Get off our backs (and the president's), press big shots tell fellow reporter
The national press seems almost as eager as the White House to have this story die away -- perhaps because it makes them look almost as bad as the White House.
Reporter Dan Elias was at the third debate, where he asked every official and network newsman that he saw for an explanation. Elias says he felt he had to ask because, "there's incontrovertibly a foreign object on the president's back. We need to get an answer as to what it is."
He writes, "As we all know, at one point in our history, the national media conspired to protect a president's image by hiding his handicap: the fact that FDR had been crippled by polio and used a wheelchair. It's hard to believe that that's what's happening today. But the reticence of the national media to seriously engage this issue is having the same effect. And it may well be denying a very important truth to the American public at a critical time in our history. And if we're all off-base about this, the White House can easily set us straight. Why are they choosing not to do so?
Here are more excerpts from his email to IsBushWired:
"Like many readers of this web site, I've been mystified as to why this story hasn't been picked up in full force by the network media, nor raised as a serious issue by the Kerry campaign, nor put to rest by the White House.
On Wednesday night, I had the opportunity to do a little direct research, and put people on the record on this issue.
I attended the debate at ASU in Tempe. During the pre-debate hours, I encountered, in the press tent, various members of the national press, and the most prominent figures of the two campaigns, and asked each the following question: "What was the president wearing on his back during the first debate, and doesn't the public deserve an explanation as to what it was?" My questioning, when possible, took place in the presence of other members of the media. Below you'll see a list of the individuals I asked and how they responded.
Ken Mehlman, Bush campaign manager:
"The president is an alien. You heard it here first. The president is an alien. Seriously, I didn't see it, I didn't pay attention to it, I was amused to hear that someone thought it was a transmitter." Me: "Well, who knows what it is? "Mehlman: "I do not know. I will try to find out and tell you." (Note:Salon also posted on Melhman's and another top Republican's non-answers.)
Joe Lockhart, senior adviser to the Kerry campaign: "I don't know what it was, if it was a transmitter it's nothing we can prove, so we're staying away from it."
Jeff Greenfield, CNN senior commentator: "I don't want to go there. That's 'Area 51' kind of stuff. Did you see Bush's performance? If he was getting help, a Democrat must have been on the other end."
Alan Colmes, FOX News: "I haven't seen the photo." Me: It's not a photo, Mr. Colmes, it's apparent on any video of the debate. Colmes: "Well, I haven't seen it." After more questioning, Mr. Colmes grew impatient and said, "What do you want me to say?" I suggested it was irresponsible of him not to have looked into the story and formed an opinion on it.
Chris Wallace, FOX News: "I don't know." Me: "Well, no one knows, but don't we deserve an explanation?" Wallace: "Would you leave me alone and let me do my job?" Me (as Wallace walked away to the FOX set): "That is your job, Mr. Wallace."
Elias concludes his letter to us, "Regardless of whether it's a receiver or not, a foreign object of some kind is clearly visible on the president's back during the first debate. The public has a right to know what it is. The White House could put the entire issue to rest by telling us. Their failure to do so suggests there is no legitimate explanation."
Bush Speech Confounds Portland
Portland's Willamette Weekly reports (October 6) that when Bush spoke at a local high school in August, "the notoriously syntax-challenged prez astonished national and local reporters on the scene with 90 minutes of eloquence--causing widespread speculation that Bush was wired. "We were going, 'Wow, he didn't even make one flaw,'" says one Portland reporter who was on the scene.'"
Reporter Dan Elias was at the third debate, where he asked every official and network newsman that he saw for an explanation. Elias says he felt he had to ask because, "there's incontrovertibly a foreign object on the president's back. We need to get an answer as to what it is."
He writes, "As we all know, at one point in our history, the national media conspired to protect a president's image by hiding his handicap: the fact that FDR had been crippled by polio and used a wheelchair. It's hard to believe that that's what's happening today. But the reticence of the national media to seriously engage this issue is having the same effect. And it may well be denying a very important truth to the American public at a critical time in our history. And if we're all off-base about this, the White House can easily set us straight. Why are they choosing not to do so?
