The Dark Side of the Moon

A NASA senior research physicist, who's an international authority on planetary topographical image analysis, has been spending his nights analyzing the topography of Bush's back in the first debate. He tells Salon the obvious, that a wrinkle couldn't possibly have produced the bulge. What he can't explain, I suppose, is why the rest of the press, with the honorable exception of CNN's Paula Zahn, is abdicating its ethical responsibility to report this story, leaving it to Salon and to bloggers. It makes me feel sick for my profession. Anyway, look at the pictures the analyst sharpened for the clearest view yet of all the president's wires.

Update 10/31: I feel even sicker after reading Dave Lindorff's comprehensive update at MotherJones.com reporting, among other things, how the NASA scientist, Robert M. Nelson, was rebuffed when he offered his analysis to major newspapers (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post). Nelson has now analyzed Bush's ever-evolving back bulge from all three debates, and tells MotherJones.com, "In the first debate the bulges create the impression of a letter T with a small feature which appears similar to a wire under the jacket running upward from the right. In the second and third debates the jacket has a generally padded shape across a large part of the entire back which tapers inward toward the spine in a downward direction. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a pad was inserted to conceal the T-shaped device seen in the first debate."

Bush Speaks: The Empire Has No Clothes

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." -- senior Bush advisor quoted by Ron Suskind in The New York Times Magazine.

Finally, someone asked the president about the object on his back during Debate 1. And Bush lied straight-faced. This is from Dan Froomkin's account at washingtonpost.com of Charles Gibson's Good Morning America interview with Bush aired today:

"Brandishing a copy of the photo, he asked: "Final question. What the hell was that on your back, in the first debate?"

Bush chuckled.

Bush: "Well, you know, Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett have rigged up a sound system -- "

Gibson: "You're getting in trouble -- "

Bush: "I don't know what that is. I mean, it is, uh, it is, it's a -- I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."

Gibson: "It was the shirt?"

Bush: "Yeah, absolutely."

Gibson: "There was no sound system, there was no electrical signal? There was --"

Bush: "How does an electrical -- please explain to me how it works so maybe if I were ever to debate again I could figure it out. I guess the assumption was that if I was straying off course they would, kind of like a hunting dog, they would punch a buzzer and I would jerk back into place. I -- it's just absurd.""

Charles Gibson and ABC deserve credit for asking the president, but failed abjectly at following up on his brazen lies. The object under the president's jacket is obviously solid. There isn't any bad tailoring, at any price in the "reality-based" world, that could create a shirt with a convex rectangular bulge, much less one that would jut through a jacket.

Not to mention that he would have had to have worn the same shirt to all three debates. (Presidential tailor Georges de Paris must have threatened to file suit now, rather than to make any more, so the White House has fallen back on blaming the shirt.)

IsBushWired also hears that ABC News has interviewed several White House staff members who've confirmed that Bush uses a low-frequency transceiver during meetings with foreign dignitaries. Hope that ABC plans to run its story in time for voters to consider this information.

Postscript: We've since watched the interview and are struck by how quickly the president responded with a rehearsed joke. Clearly Rove et al talked to him about how to reply. The truth evidently wasn't an option. But as the Good Morning America interview ended, the camera drew back, and Laura Bush had disappeared from her spot on the couch next to the president. Someone in the White House is still capable of shame.

CBS Bloodied, Bowed

Meanwhile, CBSNews.com has groveled to the White House by printing a nonbylined story composed by AP's surely all-time-dumbest, or most slavish, reporter. The story's accompanied by a post-debate shot of the president that seems to show no bulge. We need not remind readers that photos, unlike the single video feed which everyone shared, can be touched up. But in any case, Bush's cheatpiece was most clearly outlined when he hunched over the podium, stretching the back of his jacket over the device and the cord snaking up his right shoulder.

Refresh your memory of the protuberance by looking again at the jpegs reproduced below in our archived post, "What's the Frequency, Karl?" These are stills that we took unaltered from the Fox pool video feed. Or check out cryptome.org's 28 time-stamped screen captures from the video.

