Did Bush Have an Earpiece During First Debate?!?

[RBS]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lge/index.html

[patricia]

If Mr Bush had an earpiece [like those mindreader/psychics who seemingly are clairvoyant], it didn't do him a helluva lot of good. He seemed to be relying on the audience understanding that being President is "hard work". If there was somebody coaching him to say that, they should be commended for their doing a "superb job" and then told to resign, for personal reasons, much as I believe George Tenet was.

[Underhound]

I know it sounds like a loony conspiracy theory but I gotta say it wouldn't surprise me.


Check out the mysterious bulge. Remember the awkward pauses.

From the article:
Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican Convention on the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't doing that at their convention."

[Gentle Giant]

That tiny thing spotted in Bush's ear was in fact his brain becoming dislodged in a vain attempt to deliver a single truthful answer.

[Root Doctor]

I think the bulge is explained by an old joke: "You're supposed to put the potato in the front of your pants."

[Slurpy]

He had a tape loop running: The complete Idiot's Guide to Debating.

[crawjo]

Damn, if somebody was feeding him answers for that debate, that person needs to be fired, now.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Damn, if somebody was feeding him answers for that debate, that person needs to be fired, now.

I don't think that his answers hurt him, damaging as they were, as did his body language.
You can't modify natural reactions, with an earpiece, or with anything else of which I'm aware, including instructions through an earpiece. In fact, if this debate were using the same format, Mr Bush, having been told of his negative body language, would be so intent on correcting them, that he might even have done worse this time.
Mr Bush reminded me of my little brother, when he was about four, when he was caught in an uncomfortable situation. He would do exactly what Mr Bush did, squirm and squint. My brother still does that and it looks as though Mr Bush does too. I thought that that alone was very revealing, during the first debate.

[Chris D]

Black helicopter stuff aside, it probably was a bullet-proof vest. Not a bad thing for a president to have in his wardrobe.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Black helicopter stuff aside, it probably was a bullet-proof vest. Not a bad thing for a president to have in his wardrobe.

Did Mr Kerry have a similar lump on his back? If he did, the bullet-proof vest theory might make sense. I didn't think that Mr Bush's chest looked any bigger. Wouldn't it have, if he was wearing a bullet-proof vest??

[lynn]

I don't subscribe to Salon, but here is the article someone sent to me.

Bush's mystery bulge
The rumor is flying around the globe. Was the president wired during the first debate?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff

Oct. 8, 2004 | Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?

Bloggers are burning up their keyboards with speculation. Check out the president's peculiar behavior during the debate, they say. On several occasions, the president simply stopped speaking for an uncomfortably long time and stared ahead with an odd expression on his face. Was he listening to someone helping him with his response to a question? Even weirder was the president's strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he said, "As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh -- Let me finish -- The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at." It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared "Let me finish." The green warning light was lit, signaling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish.

Hot on the conspiracy trail, I tried to track down the source of the photo. None of the Bush-is-wired bloggers, however, seemed to know where the photo came from. Was it possible the bulge had been Photoshopped onto Bush's back by a lone conspiracy buff? It turns out that all of the video of the debate was recorded and sent out by Fox News, the pool broadcaster for the event. Fox sent feeds from multiple cameras to the other networks, which did their own on-air presentations and editing.

To watch the debate again, I ventured to the Web site of the most sober network I could think of: C-SPAN. And sure enough, at minute 23 on the video of the debate, you can clearly see the bulge between the president's shoulder blades.

Bloggers stoke the conspiracy with the claim that the Bush administration insisted on a condition that no cameras be placed behind the candidates. An official for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which set up the lecterns and microphones on the Miami stage, said the condition was indeed real, the result of negotiations by both campaigns. Yet that didn't stop Fox from setting up cameras behind Bush and Kerry. The official said that "microphones were mounted on lecterns, and the commission put no electronic devices on the president or Senator Kerry." When asked about the bulge on Bush's back, the official said, "I don't know what that was."

So what was it? Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert and the owner of the Spy Store, a high-tech surveillance shop in Spokane, Wash., looked at the Bush image on his computer monitor. "There's certainly something on his back, and it appears to be electronic," he said. McKenna said that, given its shape, the bulge could be the inductor portion of a two-way push-to-talk system. McKenna noted that such a system makes use of a tiny microchip-based earplug radio that is pushed way down into the ear canal, where it is virtually invisible. He also said a weak signal could be scrambled and be undetected by another broadcaster.