Here are more excerpts from his email to IsBushWired:
"Like many readers of this web site, I've been mystified as to why this story hasn't been picked up in full force by the network media, nor raised as a serious issue by the Kerry campaign, nor put to rest by the White House.
On Wednesday night, I had the opportunity to do a little direct research, and put people on the record on this issue.
I attended the debate at ASU in Tempe. During the pre-debate hours, I encountered, in the press tent, various members of the national press, and the most prominent figures of the two campaigns, and asked each the following question: "What was the president wearing on his back during the first debate, and doesn't the public deserve an explanation as to what it was?" My questioning, when possible, took place in the presence of other members of the media. Below you'll see a list of the individuals I asked and how they responded.
Ken Mehlman, Bush campaign manager:
"The president is an alien. You heard it here first. The president is an alien. Seriously, I didn't see it, I didn't pay attention to it, I was amused to hear that someone thought it was a transmitter." Me: "Well, who knows what it is? "Mehlman: "I do not know. I will try to find out and tell you." (Note:
Joe Lockhart, senior adviser to the Kerry campaign: "I don't know what it was, if it was a transmitter it's nothing we can prove, so we're staying away from it."
Jeff Greenfield, CNN senior commentator: "I don't want to go there. That's 'Area 51' kind of stuff. Did you see Bush's performance? If he was getting help, a Democrat must have been on the other end."
Alan Colmes, FOX News: "I haven't seen the photo." Me: It's not a photo, Mr. Colmes, it's apparent on any video of the debate. Colmes: "Well, I haven't seen it." After more questioning, Mr. Colmes grew impatient and said, "What do you want me to say?" I suggested it was irresponsible of him not to have looked into the story and formed an opinion on it.
Chris Wallace, FOX News: "I don't know." Me: "Well, no one knows, but don't we deserve an explanation?" Wallace: "Would you leave me alone and let me do my job?" Me (as Wallace walked away to the FOX set): "That is your job, Mr. Wallace."
Elias concludes his letter to us, "Regardless of whether it's a receiver or not, a foreign object of some kind is clearly visible on the president's back during the first debate. The public has a right to know what it is. The White House could put the entire issue to rest by telling us. Their failure to do so suggests there is no legitimate explanation."
Bush Speech Confounds Portland
Portland's Willamette Weekly reports (October 6) that when Bush spoke at a local high school in August, "the notoriously syntax-challenged prez
51 Comments:
I also sense the mainstream media don't want to ask serious questions and force serious answers.
Remember the video tape that was sent to Gore's campaign in 2000? That, I felt, could have been better flushed out by the media, but was not. It makes no sense.
I saw another video in which Bush, in the second debate, moves his tie and exposes a wire, by even the most stringent journalistic standards that should have been a slam dunk... why aren't the press all over that revelation?
Look at the pieces:
Evidence Bush uses earpieces via a live CNN feed
A strange object protruding from Bush's jacket in the first AND the second debate... is the tailor so bad that he wore the same suit or something?
A wire is cleary visible under Bush's tie during the second debate
.....
On a final note... since this is being treated as a joke I encourage people writing here to write about this in a serious way, there is a concerted effort to frame this as a bunch of 'internets' and the fire is fed by some of the outrageous comments/responses. Be smart if you want to be taken seriously.
Call the White House
Write journalists
Complain
IF THERE WAS A STORY HERE THE LIBERAL MEDIA WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL OVER IT. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF - "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE." YOU ALL LOOK LIKE DAMN FOOLS - NO I DON'T THINK BUSH IS WIRED, BUT CONSIDER IT FRIENDLY ADVICE, ANYHOW.
First of all, thank you for pushing the "Is Bush Wired" thing. I am a Kerry supporter, I do not like Bush, and if this can move even a small percentage of people into Kerry's camp, I will be happy.
Second, I saw the weird box-like thing on Bush's back in the first debate. Since then, I have seen that footage again. I soon came to the realization that the "box" is really Bush's suit coat pulled tight between his two protruding shoulder blades. His shoulder blades were sticking out because 1) he is a skinny guy, 2) he was leaning over the podium with his arms bent, which would make his shoulder blades stick out, and 3) Bush just sucked during all three debates, so even if he were wearing a wire, it didn't do any good.