Oh, and BushBulge.com has found
another photograph of a bulge-bearing Bush on the White House web site, lighting a menorah last December. Enjoy it before it's scrubbed.

Media Otitis

Jon Stewart for president! Mr. Smith Goes on Crossfire!
Man, did Jon Stewart stick it last week to beta-hack Paul Begala and his mean little top in the bowtie. It's really something to encounter moral and political seriousness on television (outside of The Simpsons or Stewart's own show, I mean.) Watch it here.

But back to our story, the self-abasing media figures on their knees before Bush-Rove. Every weekday on Crossfire, Paul Begala claims to be "Paul Begala, from the left." So, naturally -- you'll follow the logic -- he leapt at the chance last week (after complimenting Bush magnanimously as "a great guy...not a very good president, but actually a very good person") to blast into space a question about what exactly it was Bush was hiding under the back of his jacket during the debates. And on what basis did he explode it? It came from the left.

Here's the transcript:

QUESTION: My question is, what do you think the hump on G.W.'s back during the debate was?

STEWART: Say it again?

QUESTION: What do you think the hump on George's back during the debate was?

STEWART: The hump on his back?

BEGALA: Oh, you're familiar? This is (INAUDIBLE) conspiracy theory. Can I take this one?

STEWART: Yes, please.

BEGALA: It was nothing, his suit was puckering. A lot of people believe he had one of these in his ear. If he was being fed lines by Karl Rove, he would not have been so inarticulate, guys. It's a myth.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: It's not true. There's this huge myth out on the left.

AUDIENCE IN UNISON: Thank you, Paul-from-the-left, for speaking truth to us about your own crazy people!

Okay, I heard the last quote only on my own headset, but otherwise it's as transcribed. I don't think that Paul Begala set out consciously to serve up untruths to the CNN audience. But his strange zeal to erase the question a priori and ad hominem (ad leftum) must have also rendered him psychologically unwilling to actually look at the video tape. Because anyone who looks at the Fox pool feed, especially of the first debate, will see that there is a box-shaped object under the back of the president's jacket. And a cord, too, both of them way bigger and solider than a pucker on even the worst suit.

And anyone who follows the news will know that the White House first claimed the images were faked, and then, contradictorily, that there was nothing at all under the jacket, and then that it was a rumple caused by a master tailor. And at last, the White House began stonewalling with japes that have the courtiers all in stitches.

So, who are the real conspiracy theorists here, the fantasists and true believers? And who are the real journalists? Those who ask the questions, or those who refuse, as an article of faith, even to look? As a public service, I offer this short refresher course:

How to Reason, a Primer for Hacks of All Ages

Syllogism 1:
"If Bush were cheating with a prompter, he wouldn't have done so badly, especially in the first debate. Therefore, he couldn't have been getting prompted."

This reasoning is so obviously flawed that I can almost feel Terry McAuliffe's amazement that others have seized on it as being anything other than a polite way to say that Bush may be a cheat, but at least he's an inept one.

By the logic of S.1, one might say that any Olympian who comes in at the bottom of his event could not possibly have doped. In short, it's no logic at all.

Because, of course, you can flub at cheating, as at anything. And sometimes it can actually be harder to fake it than just to wing it.

Moreover, while it's said to be easy to give a natural-enough sounding speech using an audio prompter, it must be far more difficult to produce quick, natural-sounding responses in an unscripted give-and-take. And the voice in Bush's ear wasn't any more used to an actual debate than Bush was; the White House hasn't had to face critical arguments in years.

So, scratch S.1. Here's Syllogism 2:

"Bush and Rove have long made cheating and deception for advantage their first resort. If Bush thought he could get away with it, he would cheat rather than try to prepare for the debate. And in fact, he did not prepare for the debate, his advisors said.

Case closed.

Finally, here's the other misuse of rhetoric and reason employed by fake journalists who care little about the truth of this or any question: Rather than confront reality or ask questions, to do their jobs, in short, they use meaningless labels intended to slur the source: "bloggers" "internet conspiracy theorists." In the inversion of reality that we've come to expect in public life these days (except for life savers like Jon Stewart!) these fake journalists are themselves conspiracy theorists and fantasists: in the face of all evidence and experience, they cling to the fiction that the White House tells the truth.

