impact their vote for President will have on the future of the Supreme Court!
Can you Help?
Click here to donate. |
ELECTION 2004 25 DAYS AWAY
Dear Friends:
Although Election Day is 25 short days away, early voting has already begun in many states.
We need your help in our final push to Election Day to get the message out.
Four more years, or, 40 more years? Vote to protect a Supreme Court that will protect you.
With the election sure to be extremely close, it's critically important we reach as many voters as possible. We need your help.
Let's do whatever it takes to spread the word: This November, vote like your rights depend on it. They do.
Our efforts are working - let's continue the push! People For the American Way experts and activists have been talking to journalists nationwide about the future of the Court. This Tuesday, the ultra-conservative Washington Times proclaimed in a headline that the election would be a "Rare Chance to Tip the Court," and a USA Today headline read, "Ballots May Tip Bench." Our volunteers and activists are distributing thousands of reports, leaflets, posters, and buttons on the future of the Supreme Court to voters nationwide.
Threats To Civil Liberties
Your vote for President in November will help determine the fate of free speech and other civil liberties, especially in the post-9/11 era, for the next 40 years or more.
-
Two more justices voting with Scalia and Thomas would have reversed the Court's 2004 decision that detainees at Guantanamo can present claims challenging their indefinite detention in federal court. Justice Thomas would even have upheld indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on American soil without any rights.
-
Justice Scalia has stated that most of our rights "go way beyond what the Constitution requires," and has chillingly suggested that in wartime, it can be expected that rights will be "ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum." A Scalia-Thomas majority would also restrict freedom of artistic _expression.
Click here to read more about threats to civil liberties
Let's ensure the Court will defend our constitutional rights.
Voters may have different views on these specific issues, but it's clear that the next President will help determine our free speech rights and other civil liberties for decades by his appointments to the Supreme Court. Urge your friends and neighbors to think carefully about the Supreme Court when they vote in November.
Vote like your rights depend on it. They do. |
|
Posted at 10:16 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Friday, October 08, 2004
Bush flips out - loses it
Bush Flips Out
Submitted by Oliver Willis on Sat, 10/09/2004 - 12:17am.
Click here to watch your President flip out of his gourd. I've never seen anything like it.
Posted at 11:02 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Two presidential debates and two clear wins. John Kerry is going to be the next president of the United States, and more people know it now than just two short hours ago.
Tonight, George Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people. Again he failed.
- Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq.
- Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care.
- Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist.
- Again, he refused to level with the American people.
George Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it.
John Kerry held George Bush accountable for the failures of the last four years. He demonstrated the strength and character we need in a president. He made it clear he could lead as commander in chief.
John Kerry offered real solutions to real problems. He told America the truth, and offered a plan for a fresh start on the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror. Simply put, he was presidential. Ironically, the president was not.
Posted at 10:51 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Bush DOES own a timber company
Ah shucks, he is full of shit:
...Timber company? News to him?
President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.
Thanks Atrios
Posted at 07:30 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Every time he gets more defensive, he talks LOUDER.
But he sure is likeable as he looks you in the eyes and lies through his teeth. Bush is so out of touch with reality it would be funny if it were a movie instead of our country.
Bush is losing big. Kerry has proven that last Thursday wasn't a fluke. Kerry is twice the man Bush could ever imagine in his alternate reality. Kerry has passed the Presidential test, anyone who is says Bush did well tonight is probably on his payroll.
Kerry 2, Bush 0.
Posted at 07:06 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
On Monday evening, you have a chance to see an unprecedented musical and political event that will never be repeated again. Some of the most talented American musicians of the last 20 years will share the stage at the Vote for Change grand finale concert -- Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Bonnie Raitt, R.E.M., Jackson Browne, the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, and Dave Matthews Band among others. MoveOn PAC is presenting this amazing tour (proceeds go to ACT), and people nation-wide are hosting house parties where MoveOn members can watch together.
At these parties, we'll gather strength for the final push and get some important work done. At the parties, we'll each handwrite a few letters to swing state voters -- an integral part of our Leave No Voter Behind field program.
Will you join us for this historic event? Attend a house party near you, or host one, by clicking here:
http://action.moveonpac.org/vfc/
There won't be a DVD or a television re-run -- this is your only chance to see these musicians perform together. The concert will air Monday evening on the Sundance Channel. If you have more than 60 cable channels or a satellite dish, you have Sundance, and we hope you'll consider hosting a party. Not all of our members have Sundance, but they really want to see this concert.
Before the show, we'll hold a special nationwide conference call to hear a message from Bruce Springsteen and other musicians. If you're going to host a party, you'll need a speakerphone or, better, a computer with speakers and high-speed cable or DSL Internet. If you don't have this, you can team up with a friend or neighbor. If you'll be a guest, we'll ask you to bring snacks or help clean up afterwards.
As we enjoy the music, we'll each write a few personal letters to voters in swing states who are undecided or unsure they'll make it to the polls. All the research shows the best way to motivate someone is to invest time in a personal contact. This increases people's commitment to vote. Handwritten letters are a powerful way to share why this election matters so much to us.
Monday's show will be politically potent, and it will also be a seminal moment in the history of rock and roll. Rock speaks to the heart and soul of American ideals. You won't get another chance to hear America's most respected musicians as they call upon our noblest dreams. An election concert like this has never happened before, and we hope the MoveOn community can be part of it.
Would you like to attend a house party and join one of the most exciting events of this election?
http://action.moveonpac.org/vfc/
We hope you'll be there on Monday!
Sincerely,
--Adam, Eli, Hannah, James, Laura, and the whole MoveOn PAC Team
Friday, October 8th, 2004
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC www.moveonpac.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
On Monday evening, come see an unprecedented event that will never be repeated again -- Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Bonnie Raitt, R.E.M., Jackson Browne, and others will share the stage at the Vote for Change grand finale concert. We're holding house parties across the country to watch the concert together.
Sign Up
If no one in your area has Sundance, the concert can be viewed online. The concert will also air on many radio stations. For the details, click here.
Today we’re also launching a great new web ad directed by Woody Harrelson as part of our 10 Weeks countdown. The ad shows how Vice President Cheney let companies like Halliburton make huge profits off the war. Watch it now.
Posted at 11:14 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
CHENEY MISLEADS ON SMALL BUSINESS TAXES
During Tuesday's debate Vice President Cheney claimed that
John Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for individuals
making over $200,000 would negatively impact nearly a million
small businesses. Cheney said that, "about 900,000 small
businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want
to do with the top bracket."[1] The figure Cheney cited is
highly misleading.
Under Cheney's definition a small business is any taxpayer
who reports some income - even just $1 - from a small
business investment or partnership. By this logic, "every
partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm
would represent small businesses."[2] Also, by Cheney's
definition, President Bush would have counted as a small business
in 2001 because that year "he reported $84 of business
income from his part ownership of a timber-growing
enterprise."[3] The overwhelming majority of actual small businesses
are in the lower tax brackets and would be unaffected by the
Kerry proposal.[4]
Sources:
1. "Remarks of Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards in
Vice Presidential Debate," The White House, 10/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2131193&l=61356.
2. "Misleading Assertions Cover Iraq War and Voting
Records," Washington Post, 10/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2131193&l=61357.
3. "Are Bush and Cheney "Small Businesses?" Their Ad Counts
Them As Such," FactCheck.org, 10/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2131193&l=61358.
4. Ibid,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2131193&l=61358.
Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration
distortion.
Posted at 11:12 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