Finally, what does it really matter, anyway? Most of the American public is now aware that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq and more than 1,000 troops have died because of his mistakes. Why the hell would this make a difference whether it is true or not?
In the not-too-distant future this will be relegated to the Internet dust-bin along with "Israel sent a message to Jews on 9/11," "TWA 800 was shot down," and "Clinton killed Vince Foster."
What is the box on Bush's back? And why is it 3-4 inches left of his spine on his upper back? And even though it's been spotted by thousands, why can't he move it?
It is a defibrillator, designed to restart his heart in the event he has a sudden cardiac arrest, a risk that for him is quite high since his family has a history of Atrial Fibrillation, a type of irregular heartbeat that affects 1% of the population, is hereditary, and a risk factor for strokes.
source:http://www.strokeheart.org/CYPA/bush.html
More specifically, it is this defibrillator.
http://www.lifecor.com/about_lifevest/when_to_use.asp
Bush's risk factor for SCA is elevated because of his family's history of atrial Fibrillation, but also becuase of the medication he is currently being prescribed.
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately. “It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.” Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay. “Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.” Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months.
source:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml
Current use of antipsychotics may be associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death, study findings suggest.
source: http://www.psychiatrysource.com/psychsource/News/Psychopharmacology/article662.htm
All of this and more explored exhaustively includes sources and photos
http://bushsbulge.blogspot.com/
but hey, that's just my opinion, i could be wrong, right?
Yesterday I listened to someone from the Columbia Journalism Review sheepishly try to explain why the Fourth Estate has done such an abysmal job of covering the true reason for the Iraq invasion: control of the Middle-East and its oil.
He said that today's reporters are overworked . . . they lack knowledge of international economic policy . . . many news organizations have eliminated their foreign bureaus to cut costs, blah, blah, blah . . . the same stuff we've been hearing for a decade.
I beg to differ.
The vast majority of reporters today are cowards or ideological pimps whose chief concern is paying their damn mortgage. They just don't make 'em like they used to.
http://www.sixdegreesofvoting.com/?ref=3097&mac=bc584b2ae2d4568fef9788e61d9d51a9
neat
And speaking of brown-nosing suck-ups--the New York Times had a series of photos on the OpEd page (print edition) today. It was supposedly humorous. The photos were headlined: OpArt. The caption read: Is That a Transmitter Under Your Jacket? The NYT had sent out a photographer to photograph peculiar lumps showing under people's coats.
AND YET...those mealy-mouthed, scared-of-the-BushMen so-called journalists have NEVER confronted the question about whether Bush wears a wire? How dare they try to milk laughs from the topic when they've never written about the topic!!
And forget Jeff Greenfield...he's one of those "on-the-other-hand guys" who won't climb down from his fence-sitting to voice an opinion on ANYTHING.
While you're at it, take a look at my Blog...Ratfuck Diary (http://ratfuckdiary.blogspot.com).
I think it was around the time of the Republican Convention, certainly it was shortly after the 911 Commission was released. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show had Wolf Blitzer and Ted Koppel on about a week apart. Good old Jon was pressing them pretty hard about the fact that no one had 'caught the buck' for the administration's failures of intelligence and outright obfuscation during the lead-up to the war. Then Stewart put the top-tax-bracket anchors on the spot, asking them why neither they nor any of their colleagues did any 'truth testing' on administration statements in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. My jaw dropped on each program when these esteemed journalists explained that their job was simply to report the facts. When Stewart pointed out that they hadn't actually been reporting facts, but propaganda, they BOTH said that the 'facts' were really whatever words the source happened to utter. No analysis, no investigation, no perspective. Their job was just to parrot whatever line the policy wonks happened to be propagating that day. Stewart was speechless. We all should be. Such is the current state of our vaunted free press. Why not just use cameras?
Why do you keep referring to a transmitter?
If Bush is being prompted he is using a receiver.