Well, this story does not give IsBushWired a spooky thrill. There's nothing mysterious or sophisticated about Bush's earpiece prompter: It's as simple as cheating at cards or golf or stuffing the ballot box, just plain old scummy behavior that ought to get a guy kicked out of Skull and Bones if not the White House.

Email tips and comments to IsBushWired@gmail.com. All messages will be treated as confidential.


In Your Ear

A writer who said he's a Secret Service agent posted anonymously to IsBushWired after the second debate last week, saying that, "In the case of his first and second debates, campaign advisors were providing rebuttal information to President Bush as Senator Kerry was answering questions...Just because President Bush used this communicator receiver to provide voters with more appropriate rebuttal answers to questions posed does not warrant negative comment. "

It's a truly astonishing post. There's no way to verify it, but it sure has an authentic ring, right down to the way the writer refers to the presidents he's served, and the blandly bureaucratic rationalizing of cheating. Here's the message in full:

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."

And here's a post to the site from another writer who also claims to know something about the matter:

"As a D.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and a communications specialist, I fully understand what has been said about the President being wired. In 1998, a small communications receiver was developed for the RNC to allow candidates to be cued on answers to provide for certain types of questioning. This receiver does not interfere with the communications equipment worn by Secret Service personnel and operates on a completely different frequency. With an adapter attached to the receiver, worn either on a shoulder harness or waist belt, a single Secret Service Agent, using a split frequency transmitter, a warn the receiver's wearer of any approaching danger. In the case of the President, it enhances his protection. He does not hear multiple voices or the chatter of numerous people. Using a satellite uplink on the transmitter--primarily for long distance communications--political analysts and advisors could easily provide verbal instructions to the President during a question/answer/rebutal session, without any interference from an outside communications source. The corporation for whom I am employed, has developed numerous "special" communications devices for our government. The particular unit mentioned by the above listed Secret Service Agent is one of the devices we have manufactured. Anyone with $150,000 can purchase the transmitter base, satelite uplink adapter and receiver. However, they cannot purchase the unit with the same frequency used by the President."

Bush Campaign Manager to Press, Voters: Eat our S*&# & Smile

From NBC News, Meet the Press, October 17:

MR. RUSSERT:  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?

MR. MEHLMAN:  The president, in fact, was receiving secret signals from aliens in outer space.  You heard it here on MEET THE PRESS.

MR. SHRUM:  You mean you sent Rove into orbit.

MR. RUSSERT:  It was not a bulletproof vest or magnets for his back or anything?

MR. MEHLMAN:  I'm not sure what it was, but the gentleman responsible for the tailoring of that suit is no longer working for this administration.

MR. SHRUM:  Well, wait a minute.  Now, the president only wears Oxford clothes.  I'll bet that tailor is still there.

MR. RUSSERT:  May we all be smiling this way on November 2.

Postscript: And this is not the first time that Meet the Press has been confronted with the issue. Last February, the show covered for the president when a radiofreeusa.net editor emailed a query asking if Bush had been prompted in his Oval Office interview with Russert. Executive producer Betsy Fischer responded to the inquiry with an email that said the president wore no earpiece "at any time" in the show. She didn't explain how Meet the Press had established this, or whether MTP asked the White House about it before or after the interview.

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.'"

The Last Puppet Show

Following yesterday's expert ID of the presidential cheatpiece, today Salon has an interview with a countersurveillance specialist (who worked for several presidential cabinets, reportedly including the elder Bush's) who says, "I have personally sat outside the White House with lab-grade testing equipment -- and have cataloged, monitored and confirmed that wireless monitors are being used." Vanessa Kerry seems to take a hard post-debate look at the president's still-bulgy back. Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman responds to persistent questions about the box-bulge with degrading whimsy: "The president is an alien. That's your quote of the day. He has been getting information from Mars."

A Washington Post writer worries that the White House's failure to explain the bulge "risks perpetuating an image of Bush as a puppet." Isn't the presidential image something for the White House to worry about? Reporters should worry about whether the president really is a puppet.

