The Voice in Bush's Ear
Some of the comments being posted about the Bush earpiece on other sites are clearly planted by Bush supporters who hope the story won't make it out, [Postscript, Friday a.m: Salon just posted a story by Dave Lindorff, adding a bit more to his Counterpunch piece ] because when people start thinking about it, it's obvious that Bush's been doing this for at least four years in plain view. And there goes the election for the Republicans: the president is not only a miserable flub, but a cheat.
That's why Drudge et al are puffing up silly stories about Kerry's pen!
The point of the Bush wire wasn't to voice entire answers for him. It was to slip him critical information and phrases and cues and prompts. Bush can talk perfectly well for the limited kinds of things he wants to say. He can be folksy and funny. Dyslexic, yes, but he can talk. What he can't and won't do is apply himself (you know, "hard work") to learning things, or considering issues carefully, formulating arguments, assimilating facts. He's lazy. He hates thinking.
And he's always cheated when he could. He believes in cheating and dirty fighting as much as he believes in anything. Still, I suspect that it's been a slippery slope for Bush and Rove and Karen. First they gave him an audio prompter, so he wouldn't have to read speeches and stumble on words. Nothing wrong with that -- it's like a teleprompter for a dyslexic. They should have 'fessed up to it, though. When he started using a human cue card in his ear for press conferences, that's when it became very wrong. Taking it into the debate was outright fraud, a "fuck you" to truth, justice, and the American people.
To me, the most appalling aspect is the role of the press. The Washington press have sat on their smug behinds for four years and watched him do it, and closed their eyes and ears to it, even denied it in his behalf on occasion. They think "reporting" is giving the White House the benefit of the doubt, without even asking the question in the first place! Most amazingly, they actually think they're smarter than Bush.
Here's a posting fromThe Washington Monthly online ."I was watching the Bush press conference and I saw something that I think is interesting. I remember seeing some comment on another blog (Eschaton?) about Bush wearing an earpiece during press conferences and being fed answers. I think it was a joke or idle speculation. Well, if you watch the press conference starting at about 13:23, Bush is going through a list of names of Al Qaeda terrorists they have caught and he stumbles over the name of Ramzi Binalshibh, eventually calling him Ramzi Alshibh. He jokingly apologizes to Ramzi if he got his name wrong and then, at 13:32, he looks down and to his right intently for about 2 seconds, like he is listening to something, and looks up and says "Binalshibh, excuse me." As I recall, people usually look up and to the left when trying to recall something from memory. So where did he get the correct name from? I've watched the segment several times, and I am sure he has an earpiece in his right ear. It just looks so obvious from the expression on his face and the way he holds his head."
Actually, he looks as if he's being prompted in the minutes after that, too, straining to "listen" at times, and pausing and hedging as he awaits a cue.
About This Blog
IsBushWired was created by a journalist with twenty+ years of experience in print, radio and television. It originated during the first debate, when I noticed a boxy shape under the president's jacket. As a viewer, I had previously suspected Bush of being coached via an earpiece in interviews and news conferences, because his language rhythms, strange pauses, and sudden access to facts or phrases were like nothing I'd ever seen. That was far from my mind when I watched the first debate, however. Although I've written or worked for some of the best news outlets in the country (and never had to retract or apologize for a story, either) I've chosen to remain anonymous here in order to keep the focus on the story rather than on the messenger, and to hold at bay Rove's squads and Freepers, who like nothing more than to personalize issues that they can't defend based on the facts.
Editor
That's why Drudge et al are puffing up silly stories about Kerry's pen!
The point of the Bush wire wasn't to voice entire answers for him. It was to slip him critical information and phrases and cues and prompts. Bush can talk perfectly well for the limited kinds of things he wants to say. He can be folksy and funny. Dyslexic, yes, but he can talk. What he can't and won't do is apply himself (you know, "hard work") to learning things, or considering issues carefully, formulating arguments, assimilating facts. He's lazy. He hates thinking.
And he's always cheated when he could. He believes in cheating and dirty fighting as much as he believes in anything. Still, I suspect that it's been a slippery slope for Bush and Rove and Karen. First they gave him an audio prompter, so he wouldn't have to read speeches and stumble on words. Nothing wrong with that -- it's like a teleprompter for a dyslexic. They should have 'fessed up to it, though. When he started using a human cue card in his ear for press conferences, that's when it became very wrong. Taking it into the debate was outright fraud, a "fuck you" to truth, justice, and the American people.
To me, the most appalling aspect is the role of the press. The Washington press have sat on their smug behinds for four years and watched him do it, and closed their eyes and ears to it, even denied it in his behalf on occasion. They think "reporting" is giving the White House the benefit of the doubt, without even asking the question in the first place! Most amazingly, they actually think they're smarter than Bush.
Here's a posting from
Actually, he looks as if he's being prompted in the minutes after that, too, straining to "listen" at times, and pausing and hedging as he awaits a cue.
About This Blog
IsBushWired was created by a journalist with twenty+ years of experience in print, radio and television. It originated during the first debate, when I noticed a boxy shape under the president's jacket. As a viewer, I had previously suspected Bush of being coached via an earpiece in interviews and news conferences, because his language rhythms, strange pauses, and sudden access to facts or phrases were like nothing I'd ever seen. That was far from my mind when I watched the first debate, however. Although I've written or worked for some of the best news outlets in the country (and never had to retract or apologize for a story, either) I've chosen to remain anonymous here in order to keep the focus on the story rather than on the messenger, and to hold at bay Rove's squads and Freepers, who like nothing more than to personalize issues that they can't defend based on the facts.
Editor
255 Comments:
From comments posted to NYC IndyMedia.org
"It also explains why Bush pauses in odd places...he's listening before
repeating. On the night of 9/11 our local network even patched this voice
over the air by mistake before realizing it. We watched in amazement as Bush
repeated, word for word, whatever this voice said. He could only remember
three or four words at a time, so the natural flow of someone speaking on
their own was completely interrupted.