It seems very curious that this whole affair is being ridiculed in the mainstream press. There is no investigation, no interviews with experts, no investigative journalism. Most mainstream media are owned by large corporations, but in the past they have not marched in lockstep the way they are doing with this story, an important story that has revealed the corruption or ineptitude of the Forth Estate. I am afraid this is going to come back to bite us all when the truth eventually comes out.
just found this compilation of articles about Bush Wired...also a MP3 illustration
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/127397/index.php
Hi,
Before the debates started, I reviewed some old emails from 2000, to see what I thought of the Gore/Bush debates.
I had written to a friend that when Bush was speaking, his speech sounded slow and choppy, as though he were listening to the words being fed to him via an earpiece.
I have tried to find video and/or audio of that first debate, but have been unable to.
If you could locate it and take a listen, I think you might find it interesting.
-susan
truebrilliance.blogspot.com
OK -- please forgive me if someone has already proposed the following.
The most effective line I've heard for dismissing the "Bush was wired" claim is that, if he really had been, he wouldn't have sucked so bad. However, taking as true the proposition that Bush is regularly wired while making speeches (granted, a pretty large leap), Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is that Bush's wire was malfunctioning during the debate -- and THAT'S why he sucked so bad.
"Most of the American public is now aware that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq and more than 1,000 troops have died because of his mistakes."
Let me say one thing.
Do you really believe that this was Bush's mistake? He was provided false intelligence evidence by the United States government, in fact, many countries had the same intelligence and also believed that weapons of mass destruction were being produced in Iraq. I believe that Bush made the correct decision based off of false intelligence. You cannot blame a president for being forced to make a choice without proper information.
Also, were you aware that for troops to be present in another country for over sixty days that it had to be approved by Congress? Not only that, but only Congress can declare war. So it looks like our president isn't making these decisions alone is he? In addition to his cabinet, Congress supports him, and guess what? We elect Congress, he does not. I'm not going to say whether or not I believe the war on Iraq is right, because I almost think that such is irrelevent. However, I believe very much that you at least need to re-evaluate where you are placing blame if you disagree with the war on Iraq.
Yes, I really do believe this was the President's mistakes. Hans Blix (U.N.), informed this administration that his early, and continuing investigation for WMD's in Iraq, showed no evidence of any nuclear capabilities. The United Nations investigators also found no evidence of germ warfare capabilities. This was month's before we invaded Iraq. The UN clearly warned this administration to wait until the inspections were complete. Bush would not wait, and please remember, Congress clearly leans to the right. You sound a bit naive, regarding this President's pre -emptive strike on Iraq.
In Robert Heinlein's classic Sci-Fi novel, crab-like aliens attached themselves to the backs of human "hosts" and hijacked their central nervous systems. One wonders . . .
I noticed the object on his back during the first debate and assumed at the time that it was a protective vest. The fact that the Republicans deny there was anything there, when there obviously was something there, tells me they are hiding something. Why don't they just say it was a kevlar vest instead of denying altogether? At least that would kill the rumors. I have no doubt there was something there, but would lean toward something medical or security-related. (As one poster also noted, this raises questions about the "pretzel choking incident" and the crashes on the bike. What really happened to him?) It is probably true that Bush wears a concealed earpiece during public appearances, and may have done so during the debates, but surely they would hang it from his belt or someplace less visible. The thing on his back may be unrelated to the earpiece. As an aside, CNN did a story on the topic but it was a story about the "internet rumor" and did not even show the image.
People, its becoming obvious the mainstream media, for whatever reasons, is not giving this story any time just like the debate tape that was sent to gore in 2000.
Rather than write silly comments here, write JOURNALISTS and insist they cover this story.
That is what I have done and it has worked... I called and wrote the BBC right at the beginning of this story: an hour later it was on the website. I'm sure I was not the only one, but IT WORKED!!!!
The only people that can force the media to cover this is YOU... off your knees, write LETTERS, CALL, CALL THE WHITE HOUSE... take your democracy seriously...
Man, that post above was placed there just for me...
speaking of the media laughing the story away:
http://ydr.com/story/mike/45469/
mike@ydr.com is the authors email. I wrote him and suggested he be a journalist.
I agree with the previous post....
Anyone commited to finding out the truth, whatever it is, dont post silly messages. It hurts the credibility of the story.