Salon also notes Drudge's mysteriously total silence on the topic.

Did anyone else notice that John Kerry began delivering some answers directly into the camera about halfway through? Soon thereafter, oddly enough, W started looking into the camera, too! Not very successfully, because his eyes kept drifting off to the side. But where'd he get the idea?

Although the technology stories may provide real proof, I think linguistic and videographic analyses will also give it away. One reason this story has gained widespread credence already is because it's more like a sense perception than it is a "theory." It's something you notice with a start -- a moment where you see the listening look as Bush gets a phrase or reminder and tries to recite it before he forgets. At these times his speech lacks whole-body involvement, and seems to be just coming out of his mouth. (Maybe that's why he had a hard time looking in the camera.) Over the three debates, people saw Bush seemingly listening at times as he was speaking, and even heard him overriding his own speech when a better thought apparently occurred to the voice in his ear. IsBushWired once read that people can recognize in a glance where another person's eyes are tracking, even from a distance of a hundred feet. In the same way, we can take in in one look the meaning of distant-looking eyes, unnaturally placed pauses, stalling for time, and implausible bursts of facts, figures and pompously mispronounced phrases (cf. "an absurd asinuation") from a man who's known never to read.

W Stands for Wired?

I know appeals to patriotism are doomed to be roundly mocked in our cynical times, but if any good soul in the White House or elsewhere in the country knows about or has evidence of the president's earwig -- please do your country a favor and blow the whistle now, before the next Bush-Cheney production knocks us all for a loop. Email us at isbushwired@gmail.com. We'll keep your identity confidential until and if you decide to go public.

An article by John Blossom has its finger on what IsBushWired is about, minus the part about "monetizing." We hope the major news media are finally onto the story, too, and will report back to the people in enough time that they can cast their votes undeceived. The mainstream press's willed blindness to this story for four years amounts to unspoken collusion with the White House to deceive the people. It's shocking.

Who you gonna believe, Bush spokesmen or your lying eyes?

A Salon update (Oct 13) quotes a technical expert whose company makes audio transceivers for the U.S. military and private companies. Looking at photos of the bulge, expert Alex Darbut says, "There's no question about it. It's a pretty obvious one -- larger than most because it probably has descrambling capability."

Bush-Cheney officials continue to deny there was anything at all under Bush's jacket, and say it was just a wrinkle.

(The Salon story also reproduces a photo of Bush driving at his ranch that some think shows a similar "bulge." To me -- and more to the point, to this doctor posting on democraticunderground.com -- it just looks like his right shoulder blade.)

Down to the Wire:
Just saw this very funny column about tailoring and wires in the New York Daily News ("Bush's Back is Front & Center"). Would that this were the first, or even the last question to be asked tonight. Funny how the networks were so responsive to those wacky Swift Boat accusations, but haven't even mentioned John Edwards ' newsworthy joke on Leno last night that Kerry might want to pat Bush down before tonight's debate.

TV on the Radio

A posting from a reader who says he spoke recently with an audio engineer for a major media outlet:"He said he was on site setting up for one of the debates. At these on sites they are required to scan the area for RF interference. He said his specrum analyzer picked up several RF bands that were not in the Secret Service saftey frequencies. He said, upon him asking questions of his supervisors about these frequencies, he was approached by 'officials' telling him to 'go blind immedeately' and to forget what he saw and to keep his eyes and ears out of those bands.
All of those RFs are encoded, including the ones used by the networks. He indicated that there may be people, engineers, thatr may hve 'accidentally' left their SAs on and maybe recorded some of the stuff. Now this is *highly* illegal (thank you FCC) but there may be proof out there.."

The above is beyond us, technically and legally, but we're putting it up for what it's worth. Another reader suggested that an infrared/thermographic camera might reveal the device the president is wearing. Doubtful that would be permitted, however, as wouldn't it show his Underoos, too? IsBushWired urges all electronic sleuths to avoid using any technology for tonight's debate that's not entirely legal, harmless and peaceful. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if you're not sure, consult a very good lawyer first, or ask your local ACLU. Another resource is the Electronic Freedom Frontier (www.eff.org).

Over and out! Later, debaters!