*****************
"Go to C-span.org. Move the slider [almost] all the way to the right. After
Bush and Kerry shake hands after the debate and their families are on stage,
Bush turns his back and you can clearly see a lump on his back left side. It
is about 5" down from the nap of his neck and 4" left of his spine. When you
wear $8,000 suits, it's pretty hard to blame it on the tailor.
*****************
"I had the same impression watching the debate. It was like the scene in
Broadcast News where William Hurts character is being fed information via
earpiece. But in this case, William Hurt was much smoother than Bush.
****************
"Two points to add to the speculation would be Ultrawideband which is a
transmission technology that is touted for the fact that it is
indistinguishable from background radio noise and is super secure. The
military has been behind the development of this which exists as an actual
product today. Secondly, after considering for a good while who might be
"The Voice", the debate seemed to make the possibility of Karen Hughes' and
her 'retirement' seem like a good way of keeping her out of the limelight if
she were the trusted voice in his ear.
*****************
"I saw it on the aircraft carrier speech. He wears it in his right ear.
*****************
"The implant is a high tech digital burst radio receiver. The transmitted
speech is digitized/compressed/encoded then broadcast as a burst of digital
info in the 5-10 ghz range. The receiver decodes and plays it back in real
time. The problem of intercepting the frequency is monumental. It may use
frequency hopping technology. Decoding it and converting it back to audio
would be nearly impossible without the technical assistance of CIA/NSA.
**********************************
"I saw it during the debate, and commented to my wife that Bush was wired.
Go back and watch the tape, and look when he makes notes on his papers. The
timing was't in sinc with what Kerry was saying, it was in response to what
someone was telling him in his earpiece.
**********************************
"I have been thinking earpiece since watching the debate...for another
reason. At one point Bush jumped in and asked for a 30 sec. rebuttal. Then
he stood for 7 - 8 secs before responding. kinda like ringing the buzzer on
jeopardy before you know the answer.
*****************************************
"Also, it looks like the right size for the newest model of Patrick
Flanagan's Neurophone. For those that don't know the Neurophone is a
electronic invention that can enable us to hear by a completely new
information channel to the brain. ... you hear through your skin. i.e
electronic telepathy; And what you hear is inside your head. This is no
joke. I own one. It's the freakyist thing I have ever experinced."
--ed.,
From my experience in doing audio - pack that was seen on his back during the debates was actually a wireless receiver that was attached under the shirt. Basically anyone with a headset - could have been prompting him with comments without detection. Since it's connected to an earpiece that can be fitted or molded to the shape of the ear itself - it can be easily hidden.
It's similar to what entertainers use today on stage to her their voice through a monitor while performing on stage.
Doesn't the military have an 'audio laser' type of device that focuses an amplified audio signal so tightly focused that you can only hear it if you are directly in its path? That could be used instead of a wired device in most cases.
This is simple enough to test. Show up near the next debate with an array of transmitters on all FM bands, all sending "(Won't You Take Me To) Funkytown".
OK, so jam it. Unless security at the debates forbids people from bringing in radio equiptment.
Isn't the solution quite simple? When Kerry and Bush exchange handshakes onstage before the next debate, Kerry does a manly "let me pat you on the shoulder/back" move and if there is anything there, either demands to see it, or rips it off in front of everybody...
I wish I had one of those on dates..... :-P
MK
Um, I suspect the bulge is body armor. What's the point of putting a radio receiver in the small of his back when it would fit nicely under his armpit?
I think the other clues (speech patterns, the "deer in the headlights" pauses, etc., etc., certainly make it seem like he's wired but the pictures, sorry, those just don't make any sense.
Back when I was doing video production we commonly used an earprompter. The way our system worked was an induction loop was hung around the neck which led to a wireless receiver or simple tape player. A molded hearing aid like ear bud was placed in the ear and picked up the low power currents from the loop. All practically invisible, especially on camera.
The speaking patterns is was gives it away, that and the head nods.
If Bush is using an audio prompting device, whether implanted or external, is an issue, but not really the most important one. I agree with the site's author that it is unethical to be prompted when such prompting is not disclosed to the public, as it is with a teleprompter, but for press conferences it seems worse, since we are supposed to be understanding one man's vision intelligence, and understanding.
In the case of the presidential debates it seems completely dishonest and improper. I sincerely hope that mainstream journalists will break the silence on this issue, investigate, and disclose whatever information they find.
michael, helio7.com
I talked about this in my weblog back when he did that fly-into-an-aircraft-carrier-and-declare-the-war-won thing.
Observations On Bush's SpeechThere's a product that sends ultra high frequency sounds that can't be heard by anyone, but two beams can be aimed with laser-like precision, and the two signals combine into an audible sound. I wouldn't be surprised if the government used this kind of thing, and for a while I was looking foward to the presidential debates to see if he could speak extemporaneously. Apparently he cant.
someone should bring a radio receiver to a debate and see if they can catch the signal....?
Wait, how does mispronouncing a word suggest that he was fed that word immediately beforehand? Surely if he'd JUST HEARD the word in his ear, he wouldn't mispronounce it as he was repeating it exactly.
Is there a video copy of the Cirac/Bush speaking engagement last June available on the internet? I would like to view it so that I can make my own opions about the second voice.
Thank you.
Here is a small video clip.
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/BushAndTheOddSync.wmv
This post has been removed by the author.
Re. Bushwire - note the Bush /Sharon press conference at the White House early this year, as broadcast by CNN - this was the famous conference when Bush made it clear that his government cared nothing for Palestinian claims in the "peace" process by stating that existing illegal Israeli settlements and their illegal land-grabbing military protective infrastructures were to be considered as permanent Israeli acquisitions - in reply to a question about the "war on terror", Bush gave a long, incoherent and rambling answer consisting of disconnected two- or three-word phrases such as ..."global stability " ... "democracy" ..."the axis of evil" ... and so on. It was obvious that he was listening to a prompter - I have enough experience as a professional translator/interpreter to recognise the difficulties of someone who is speaking while trying to listen. The term "mouthpiece" has never been so apt - Bush (and Kerry too, let's have no illusions) is little more than a ventriloquist's dummy for real power, and this is a pertinent illustration of the fact. Will Cheney need an earpiece when he debates John Edwards? Probably not. I suspect Bush will be tossed aside in the very near future. And let's look out for Arnold Schwarzenegger, like Reagan, with twenty years of Hollywood experience in his CV. What a masquerade.