I think there are some right-wingers posting some of these silly things, trying to sound like left-leaning conspirists.
Please everyone, keep posting facts, links to new pictures and add serious comments to the debate as it emerges.
I see 2 strange things.
There is a bulge in his jacket and there is also a video of Bush in the second debate adjusting his tie and you could see a wire.
I also saw the evidence of the live CNN feed where he was being prompted.
Lastly, there was a video posted which shows Bush adjusting an earpiece before a news conference/speech.
The other facts I find strange here are:
The President has not submitted to a physical and had the results released. Bush did this before the 2000 election as all candidates and incumbents do. That is odd, the press has not questioned this. Don’t we deserve to know?
There was also a post about a defibrillator, and a link to a piece of equipment which could easily answer the mystery of the hump, its pretty much the same size and shape.
These are the 2 possibilities I see as being the most likely reasons for the bulge.
I'm glad that at least there was one reporter in the tent concerned about the alien lump on Bush's back, but in asking other reporters Dan Elias was asking the wrong people.
The people we need to hear from and/or interview [anonymously if necessary} are the audio technicians who were at the debates.
What frequencies held unexplained transmissions? Did they record them? Are the unexplained transmissions encrypted?
Apparently it's not just under the suit jacket...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/13/transmitter/index_np.html
On "Meet the Press" this morning the Bush spokesman said the box enabled Bush to speak with aliens. Maybe it's true, Bush talks to aliens! That would explain his 3 losses in the debates.
What the future holds for Georgie-Boy:
http://www.topplebush.com/cartoons52.shtml
And a look inside the Bush Admins Strategy Room:
http://www.topplebush.com/cartoons40.shtml
We are still online and updating the current BUSH WIRED news and theories at
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
For those of you who have not visited our site, we are dedicated to EVIDENCE and NEWS of the BULGE, and try to keep the site rather objective.
We have a BULGE PHOTO GALLERY and tons of links collected as this story has unfolded. We have been on this topic since shortly after the first debate, and have had several homes before permanently moving the site to its current location. Check it out!
Although this story has been losing momentum, we feel its an important issue because the BULGE obviously exists, and its so strange that it has been DENIED so many times both by the Bush/Cheney team and the mainstream media. We feel that there is a serious story and a bigger issue here, somewhere...
Icone
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
Wow, look at the following excerpt from Salon.com. There is something troubling about the way Bush speaks. How could he make such a mistake in his speech? I remember another incident like this in another speech this year. He said the opposite thing of what he really wanted to say, it was something about his administration always working to make the world more dangerous or something. At the time, I thought he should fire his speech writer for writing such a bad line.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/10/17/draft/index.html
Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me."
David Letterman did a "Top Ten President Bush Explanations For The Bulge In His Jacket" several days ago and it is still up on his website as of Oct. 17.
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/
Not very funny, but at least someone is talking about it.
I'm really tempted to think the bulge is something for Bush's health that the (American mainstream) media has agreed to cover up. I've never seen the news so uninterested in a story before. They don't even bother to investigate. And the Kerry campaign? It's possible they know too.
Going into the campaign, Bush ran 5 minute miles. Now he doesn't run but he bikes. And then he fell off his bike. And also he had that pretzel incident. And you can see how he's aged over the last four years. I'm not surprised if his health isn't what it used to be.
BUSH BULGE ART GALLERY UPDATE
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
Here's a great site: www.electoral-vote.com
And today, they have a reprint of a wonderful editorial cartoon featuring the "Bush Bulge"
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/political-humor.html
This amazing article about the timeline of Bush's activities on 9/11 shows extreme discrepancies between what the White House has related versus the many media reports and eyewitness accounts. The author has researched this incredibly well, making the discrepancies clearly understood. We are under the impression that Andrew Card told Bush of the first plane in the classroom; the timeline and media reports reveal it was the second plane. There were reported to be two attempts on Bush's life on 9/11 before the planes hit the buildings. The American people must know how incompetently this situation was handled by "The War President," who claims to be the one who can lead us in the war against terror.