**********************************************

Calling on the AFP

A simple way for major news media, you with all your millions in resources, to check out the "prompter vs. repeater" theory:

Chirac is said by people who saw it on TV to react visibly to the second voice speaking Bush's lines -- whether it was a repeater for generating closed-captions or a prompter -- in the June press briefing at the Elysee Palace. This is from a posting on Portland Indymedia:

"His buddy, Chirac somehow had a mic on Bush AND whoever it is that speaks to him. You could hear "rove"? say a sentence then Bush repeat it exactly the same way...word for word. He just continued on thru it, but when it was over, he acted very paranoid looking all around. Like he was wondering what was to come next. Cherac
had a VERY HUGE smile, winked and nodded as they left. It was a beautiful sight!"

Many reporters and officials in the audience that day should be able to tell us: Did the voice that was heard precede Bush's in real time? If so, he was using a prompter. If it followed Bush's voice (again in real time, at the event) then it was likely that of a live-human-being hired to repeat speech into a text-generating engine for closed captioning.

It is odd, as readers have pointed out, that this unsynced audio phenomenon doesn't seem to happen with other officials and live news events, only with some of Bush's speeches. In addition to the Chirac-Bush event, television viewers in some places heard a voice speaking Bush's lines before he did during his 9/11 address. The new Salon story says there are also reports of a prompter-like voice heard at Bush's remarks at the Sea Island G-8 summit meeting in June as well. But it doesn't say if that voice was heard in real-time by the audience, or on a broadcast.

The Emperor's New Suit

Tailor to presidents Georges de Paris falls on his needle, says the box-bulge is just a pucker along the jacket's back seam. Wow. I've never seen a suit, or any garment, with a back like this -- except maybe that lumpy dress I once made in home economics, with the darts inside out.

Note to the White House press claque: Enough with the “internet conspiracy buffs” BS, hacks! This is something called a story. Remember those? Off your knees!

New: An earpiece in Bush made him an instant whiz kid on Indonesian politics, speculates State Department contract interpreter Fred Burks, who first interpreted for Bush at a September 19, 2001 meeting with Indonesian president Megawati Soekarnoputri. In a letter published on democrats.com and reprinted at this website, (and confirmed in a telephone conversation with IsBushWired) he says Bush displayed an astonishing grasp of obscure details of Indonesian politics during a 90-minute meeting. "I concluded either that Bush was much more intelligent than we had been led to believe, or that somehow someone was feeding answers to him through a hidden earpiece...Having worked directly with President Bush twice since then, and having additionally talked with many of my fellow interpreters who have worked directly with him, I am now certain that he could not have had that much knowledge of Indonesia. He doesn't even read the daily newspaper to keep up with what's being reported in the press. I am convinced that he must have been using some sort of earpiece through which someone was telling him what to say."

Odd Goings-on in Tennessee

Somebody claiming to be "Brad Menfil" of Knoxville, TN, recently posted on Portland's Indymedia site that he was told by a Bush campaign worker named Scott Zale that Bush is known among many campaign workers to be wired. Here's the text of the post, followed by a rebuttal that raises more questions than it answers:

"I have contacts within the Republican Party. I was told by Scott Zale, a Repulican operative in eastern Tennessee that he knows it to be a fact that Bush was wired. He said that within the Bush campaign, there are certain mid-level staffers that have leaked this tidbit because it was just "too fantastic to ignore."

Zale told me that the transmission device is popular with other high profile officials in the Bush administration. It helps everybody stay "on message." Zale said that Bush was only fed ready responses to just certain types of questions. He didn't know which questions those were but admitted that Bush just sounded(to him)to be more articulate at certain "oportune" times.

Zale confided that he was told that the president wore a loose fitting jacket during both debates. The device protuded because Bush has a tendency to hunch over and shrug his shoulders a lot.

This is a true story as it was told to me. If you want to know more, please contact Scott Zale at the Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters in Knoxville, Tn. Thanks."

IsBushWired called Bush-Cheney in Knoxville and confirmed that a Scott Zale was known there, though the woman who answered the phone said, "he's hardly ever here. He has a day job."