I think we should 'take a step back' for a minute - Do we really think or believe that the POTUS is going to appear on stage with such a clearly visible "hump"??
Look at the SIZE of the deformation, for heavens sake - Our baby monitor is smaller than that! (And it's digital etc etc;) - Something small enough to place in the ear, far enough in without being visible, exists I'm sure, and would serve the purpose - whoever *might* be transmitting to Bush isn't on Mars for Petes' sake!
So if he is being 'fed' lines, it certainly won't be via ANYTHING we could pick up on from media, or even personal, viewing.
$8000 Suits? Unless it's Carbon Kevlar weave, he really *does* need a talking to - that's an outrageous price to pay for a suit - he'd look better in a $500 off the peg ;)
I can't help but agree his speaking style leaves a lot to be desired - and this is a simple explanation for it, but it's also a bit OTT. :)
There's surely no way he can win the next election anyway, is there?.....
I think that the distance protestors are kept from Mr. Bush is roughly equivalent to the distance required to keep protestors from interfering with Bush's audio feed.
Anyone ever read the novel "Interface" by Stephen Bury?
The DMC needs to be proactive in their antibugging techniques. There are enough systems out there that can cut off anything going into Bush's ear. Watch for him to touch his earpeiece during the next debate.If his EH's multiply the antibugging is working!!
At one point during the debate, Bush said "Let me finish". He was wasn't being interupted by Leher or Kerry. Nobody else was speaking. Who was he talking to? The voice in his ear?
To those asking why he might mispronounce a word he's just been fed, it might possibly be that this is the first time he's ever used that word. Remember, this is a guy who lacks intellectual curiosity and any desire to better himself (beyond learning another stale bible quote). It's easier to pronounce an unfamiliar word correctly when you have seen it written rather than heard it.
If he is wearing a wire, does this make him more or less a fool?
That visible hump might be his body turning in Richard III's.
So...Is there anywhere online where we can see the footage of CNN International or MSNBC or Fox footage of the Chirac/Bush encounter June 5th?
(Incidentally, "Steven Bury", the author of "Interface", is evidently Neal Stephenson and his uncle, J. Frederick George. Good but clunky, features a credible "who runs theworld" theory.)
CRAWFORD, TEXAS:October 9, 2004 (UPI) : A member of the President's inner circle today answered allegations that the earpiece visible in the President's ear during a cutaway short near the end of last night's debate is in fact a hearing aid. The President, according to the source, who requested anonymity, has been partially deaf in one ear as a result of exposure to low air pressure during his "...exemplary service in the Texas Air National Guard." The source went on to say, "My husb---...The President is a proud man, and doesn't want people to know of this injury acquired in the service of his country; he thinks people injured for the love of their country should be content with the pride inherent in resolutely defending your nation, and not try to grand-stand or put in for medals over it."
When pressed with the claim that the earpiece has been seen before, in his other ear, the source indicated that further information would be forthcoming. A gleeful Terry McAuliffe shot back with the claim that Bush was, "Deaf in one ear or another, depending on which side of him Colin Powell was sitting."
Bushisms the book is now Bushisms the DVD -- hosted by comic uber-genius Brian Unger of The Daily Show. The DVD features Al Franken and others commenting on nucular-strength malapropisms from the presidentiary such as:
# "War is a dangerous place."
# "Karyn is a West Texas girl, just like me."
# "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning."
Check it out at www.bushism.net
You can earn $20 for answering the question at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=403594
If someone is feeding Bush things to say, they should be fired because he says some really stupid things!
He's frequently wired, but the debate-night-hump is something else. WAY too big for someone with access to the best technology. That smaller bump at his waist in the press conference pic is def. a receiver. The voice feeding him lines on the Chirac clip is not Bush's pre-recorded; it's deeper, with no twang--male--not Karen.
This may be a portable drug infuser.
Mr. Bush has delayed his physical this year until after the election.
The cable could be an IV line going to a vein in his right arm.
Portable drug infusers are used for chronic pain treatment, cancer chemotherapy and insulin management.
Are clips of this available? I would like to hear these for myself. If this is true, we really need to impeach this man.
Ha Ha Ha Hahahahahaha
O my side hurts.
This is good comedy. Keep it up.
Wired or not, his public speaking, including the debate, is still horrendous.
If there is any truth to this, the implications are more serious than people seem to realize.
It means that, not only do we have someone in the White House who was selected by the Supreme Court, but there is someone else behind the scenes with control over him, telling him what to say, and who knows how much else. Someone who was never on any ballot, has no name, is only a voice in the dark, and has never been subjected to any public scrutiny or vetting.
Is this even Constitutional? Doesn't seem so to me.
What amuses me is the hypocrisy of the right, people who got bent into pretzels over Clinton's one lie, while opening wide to swallow the truckload of lies this administration peddles daily. If this was Clinton being suspected of doing this, we know how loud the outcry would be.
Hypocrites, total hypocrites. Anything these guys say or do is okay to them.
Oh, come on, guys. Bush gets that "deer in headlights" look because he's listening to messages from God, of course, and you know it.
Maybe Bush's handlers put the device in his ear and he THINKS it is the voice of God.
It just gets disturbing, though, when he argues with that voice during a debate.
Put cell phone headsets on a lot of the people I see in downtown LA and no one would think they are crazy any more.
I would just like to add that the "bulge" underneath Bush's suit is the trauma plate from a set of what is most likely class III or IIIa body armor. Upon closer inspection, the armor's vestlike straps (what is comically referred to on the site as a "cord") are visible going up across his shoulders.
Whether or not Bush is wearing an earpiece notwithstanding; there is no question that the bulge underneath his suit is ballistic armor.