If you read this article, you will see that protecting Bush was not a top priority on 9/11, but protecting Cheney was. I think that the Republicans that encouraged Bush to run for President really wanted Cheney to be President. Cheney was part of an extreme right-wing group that wanted to invade Iraq years before the 2000 election. Bush was not a member. Many of the members of that group are now part of the Administration. Cheney was not electable due to his medical condition. They feigned a search for V.P., making Cheney the person to lead it, knowing full well all along that Cheney would be the choice. They knew that Bush had a chance to be elected for several reasons. His father was President, he was ambitious, he was a born-again Christian, and he would get support from Republicans and evangelicals across the country. Cheney did not have the personality to be the top of the ticket. Bush, who has ridden his father's coattails his whole life, was not intelligent enough to be President. But that didn't matter. After Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, this group has limited his news conferences to keep him from showing his lack of ability. There are strong reports that Bush has been wired since he started campaigning in 1999. The photographs from the debates are unequivocal. Bush only needed to be fed the lines to appear as if he was making the decisions. On 9/11, it took hours for fighter jets to reach Air Force One, but Cheney was hustled to the bunker immediately. Bush appeared to be out of the loop for several hours, while Cheney was giving orders. Bush showed himself in the first debate. That is the limit of his ability. In debate 2, it is clear that he was wired and being fed the lines. The receiver was strapped to his waist under the first button, with the wire under his tie. HIs suit creased around the receiver when he changed positions while standing. When he shifted his tie, the wire became visible. He shifted something at his waist several times during the 2nd debate, obviously he was uncomfortable. The wire is clearly visible going up the left side of his back. His speech patterns and eye movements indicated he was listening while he spoke. Is Bush the one making decisions, or is it Cheney? Cheney clearly had a better handle on what is going on than Mr. "hard work." Someone needs to investigate who is really running this county. Please read the article at the link below.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Excellent work compiling evidence...
http://homepage.mac.com/c.shaw/BushBulges/PhotoAlbum15.html
Tim Russert did indeed ask Bush campaign mouthpiece Ken Mehlman this morning on the "Meet the Press". The problem is that he phrased in such a way that he wasn't serious, and Bob Shrum didn't help matters by chiming in with a response to Mehlman's alien non-denial by suggesting that Rove has been sent into ordbit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6267835
Here's how Russert asked it:
"Before we go, Mr. Mehlman, clear up this mystery that has been raging on the Internet. This was the first debate, George Bush at the podium, the bulge in the back of the suit. All right. Come clean. What is it?"
after Mehlman's red herring about the aliens, Russert asked:
"It was not a bulletproof vest or magnets for his back or anything?"
Russert should have been more specific in the theories.
Here's how he should have phrased it:
"Many Americans/journalists have been wondering about. You've denied the radio transmitter theory already, so we're not going to bring that up. Is it something for the President's health?"
"The President has not released to the public the results of his physical since August 2003. Should we know the truth about the President's health?"
But I'm also going to blame the blogs on not forming these questions clearly enough. The format of blogs requires readers to scroll down through the whole page to to try and learn everything. People covering this story-- bloggers or not-- should very clear state at the top of their websites what is known and what they wish to ask.
Well, there's one opening yet. Mehlman claimed that the tailor is "no longer working for this administration." Someone call Georges du Paris and ask how he feels about losing his client.
Jon
Clinton aged in office too.
BTW, Bush looks more like his father in recent pictures, to my eyes.
Here's a theory: Bush died when he choked on that pretzel. The hump, the postponement of the physical, the falls off the bike, all can be chalked up to the inability of his doctors to get the illusion of aliveness quite right.
As soon as he's installed for a second term he will try to eat all our brains.
I wouldnt blame Russert too much, he chimed in, most are not. I think he and a few others did it on the talk shows this morning. Thats positive, and I guess they are continuing to rely on 'internets' to bring forward the evidence. As far as I have seen, alot of evidence has surfaced and it keeps coming. The story has seemed to lull, but some of the latest stuff I have seen means its not dead yet, that wire under his tie has still not been addressed by the administration, lets see what their denial is going to sound like for that one, then see what the media does with it.