Mystery-bulge bloggers argue that the president may have begun using such technology earlier in his term. Because Bush is famously prone to malapropisms and reportedly dyslexic, which could make successful use of a teleprompter problematic, they say the president and his handlers may have turned to a technique often used by television reporters on remote stand-ups. A reporter tapes a story and, while on camera, plays it back into an earpiece, repeating lines just after hearing them, managing to sound spontaneous and error free.

Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican Convention on the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't doing that at their convention."

Repeated calls to the White House and the Bush national campaign office over a period of three days, inquiring about what the president may have been wearing on his back during the debate, and whether he had used an audio device at other events, went unreturned. So far the Kerry campaign is staying clear of this story. When called for a comment, a press officer at the Democratic National Committee claimed on Tuesday that it was "the first time" they'd ever heard of the issue. A spokeswoman at the press office of Kerry headquarters refused to permit me to talk with anyone in the campaign's research office. Several other requests for comment to the Kerry campaign's press office went unanswered.

As for whether we really do have a Milli Vanilli president, the answer at this point has to be, God only knows.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

[Uli]

Originally Posted by lynn

Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them.

Oh, I had missed that. How did this not make the frontpage?

"Uh, ya need some wood?" heheheh.

[Gordon B]

Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine'

(2004-10-11) -- A forensic scientist studying photographic evidence has identified an object which caused a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during his first debate with John Forbes Kerry.

"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry."

Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features."

When asked about the new evidence, Mr. Kerry said, "I had a spine when I defended this country as a young man, and I will have one again when I defend her as president of the United States."
by Scott Ott

[Ron Thorne]

As if we don't already have enough Blogs, here's yet another one ... isbushwired.com. Amazing.

Could this be the device ol' Shrub is using, with Karl Rove whispering sweet nothings to him?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

As if we don't already have enough Blogs, here's yet another one ... isbushwired.com. Amazing.

Could this be the device ol' Shrub is using, with Karl Rove whispering sweet nothings to him?

Accessed the link, Ron and it's "temperarily unavailable". Either I'm not the only one trying to reach it, or it's been taken off. Interesting.

[Ron Thorne]

Try again, Patricia. I just accessed it moments ago with no problem. I think they've been hammered by visitors.

[lynn]

Keep trying patricia. I got in and that is some interesting reading. :-)

[crawjo]

So maybe here's what happened. Disgusted by Clinton's two-term presidency, a group of powerful Republican backers searches for a candidate to take back the White House in 2000. They settle on the son of an ex-president, personally likeable and malleable to their interests. They get him to run for the governor of Texas, after 6 years in that office, they push him into the Republican nomination.

The candidate is not very bright, but they write his speeches and use the latest technology to feed him answers during tough interviews or debates. After he is elected to the presidency, they tell him who to put in his cabinet and what policies to pursue. Occasionally, they even let him venture out on his own and speak extemporaneously, but after a few screw-ups they reign him in for the really important speeches and debates. Through experience, the candidate doesn't require that every answer be fed to him (because like other politicians he tends to stick to the same talking points time after time), but in case he ever gets stuck or trapped, the voice on the other end is there to supply him with an answer.

Seems pretty simple to me. It would make a good movie.

[patricia]

Thanks guys. On my way.


BTW, Crawjo, how is your scenario different from what Bush's handlers have actually done??

I'm serious. How is that different??

ooooooooooooooooooo

OK. I accessed the site and something occurred to me, that I hadn't thought of until just now.
I was watching the first debate with somebody and they said, "Why do Mr Bush's answers seem slightly out-of-sync? You would think that these days that wouldn't happen in a live broadcast". I didn't think anything of it and the coverage on CNN did not show the angle of Mr Bush that the lump is clearly visible. Weird and troubling.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

BTW, Crawjo, how is your scenario different from what Bush's handlers have actually done??

I never said it was different. To me, that clearly looks like an electronic device in Bush's back. I think he WAS being fed answers during the debate.