As likely as it seems from this guy, I don't think Bush was wired. If he was wired during the debate, the person on the other end certainly would have told him to stop frowning like a pouty little boy. That's the most obvious rebuttal I can think of.
Also, I'm from Quincy, MA, the city where people supposedly heard Bush's prompting on 9/11. Quincy doesn't have it's own broadcast stations, we get the same ones as the entire Boston-metro area. It seems odd that only a few residents of Quincy and no one in the surrounding area heard Bush's earpiece prompts.
Sorry, I tuned in late to this discussion. Has anyone yet mentioned Dave Lindorff's Counterpunch article on the subject?
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10052004.html
Looks like body armor of some type. The straight line between his shoulder blades is normal. It comes from his slouching over the podium.
He might be wearing a small earpiece, but I will wait to see the photographic evidence of that.
I clipped the bit from CNN in June
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/BushAndTheOddSync.wmv
Could be the outline of the child's harness that Rove attaches his leash to.
Does it really matter? 'Pubs would say that it doesn't - and we all know why. Dems would say it does, but at this point they'll grab for anything that helps to make their case. Shame, really, because it's obvious to most of the world (if not to most americans) that he's not the quickest boat in the race...you'd NEVER be able to prove it definitively to the likes of coulter, et al. EVEN if we had a photo of the little imp in his ear and they admitted it! The right whackjobs would say that CBS made it all up.
I'd like to know where you got the info about Quincy Mass on 9/11. I also heard this voice on the evening of 9/11, during Bush's Oval Office speech. 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.
It would appear that what ever he's doing, we shouldn't be raising a fuss, as he's doing worse then 4 years ago. He does have a decent off the cuff style, and this obviously cramps it.
Let's hope he uses a wire the next time too...
I'm a freelance journalist who attempted, without success, to pitch the earpiece story to a number of news outlets. That was a couple years back, when Bush was still, in the blinkered eyes of the mainstream media, a towering figure of post-911 resolve.
For what it's worth, I dug up the pitch. Here it is:
Cyrano De Bushwack
According to conventional wisdom and prevailing journalistic boilerplate, in declaring war on terror President George W. Bush finally "found his voice." Even if the news media has been guilty of exaggerating the president's post-911 "gravitas," there's no denying that Bush's verbal abilities seemed to improve markedly after that disaster. The most verbally impaired, grammatically confused American president in modern history suddenly began to speak with a measure of coherence that had decisively eluded him during the first 54 years of his life (to say nothing of the first nine months of his presidency). The stammering and the malapropisms didn't go away -- as The Daily Show has persistently demonstrated. Nor did the stark cognitive blackouts completely evaporate ("There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas -- it's probably in Tennessee -- that says: 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. But fool me... you can't get fooled again.'"). But in his less formal appearances -- i.e., those without the benefit of a TelePrompter -- the president often began to sound almost, well, fluent in his native tongue. We're not talking about Platonic-level dialog here, or even a Toastmaster-grade facility with debate-team rhetoric. It's just that Bush now more often than not seemed to be achieving subject-verb agreement of the complete-sentence variety. It was a transformation as startling as the one in "Flowers for Algernon," the short story about an imbecile who more than triples his IQ after taking an experimental drug previously tested only on mice. Far from ascribing the president's new-found speaking skills to mouse intelligence enhancers not yet approved by the FDA, the mainstream media generously attributed Bush's new verbal confidence to on-the-job growth, and that old saw about great events making great presidents.
Maybe. But for me, there was a more apt explanation, one that seemed to make much more sense. As I watched George Bush speaking in short and declarative sentences bracketed by peculiar pauses, I was suddenly reminded of a classic David Letterman stunt. In the ongoing segment, Dave would dispatch his Ed Sullivan Theater neighbor, the good-natured deli owner Rupert Gee, onto the mean streets of New York outfitted with a wireless earpiece. From the security of a nearby van, Dave would feed Rupert a succession of wise-ass zingers, and Rupert would dutifully lay them on unsuspecting passersby, often at great risk of New York-style retribution. Comedy Central's The Man Show later recycled the prank with the help of a tubby kid similarly wired for sound. Was it possible that Bush's new ability to articulate more than sentence fragments also depended upon a hidden transmitter?
The technology certainly exists. Both the Letterman and Man Show stunts made use of a device that has since become commonplace in Hollywood productions, when actors may not have time to memorize lengthy scenes of dialog. You can pick one up yourself for two or three grand from any number of online spy gear outlets (for instance, http://accelerated-promotions.com/consumer-electronics/two-way-radio.htm). Billed as the "new generation of covert communication," the device is a tiny wireless receiver "worn comfortably and invisibly in the ear canal." The casual observer can neither see nor hear the device, which boasts a sophisticated squelch circuit and an automatic gain control.
Is it possible that George W. Bush has become the electronic-age equivalent of tongue-tied Christian from Cyrano De Bergerac, wooing not Roxanne but the American electorate with sweet, near-grammatical poetry fed to him remotely by Dick Cheney or Karl Rove? I'm not the only one to so speculate. Documentary filmmaker Jay Weidner has used wireless earpieces in his work, and thinks Bush is doing the same. "As I watched Bush give his recent speech," he recently stated in an article posted at www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general35/voices.htm), "his eyes wandered from right to left and from left to right. It was obvious that he was not reading from a TelePrompTer. Also I noticed that there were long pauses between his sentences. ... As a Film Director I recognized immediately what was happening" -- namely, a concealed earpiece. "Is this what Bush is doing? My answer is a definite 'yes'. During this same speech I watched as he immediately corrected a word that he had just mis-spoken. I have encountered this before during film shoots using the earpiece prompt. This is done because the speaker has gone slightly ahead of the earpiece prompt. He makes the mistake and then hears the correct word in his ear. He then corrects himself and goes on like nothing happened."
If the right wingers had this photo of John Kerry, like for instance...you know, someone like Sean Hannity. He would be using it as the lead in for his program; right before bringing back John O'Neal.
JA from http://www.crooksandliars.com
Still no access to footage? I'm not familiar with current electronic clipping services, but wouldn't someone, for any number of reasons, be recording every public statement from The leader of the free world?