Someone posted that Bush adjusted something in his waist during the second debate, can anyone confirm this with video?
Too many journalists are ignoring this.
I agree....
Lets take the media to account...
Its true, this story cant get a whisper from 'Media Notes' (Howard Kurtz - Washington Post), and Mary Cheney and gay-gate is getting all kinds of coverage.
The Republicans are playing that full throttle to cover up their crappy debate performances... well of course that gets press!!!
See....
The media always see thru stories like Bush's bulge, smartly calling it 'conspiracy', dismissing it as 'left wing chatter'. But when the Right wing needs to drum a story the media suddenly cant see strait, its not a right wing shenanigan... no, its a real story... I dont get it.
Man, sometimes I get the feeling that left-bias label is working wonders on the media.
Hot off the press...
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/10/con04439.html
Quick search on Google News reveals virtually no news about the fact he is skipping his physical.
It's Willamette Week, not weekly.
I agree completely. BLOGS can be a very confusing place to find information... scrolling far down the page for links and supporting arguements is simply something most people will not do. I often have a hard time looking through 30,000 words on certain sites trying to find an important point... and I'm used to it.
We are currently compiling all of our links of "evidence" into a new, easy to read, post of compiled info from the past 2 weeks. Its been taking a while to get this together but we should have it posted soon on the BUSH WIRED blog
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
I have literally had hundreds of e-mails sent to me asking if I thought the bulge could be a bulletproof vest... something discussed (and officially denied) long ago.... but you might not know that if you are unfamiliar with the story, and didn't read the entire page.
On the media topic: It still is baffling to me that there has been so little coverage of this in the mainstream media. However, there HAS been some interest. As I have contact info clearly posted on my BUSH WIRED page, I have received several inquiries from journalists... in the mainstream media... so they have looked into the story (a little bit anyway).
Thats the other reason I am trying to organize, and centralize all the info on my site. It may be OUR responsibility to make these topics are easy to access for non-bloggers. I'm also trying to keep it somewhat objective.
Cheers
Icone of BUSH WIRED
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
I agree completely. BLOGS can be a very confusing place to find information... scrolling far down the page for links and supporting arguements is simply something most people will not do. I often have a hard time looking through 30,000 words on certain sites trying to find an important point... and I'm used to it.
We are currently compiling all of our links of "evidence" into a new, easy to read, post of compiled info from the past 2 weeks. Its been taking a while to get this together but we should have it posted soon on the BUSH WIRED blog
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
I have literally had hundreds of e-mails sent to me asking if I thought the bulge could be a bulletproof vest... something discussed (and officially denied) long ago.... but you might not know that if you are unfamiliar with the story, and didn't read the entire page.
On the media topic: It still is baffling to me that there has been so little coverage of this in the mainstream media. However, there HAS been some interest. As I have contact info clearly posted on my BUSH WIRED page, I have received several inquiries from journalists... in the mainstream media... so they have looked into the story (a little bit anyway).
Thats the other reason I am trying to organize, and centralize all the info on my site. It may be OUR responsibility to make these topics are easy to access for non-bloggers. I'm also trying to keep it somewhat objective.
Cheers
Icone of BUSH WIRED
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
New News article... direct link at
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
Very interesting.
Icone
Bush Wired
Finally, someone starts setting this strait:
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=14085&sd=10/16/04-10/18/04
your comments are veryy good ,my freind i wish george bush losses even thaught im in canada.But like we say in CANADA "AMERICANS ARE VERY VERY STUPID FANATICS"
Complete coverage of Bush is Wired
Bush Is Wired
Video Proof, Audio samples, Photo Analysis
Whoever feeds the guy the message is awful.
i'm sorry, but i've changed my tune from a while ago...
i used to believe it was a receiver, but now... Let's be honest here people, if Bush chose/installed/operated the device then MAYBE that could account for it's massive size and poor positioning. But he DIDN'T, and whoever did has access to the most advanced communications equipment that the world has never seen, things you couldn't get your head round. So why a massive bulge on his back, and wires front and back?
As much as it pains me to say it, I'm afraid I have to go with the defib option, unless someone out there has another explanation..
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment
<< Home