Meanwhile,somebody posting as "Scott Zale" repliedon the portlandindymedia site, under the headline "Scott Zale speaks for himself":

Please shut down this blog. I was informed this morning by the national editor of the Knoxville Times that my name was invoked by a man named "Brad Menfil" in regards to this out-of-control story.

It is true that I work for Bush-Cheney here in Tennessee. My office is in Gatlinburg, not Knoxville. Although I do happen to work at least two days a week in Knoxville. I am a staff accountant and one of my duties is to process local contributions. As part of that duty, I have to wire funds to the national committee in Washington D.C. So I do have national Republican contacts and have heard many things.

"Brad" is not his real name but I suspect he is or may be my counterpart in the Washington collections office. He has probably been to Tennessee about 15 times in the last 7 weeks, though he does not live here. I won't give his real name (even though he felt it was necessary to give mine).

The Knoxville Times called me at 6am this morning asking me to confirm or deny the "Bush is Wired" story they read here at Portland IMC. My immediate response was, "What is the Portland IMC?" and I then I issued a "no comment". Other than that, I did say that "Brad Menfil" is not a real person.

Please stop speculating about this. Our president is a great man and can only get hurt by this. I suspect this isn't going to go away and I regret anything that I said to "Brad" that may contribute to downfall of a great man and president.

Please drop this for the good of our country. We have bigger problems and should not be distracted by matters that don't ultimately determine the measure of an honest man. I want to say that the right answers are what matter most, not whether or not those answers were "fed" my someone else. President Bush is a good messenger regardless.

Thanks, Scott Zale, Senior Staff Accountant, Bush-Cheney Tennessee.

The person writing as "Brad Menfil" then posted back to Portland Indymedia:
"Scott Zale is right, "Brad Menfil" is not my real name and I didn't hear this story from him, he heard it from me. Sorry Scott.
I do work for Bush-Cheney and I can olny say that the substance of my first posting is correct, even though I used a fake name. I hope everybody understands why I would do this. I got a call from Scott this morning (actually, about 10 minutes ago). He said that he had been contacted by ABC and Fox after his own posting. I don't share his belief that ignoring this would be good for the country. I'm sorry I involved Scott and didn't have enough courage to use my real name. I hope the truth gets out and Scott is absolved.
Thanks for reading this, "Brad Menfil."

IsBushWired looked at the Knoxville Times online. It didn't look at all like a real newspaper, as Glenn Ward, editor of The South Knoxville and Seymour Times Sentinel confirmed. "I've never heard of it," he said. Looking at the website, he agreed that it seemed to be a lot of clippings taken off news wires. So, who called Mr. Zale at 6 in the morning? Or did anybody call Scott Zale at all? Scott Zale seems to exist, but who can be sure? Maybe somebody else used his name to write to Portland Indymedia.

Update: Webmeisters, thanks for your work in digging up the provenance of the Knoxville Times site; many of you reported that it was created 8/19/2003 in Australia by a John Mcevoy, who owns a company Mainstream Capital EC, headquartered in Manama, Bahrain, with offices in Sydney, Australia. A PRWeb July press release announced it was launching a new search engine called 100.com.

Curiously, when I first looked at the Knoxville Times site Monday afternoon, there was no masthead, no information about ownership, not even an email address or the word "Tennessee" in the title. Following my posting about the "fake" newspaper Monday afternoon, the site added a box explaining, "The Knoxville Times is essentially a local Knoxville newspaper, but with a national and international perspective....The biggest advantage we have is that we are an online newspaper, which means we are constantly refreshing our stories as more and more information comes to hand."

The lead story, however, about environmentalist protestors at a local coal company exective's home in West Knoxville Sunday night, is not a story at all, but a link to a posting about the action by the protestors at an anarchist website, www.infoshop.org.

The "newspaper" box goes on: "We like to think if you're looking for breaking news out of Knoxville, Tennessee, the United States, or the world, you'll look for it first at the Knoxville Times."

Hmmm. I don't think so. It's a genuinely weird front for something or other. Who is John McEvoy, anyway, and who's the editor?