Its profoundly important to know.
If he's nothing more than a conduit would that not lead to a massive outcry.
All thats required is footage from more than one occaision.
Who has some?
I'm convinced it's body armor under the (P)resident's clothing. Shoulder straps are visible.
I wonder what the rectangular part is made of. It's in a position to interfere with a shot to the heart.
As some of you may know, I've been following this issue closely on my own blog, http://cannonfire.blogspot.com. I have reason to believe that there may be a piece on this subject published in a "respectable" online journal soon. Glad to see that lots of folks out there are starting to put some firepower behing this story!
Regarding the "body armor" explanation, which we hear often: Bulletproof vests usually latch on the side.
The profile shot of Bush (published on my site) first appeared online (so far as I know) on the Democratic Underground site. But I have to admit that I do not know where THEY got it. Can anyone help?
I really don't know if Bush is wired or not, but here is something I noticed. In the 32-page "debate" contract, it says there will be a microphone, and a backup microphone for each canidate. Could the bulge be part of a wireless microphone system used for back-up? Also, someone needs a shot of Kerry showing that he isn't bulging in order to prove whatever it is wasn't part of the debate.
Just wanted to let you know- I forwarded this link to a girl I work with, who forwarded it to a friend, who forwarded it to her father, who happens to have a radio show in Cleveland. He ended up discussing it on air with an Ohio congressman.
Thank you for putting all this information together- it needs to be seen and I'll definitely keep fowarding it to people!
Hmmm? http://isbushwired.blogspot.com
Who are you, really?
I think that you may be getting false info from people associated with Artmark.
They have a proposal to trick the media into reporting that President Bush has a microphone in his ear when he gives speeches. see: http://rtmark.com/f/get/funds/media.html?inline=1#GWBB
We should concentrate on pointing out the true failures of the administration, rather than resorting to these conspiracies, because in the end, they end up making Bush's opposition look slimey.
If the Press is unwilling to address this issue, is anyone aware of how many different types of systems exist and what frequency the low-level broadcast occurs on? It would be nice to find a way to possibly jam it and let Bush actually speak without a handler. Worst fine someone could get if caught would be for broadcasting without an FCC license I imagine but it would also depend on the frequency, correct? I'm speculating everything here but I imagine it would be possible and quite amusing.
Bush can't use the teleprompters because he is dyslexic. He claims he isn't, but he makes up sentences and words that sure indicate he is. But he denies it. But his brother is dyslexic and his Mom's favorite charity is one on dyslexia. So he uses an audio-prompter to defuse that. Of course then they just carried it too far and made him into a puppet for Karl.
This is incredible!
I hear voices in my head too!
it can all be had off-the-shelf.
http://www.comtek.com/IFBCueing/ifbcueing.html
look at the PDF's of the manuals for the various transmitters. Program a $200 radio shack radio scanner to scan those frequencies. Go sit in the parking lot of one of the debates. Get a big news scoop.
idiots
If Bush is indeed wired, it would help to explain his clumsy and fragmented speaking habits. It may be that his mental focus is diluted by the incoming information being provided by an outside source through an earpiece.
I've never tried it, but it's probably quite a trick to absorb helpful whispers while simultaneously attempting to put a coherent sentence together. The fact that he is an ignorant schmuck helps, of course; but the earpiece may be part of the reason he is so inarticulate.
If Bush is indeed wired, it would help to explain his clumsy and fragmented speaking habits. It may be that his mental focus is diluted by the incoming information being provided by an outside source through an earpiece.
I've never tried it, but it's probably quite a trick to absorb helpful whispers while simultaneously attempting to put a coherent sentence together. The fact that he is an ignorant schmuck helps, of course; but the earpiece may be part of the reason he is so inarticulate.
http://www.orthopedicquestions.com/ortho-catalog/bird-n-cronin/back/buckle-closure-clavicle.htm
or
http://www.orthopedicquestions.com/ortho-catalog/bird-n-cronin/back/comforclaviclehooknloop-bg.jpg
Beware the Rovian trap.
I will readily believe that Bush has been wired for his earlier public appearances, and even that he was being fed his answers during the first debate. What I cannot believe is that Rove and his people are stupid enough to use this high risk strategy without armor-plating it beforehand. They have to have planned for this and will certainly be ready to blow the story out of the water as soon as it surfaces in main-stream media. We would be foolish to think otherwise.
The bulge is just too obvious. If they want to put voices in Bush’s head I’m sure they can do it without any tell-tale lump. But it IS a great distraction for when people start getting suspicious. When the story final breaks on cable news it will not flow out as intelligent analysis. They will just go straight for the pictures. At that point I’m sure the Bush people will quickly trot out some bullet-proof explanation., complete with “candid” staffer photos from before the debate proving some innocent explanation for the bulge. Then the story will be dead and the pro-Kerry bloggers will be as thoroughly discredited as Dan Rather.
This part of the story smells too much like an ambush. Let’s not step into it.
Until someone in the White House can explain it reasonably, with evidence, we have to conclude that yes, there is a lump in his back during the first debate of 1 October 2004.
The best evidence we have so far says it is some kind of electronic receiver used to prompt Bush. Until we get better, people need to hear about this story so they can at least join the wave asking "what the heck is that lump in his back?" They won't volunteer any information until they are pressured to do so.
Watch tonight to see if the lump is there again.
I found this in the text of a speech at bush-cheney website. About midway of the speech,
Bush says:
"Say something else about the tax code -- something else about the tax code."
Classic.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
At Pennsylvania Rally, President Bush Has Plans to Deliver More Tax Relief, Simpler Tax Code Next Term
Arnold Palmer Regional Airport
Latrobe, Pennsylvania
...
"
THE PRESIDENT: (Applause.)
Say something else about the tax code -- something else about the tax code. That tax code needs to be changed. (Applause.) It's a complicated mess. It's full of special interest loopholes. In a new term, I'm going to bring Republicans and Democrats together to simplify the tax code and make it more fair for the American people. (Applause.)