[crawjo]

If true, the Bush group might just be ahead of their time. After all, politics today are all about image, and sound bites. In the current climate, it makes perfect sense to try to feed a candidate answers through an earpiece.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

If true, the Bush group might just be ahead of their time. After all, politics today are all about image, and sound bites. In the current climate, it makes perfect sense to try to feed a candidate answers through an earpiece.

Sorry. [ref to your earlier post] I misunderstood you, but that is exactly what I've been thinking for years about Mr Bush. I thought that when you ended with "that would make a good movie", that you were debunking the whole notion.

If politics today are all smoke and mirrors, then that is truly frightening. A chimp could be President, with almost the same effort that Mr Bush has given to the office he holds.

[crawjo]

It would make for a good movie, but that doesn't mean it couldn't also happen in real life.

But really, does it matter? We know what Bush's policies are, what sort of president he is. Does it matter if it all comes from him or if it's really the work of his handlers? It seems to me that with the way politics are now, this idea could be the future. After all, I'm sure that during the debates, strategists for both sides are practically bursting at the seams with every exchange, because they know EXACTLY what their candidate should be saying. It doesn't take a big leap to go from that to actually TELLING the candidate what to say through a hidden electronic device.

Nonetheless, I stand by my initial post in this thread. If this is true, then the person who was feeding Bush answers for that debate needs to be fired. Because Bush's answers, even if you only look at the substance and not his manner, were pretty uninspiring and unoriginal.

[Bluebrew]

I don't know if he had an ear piece but he was using his regular mouthpiece. The "Rove 2004 wide bore" model. Maybe he should have used a Berg Larsen.

[patricia]

Can't argue with any of that. Very depressing. It makes you wonder if we are actually living in a world in which there must be constant war. War, declared by those who will never be asked to give their lives, but only offered the spoils of it can't be moral, or honourable.
The soldiers who fight it, if they live, don't gain anything other than the sure knowledge that they have been asked to kill young men and women, total strangers, with whom they have no quarrel, in order for someone else to benefit. Now, it's even acceptable to wage "pre-emptive" war against those who MAY want to attack us, given the chance. Who decides??
How is it possible that we think it somehow justified, even patriotic, to "train" the humanity out of our young men and women, in order to allow them to commit the ultimate taboo............to kill another human being?? It's not natural to kill another person, except in self defence. What does having the ability to set aside one's humanity. in order to kill someone do to our young men and women??
More importantly, who are pulling their strings?? I believe that when we send our soldiers to war, we are killing a part of them that makes them compassionate human beings. That thin layer of civilization that sets human beings apart is peeled away by considering killing in a war justifiable, even noble.
I'm sure that the mothers, fathers, wives and husbands of the dead do not consider a medal and a precisely folded flag a worthy substitute for the person they love.
The real obscenity about the war in Iraq is that it was based on a lie and no matter what happens, that doesn't stop being so.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I never said it was different. To me, that clearly looks like an electronic device in Bush's back. I think he WAS being fed answers during the debate.

Well , you were wrong. It was a strap holding his bulletproof vest in place.

This from "The Hill."

The last word on Bush’s bulge

Call off the conspiracy freaks. Now it can be told: That mysterious bulge on President Bush’s back during the first presidential debate was not an electronic device feeding him answers, but a strap holding his bulletproof vest in place.

Speculation about the bulge on the Internet only increased since Georges de Paris, the Washington tailor who makes Bush’s suits, told The Hill last month that it was nothing more than a pucker on the back of Bush’s coat caused when he crossed his arms.

But sources in the Secret Service told The Hill that Bush was wearing a bulletproof vest, as he does most of the time when appearing in public. The president’s handlers did not want to admit as much during the campaign, for fear of disclosing information related to his personal security while he was on the campaign trail.

The suspicion that Bush was, indeed, wearing something under his coat was given further credence by Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a senior research scientist for NASA and Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis, who conducted tests while working at home on his own computers.

“I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate,” Nelson told Salon.com. “This is not about a bad suit. And there’s no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt.”

[Ron Thorne]

I couldn't be happier to learn this news. Thankfully "the bulge" wasn't in the front and considerably south of the area in which it was noted. I'm also relieved to learn that "the bulge" was created by a vest, not a sock.

Now I can have a restful sleep, at last.