"
This could also explain why the Bush handlers wanted the timing lights in the first debate to be visible on the podium. They said it was because John Kerry speaks too much; but in retrospect, it could be so whomever is feeding him lines can see how much time is left by watching any live television broadcast.
From BBC news:
"The Bush campaign also fought hard to have visible warning lights to indicate when the candidates had gone over their allotted speaking time."
Body armor ceramic or oxide plates are about 9x12 inches, and curved to fit a body; not boxed shaped. Plus, you can bet there were at least two security agents behind that wall under the camera cut-outs so he was probably not wearing a vest, since it would be to hot and cumbersome. The only threat would be moving to a vehicle for which a ballistic overcoat would be used.
If Bush is trying to hide an earpiece, other rules for the debate make sense: He is allowed to use his own make-up person. No photographers in the wings (to get a clear photo of his ear). The distance set between the candidates - so John Kerry can't scream out "what the hell is that in your ear?"
Also, was the news story posted about the president's hearing loss real? It's dated October 9th, 2004. This is October 8th.
During Bill O' Riley's "interview" of the president; it is VERY CLEAR the president is reading answers off a teleprompter over O' Riley's right shoulder. I remember when I read that Johnny Carson's monologue was laid out in a row across the floor in front of him. The cards were leaning against the wall separating the seating from the stage. For years after I learned that; I watched EVERY monologue where Johnny would start looking at his left at the floor and end up at the right side mentioning who tonight's guests were. During laughter (or none) you could clearly see his eyes glance and focus to the cards on the floor for the next joke.
With that in mind; go back and watch the O' Riley "interview" and you can see Bush focus and read answers over O' Riley's shoulder. O' Riley stated that the president did not see any of the questions before hand. He never said no one else saw them; like Bush's handlers.
His lapel pin of the American flag could be a camera so his puppeteer can see to whom he is speaking and get a general view of where he is looking.
As for trying to jam the signal; the security perimeter set outside the venue is probably very large. So a strong signal would be needed from a distance and could be stopped by triangulating the signal. (Think: "Pump up the Volume", starring Christian Slater). A better idea would be to quickly feed better answers to him. Or, at least more than three answers to twenty different questions.
For the town hall debate; it would be really easy for Bush's team to have the hall to themselves before hand; for "security reasons" and set up a camera above Charles Gibson's desk to see the questions. The audience members are asking questions that are pre-screened and Mr. Gibson was told to "cut them off" if they stray from the original question. Hence, he would have them on paper in front of him.
Initially, Bush wanted to cancel the town hall debate probably because the logistics of his puppeteer were too difficult. But since it seems like they are confident that he can be fed some answers. If the system doesn't work; Bush will be caught standing there, in the dark, unable to hear the answers he is supposed to give. Hopefully the audience will say SOMETHING.
That deaf, dumb, blind kid - sure plays a mean town hall.
***** W I R E G A T E *****
Re: the reception of the voice by the news channels. If it is encrypted, it wouldn't make sense for any of the news channels to be picking up the unencrypted voice. *Unless* the microphones in front of the POTUS are picking up the decrypted signal, the one that is jumping from a tiny magnetic speaker in his ear to his ear drum. I'd guess that the mics wouldn't pick up the sound, but they could pick up the electromagnetic waves within the speaker.
The link to today's Salon article is not formatted correctly. The link directly to the article is:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
http://pc-ninja.com/images/bushwire.jpg
New list of links citing this blog at http://isbushwired.blogspot.com/
"Wiregate" beats "Puppetgate", I think!
What does it say about a man's honesty, if he cheats on national television in a debate by having others - unknown to his opponent and to the voter audience - provide talking points to him?
And how does such dishonesty differ from that displayed by Enron executives and others, some of whom were marched out of their offices in handcuffs?
"Wiregate" beats "Puppetgate", I think!
What does it say about a man's honesty, if he cheats on national television in a debate by having others - unknown to his opponent and to the voter audience - provide talking points to him?
And how does such dishonesty differ from that displayed by Enron executives and others, some of whom were marched out of their offices in handcuffs?
People! Get real!
Can't you tell this is a faked site designed just to spin more baseless gossip?
Both sides are doing it! Get real!
Look at all the comments above ... you're either missing the ones that send you to plausible explanations, or you're more like Mel Gibson's movie 'Conspiracy' that you realize.
The site is has generated national coverage with only two posts and approx. 70 comments.
Please tell me that scares you! The national media is giving credibility to this without any proof!
THAT is the real story here!
Regarding the bulge on Bush's back: that's where Sharon attached the puppet strings.
"Say something else about the tax code. Something else about the tax code. That tax code needs to be changed!" LOL. The interesting thing is, even if the story was made up, it is an excellent explanation of many things seen to date and has many data points to back it up, yet without the smoking gun. I mean, it was prompted, more or less, by the box on his back. That could have been anything, and may no have anything to do with audio prompting. But it has pushed the issue forward, hasn't it?
I'm hoping this is the October Surprise. And I hope someone has a smoking gun JUST before the election. That'd would be entertainment! And I'd vote just for the good entertainment.
If Bush was wired during the last debate, the whomever it was feeding him his lines ought to be fired from the campaign by now; it was simply a disaster.
I have been saying this for years because I first detected it during the debates with Gore. I don't know if anyone has acopy or can obtain a copy but there was a long awkward pause where I think Bush lost the feed an dpanic starts to appear on his face. He then suddenly answers the question in a long fast paced sentence full of ideas but I never once saw him get the thoughts in his head, they just suddenly came spewing out. Ever since, I have watched for this--Bush waiting, not thinking and I saw it in his pauses in the first debate--watch when he looks downwards--he is listening, not thinking. I worked in theatre and fed lines to actors who could not remember their lines and I know the difference between someone who is waiting for a line an dsomeone who is thinking of an answer. He has cheated and the people should know before the next debate.
Someone for God's sake find a transcript of Bush's "off the cuff" remarks at the Jefferson Memorial on Memorial Day 2001 . . .
There is no way he could have gotten such a garbled mess out of his mouth (like food on your family) unless he were being prompted.
The earpiece is now implanted and invisible. The big problem is getting the MICROPHONE output to the prompter in real time. The questions have to be heard for the cue person to supply answers, and I suspect that there is a time delay in the video/audio feed from some televised event which may run as long as fifteen or twenty seconds before the event is seen and heard on any monitor outside the immediate broadcast system.
So the 'backpack' may well be his transmitter, and a larger one necessary for a remote feed, there already being many secure relay stations in the network around Washington DC.
There was one particular question where he went through a litany of answers, something of which he would be incapable without real help . . . memorized yes, but also necessary for at least the HEADINGS to be transmitted to him to keep him focused on the right memorized items. It was a long and complicated answer, and so uncharacteristic of anything he has ever done that I suppose it will be noted in time . . .
The question isn't whether he has an earpiece; it's who is at the other end of the circuit.
Bush is wired to TEH MARTIANZ!!!1! I saw PROOF on my INTERNETS!!!111!!!
A couple of official debate rules that invite more review now:
================================================
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Posted: 1:15 AM EDT (0515 GMT)
(CNN) -- Here are highlights of some of the rules laid out in the 32-page agreement on the three presidential debates ahead of the November election.
No television camera shots from behind the candidates and no cutaway shots of candidates who are not answering questions.
NO SHOTS FROM BEHIND! WHO ASKED FOR THAT? AND I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST VANITY ABOUT BALD SPOTS...
Other than a handshake at the start of the debates, the candidates are not to approach each other.
SURE..YOU DON'T WANT TO RISK ANY PATS ON THE BACK OR ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A HUG WHEN YOU'RE BACK-PACKING ELECTONICS.
Other than Secret Service personnel and the president's doctor and military aide, each candidate is allowed to have only one pre-designated staff member in the wings or the immediate backstage area.
CAN WE FIND OUT WHAT ONE PERSON WAS IN THE WINGS FOR BUSH?
===============================================
While I agree the lumps under Bush's jacket are highly suspicious, the Bush-Chirac clip does not seem to show a "phantom voice," but rather Bush mumbling at first and not being picked up by the microphone, then repeating it and being picked up. It is very clear on the video clip. This kind of dubious evidence hurts the cause of exposing any real cheating by Bush.
Same thing for Donald Rumnsfeld when he was questioned in the senate hearing for the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
-Le Godfather
So what if he is? I don't think he is, but who cares? If you don't like him, don't vote for him. Jeez.....what a waste of time.
Great site, however, I lkie the site www.iskerryondrugs.com better
Love your conspiray theory site. If you're stupid enough to belive this crap you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Here's Bush after the first debate, patting down Kerry to see if he, too, is wired.
http://photos.reuters.com/pictures/Slideshow.aspx?name=632322325136613476&kw=U.S&id=8
While it is hard to imagine Bush being wired during the debates I think this point should be covered by the general news media. It's a very damning allegation. Kudos to those who are raising the point. Maybe for the final debate both candidates must pass through a metal detector?
Finally, if Bush was wired one would have thought he would have done a better job with the debates. But he bombed, especially in the first one.
I think Bush was wearing a transmitter under his jacket in the 2nd debate. The NY Times today had a photo of Bush from the rear in debate 1, showing a mysterious , umistakable, rectangular-shaped box under his jacket between his shoulder blades. Knowing that debate 2 would be a town hall forum, the transmitter had to be hidden. I believe in debate 2 it was hidden at his waist under the first button of his suit. In a profile view, his jacket sticks out further under the first button, which is unusual. Bush looked thick in the waist as compared to how he usually looks. When he stands up to talk, he has a bulge there that becomes evident as he walks and raises his arms. It looks as if the rectangular box was padded on the sides to make the shape look more natural. I think he is also wearing an unusually long tie. That can be seen when he sits. The creases in the front of his jacket to the sides of the bulge are not what is typically seen when a man wears a suit. Also, his jacket looks baggy over his butt. He figured that someone might feel the transmitter if he put it on his back, so he put it on his stomach. Could this transmitter be responsible for his improved performance in the 2nd debate?
At the first debate, the candidates went backstage before greeting people Could the transmitter have been removed before he emerged? Did Bush pull away from Kerry to keep Kerry from feeling the transmitter on his back?
Does anyone have any ideas about how to expose this?
Hey did anyone noticed that in the Missouri debate Bush looked a little on the heavy side around the torso. I seriously thought that he was gaining weight, but now I feel differently. Was he wearing some kind of vest? Was he trying to conceal something? Look for images of that debate to see if you see what I saw.
Hey it’s me again 9:44pm anonymous posting, I just noticed a couple of posting above me 7:41pm anonymous posting that this person noticed the bulky torso as I did.
After reading many of the postings I was so anxious to post my observation and questions that I did not read the postings just above my. It is good to know that someone else saw the same oddity in Bush’s torso; my hope is that millions more saw it.
Have a look at this: http://www.sosespia.com/phonak_engl.htm
I couldn't much more about it.
Hey,
I looked at the following page: http://photos.reuters.com/pictures/Slideshow.aspx?name=632322325136613476&kw=U.S&id=8 referred to us by 7:04pm anonymous posting. Look at what I guess would be picture #5, poor Laura she seams to have the same permanent smile pasted on her face.
Whatever the square bulge is on Bush's back, I don't think it could be a transmitter unless he's using technology from the 70s. No way would you need something that big today. I've seen smaller transmitters in use in the 80s by nightclub bouncers.
You guys are pretty technologically ignorant. A 20 second delay? Only if it was broadcast by satelite. You Kerry Guys are getting desparate. Bush has a large pack-sized transmitter on his back to win the debate. Yeah, why use a modern credit card sized one when you can use a huge WWII radio and mount it on your back and wait 20 seconds for an answer - while your time expires.
You West Coast types have all the best drugs.
What a ridiculous load of BS.
Speaking as an electronics engineer, if this were the 1940s, you MIGHT need a box that big (maybe) to house a radio reciever for a prompter. But, assuming you had access to new cutting edge, ultra-high tech components, like, say, transistors, and could forgo the vacuum tubes, you know, take a bold step into the 1950s era or later, a receiver box could be construced that you could easily conceil and not be able to see.
This afternoon, you can easily buy something commercial off the shelf being less than the size of a writing pen, and getting change from a twenty when you bought it.
If Bush was in fact using some sort of prompter, you would NOT have been able to see it. Geeeezzzz...
I think the Bush - Chirac clip is pretty simple to explain.
Many networks run a text-service for their live programming, where they use a speech-recognition engine and a re-speaker to dictate to that engine what is said by whoever speaks in the program. The text is then fed to be overlaid the "live" programming in progress. Live here means delayed so that the timing of the text is more or less matched with what is going on on-screen.
The re-speaker needs to be a second or two ahead of the "live" feed for the recognition engine to be able to generate the text.
What I think you hear here is the voice of the re-speaker that has for some reason been overlaid the the "live" voice-feed.
----
The above aside. There was one incident in the first presidential debate, where he just stops in the middle of a sentense, just as he lost cue, and then continues after a pause. So the thought have struck me that he is cued.
However, the Bush-Chirac clip can be explained.
With greetings from Norway.
Regarding the Bush - Chirac conference, which is still posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040605-6.html
The 'phantom voice' was said to occur right after the
question, addressed to Chirac, "what role specifically would you like the French to play in Iraq going forward? Merci."
As soon as bush starts to answer, his mike or the PA is strangely muffled, but what he actually says is "The French are going to forgive debt"
- the sound then comes back to normal -
"The French are going to provide advice" etc. Apparently the sound and the video of his lips are in synch the whole time. So....no smoking gun there.
Though I don't doubt that bush is wired - he stumbles and pauses, and then suddenly manages to say some coherent phrase that is uncharacteristic for his typical speech patterns in less guarded situations.
Very hard to prove though.
Just be sure to vote! Let's make sure we have a President this January.
I got tired of listening to all the hype about Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal senators on the planet, so I did some research and found out they are NOT. They are actually moderates. I put together a web page showing the facts. I thought you might find it iteresting:
http://www.fountainware.com/politics/liberal.sht
Please pass it on to anyone else who might be interested.
Larry
Second debate: I don't have a copy, but watching the debate, I saw no box or bulge, however, I did notice something that looked like a wire of some sort. It snaked up W's back under his suit jacket, and wound up and over his left shoulder. After I first noticed it, I looked for it every time CNN showed a shot of his back, and something was indeed there. Is it possible that its only the edge of a sleeveless t-shirt? If anyone has a copy, take a look.
Please consider that there are likely loads of people [LIKE ME]that are able to negotiate the Internet[s] on a basic level. You should organize this website that it is simple to email a demand for an investigation by debate officials. I am 50 years old [exact mid-baby boomer] and only beginning to use a computer. Time is running out!
He's only wired in the sense that what you are seeing is his battery pack...
Not so much wired as all wound up.
Have you heard - Kerry had hand written notes all over his hands and feet! You people are so far out in left field - it is pathetic!
I think I just thought of another reason why Bush is Shouting, and it's not because he is AMPED by chemicals:
If we accept that Bush has a miniature loudspeaker in his ear and wirelessly listening to some flustered surrogate:
then:
Because of the speaker, he couldn't hear himself speak. This automatically causes ANY orator to speak LOUDER.
Furthermore, methinks Bush has unilateral deafness deafness in one ear, therefore mini-loudspeaker is in the "good" ear.
Therefore, he couldn't hear his own voice, so he (automatically) speaks LOUDER, giving the appearance of shouting.
(I should know, I do the same without my hearing aids!)
Ahh it all makes soooo much sense now ... a loudspeaker in his only good ear!
It's the Iraq Debacle, stoopid
Idiots.............do you really believe those in charge of the debate didn't check those things out?? Give me a break. Probably bullet proof armour. I was a Democrat for years until I actually studied the issues. The Democratic Party is the Party of enablers. Please explain why individuals making the most money should have to pay any different tax structure? Flat rate would be the most fair. You get penalized for succeeding? Why, because some lazy idiot doesn't want to get off their butt and support themselves? Explain to me why is Scott Peterson being charged with two counts of murder? Connor wasn't born yet. So if he had aborted Connor before killing Laci he'd be charged with just one count? The war in Iraq...........do you want the war on terrorism fought there or here. Can anyone honestly believe that if Kerry is elected that the other nations will fall in line to help??? Yeah, right France will run to our side. France is so corrupt they should be our next target!
I am all for the American public knwing the truth. We should know the facts about our government and our president. My intent, is not to show support for either candidate in this post. However, I would like to address the subject of political mud-slinging. Frankly, I am sick and tired of it. I am glad that elections are less than a month away! Election years are not among my favorites. All the mud-slinging does is show the public, and the world, just how ridiculous we Americans can be. I can't speak for the masses, but to me it is embarassing. As to whether or not Mr. Bush had an earpiece, well.... I hope that the leader of the free world is not THAT dependent on a prompter- especially while debating for the presidency.
As a Secret Service Agent, I can tell you that President is always wired with a communicator receiver to enable him to acquire detailed information in advance of situations that may arise. In the case of his first and second debates, campaign advisors were providing rebuttal information to President Bush as Senator Kerry was answering questions. This is not uncommon for an incumbant president. Having worked for President G.H.W. Bush, President W.C., and now President G.W. Bush, I am at all times aware that the president is wired, primarily to inform him of hostile crowds that he may encounter. Just because President Bush used this communicator receiver to provide voters with more appropriate rebuttal answers to questions posed does not warrant negative comment from this or any other website. The President has more on his mind than worrying about inconsequential people and whether his answers questions honestly, using his own thoughts, or the thoughts of campaign advisors and/or political analysts.
It seems the most partisan people on this page are the Bush supporters. They are so insecure, those guys. And apparently at least one of them is ready to start world war III with France. What psychos.