The Zale letter also reads in part like an official Bush-Cheney production, whereas "Brad Menfil's" second letter sounds faintly genuine -- if there's a real person in any of this. But I wouldn't bet on it. It could all be fiction cooked up by Karl Rove and Co. We won't waste any more time on it unless a credible source gets in touch with us with a great deal of information that checks out.

Incidentally, legit editor Glenn Ward said his own newspaper, which can be Googled (though they don't have a web site yet) has been reporting lately on the recent shutdown -- for no obvious reason, he said -- by the FCC with "heavy FBI involvement" of a tiny, 100-watt unlicensed radio station in the area that had been reporting critically on local matters, including the federal TVA project. )

Earwig and the Angry Bush

Some writers say Bush seemed "wired" last night! AP has a photo showing a rounded hump between Bush’s shoulder blades. Other posters saw a boxy lump at his abdomen that made the right side of his suit hang funny. He reached into his jacket in that area a couple of times as if to adjust something.

Another poster notes the Reuters photo on NPR’s home page, of Bush’s right ear (into which Kerry is whispering congratulations to Rove.) The poster thought it looked as if something is in there. Could the person who used NASA imaging technology to sharpen the other photo (NOT the ones we used -- we took only the straight stuff off the Fox video feed) take a look at this and report back? Maybe it's just some gum he was saving for later.

Cryptome.org has an interesting analysis of Debate 1's box-shaped bulge, 28 time-stamped video images of it, and a link to the kind of device used for remote prompting.

As to the times in which viewers heard a voice other than the president's speaking his words, i.e. on the night of 9/11 and during the Bush-Chirac press conference: there may be an innocent explanation for the two voices. A poster explains it may be a voice used for live subtitling, in which a "re-speaker" repeats what is being said into a voice recognition engine in order to generate text.

"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 "live" voice-feed."

That sounds like the simplest explanation, unless it emerges that those actually in the room at Bush-Chirac heard the voice speaking before Bush, in which case they heard a prompter. Viewers on television said that Chirac reacted visibly to the voice, but he may have been reacting to the seeming echo.

A Faith-Based Debate

A reader comments: "The accusation is ridiculous. It is a slanderous false accusation from the pit! In the debate, he demonstrated no hesitation in his comments or rebuttals. I know who the President is wired to: The Almighty, Jehovah God is His Lord." Yours sincerely, Mr. Crackpot, Tulsa, OK

Dear Mr. Crackpot:
We are all wired to the HP, an evangelist might reply, but sometimes we hang up on Her/Him, and call instead on Karl, Karen, etc, to tell us what to say. In the debates, that would be called cheating.

What Are You Wearing Tonight?

A former Special Forces officer of my acquaintance who served in Iraq during the first Gulf War says that the photos of Bush's back are not body armor. Bush often appears in shirtsleeves at public rallies with no visible bulges. Think about it: If you were George Bush, what would you fear more, going into a debate with John Kerry without body armor -- or without your prompter? Take a look at this device.

Postscript to the Debate: Oh, whatever was there for the first debate has been moved to a more secure location. But the coverup is not persuasive: The New York Times reports (Oct 9) that the White House first said that the pictures of the bulge might have been "doctored." When that didn't fly, campaign communications director Nicolle Devinish told the Times that the bulge was "most likely a rumpling...or a wrinkle in the fabric." White House and campaign officials also told the newspaper that Bush was not wearing a bulletproof jacket in the first debate, that there was nothing under his jacket, and that he wore no receiver.

What's the frequency, Karl?

This site is a clearinghouse for discussion of whether President Bush uses an earpiece through which he's fed lines and cues by offstage advisers. His speech rhythms suggest this, as do some of his word choices and interjections, and his constantly shifting eye movements while speaking. And there's another form of evidence: Television viewers have sometimes heard another voice speaking Bush's words before he says them. When Bush spoke at D-Day ceremonies in France last June, for example, viewers watching on CNN, Fox and MSNBC, including mediachannel.org's Danny Schechter, were startled to hear another voice speaking Bush's words as if to prompt him. [POST SCRIPT, SUNDAY 10/10: As discussed above, this may have been due to the use of a live voice "repeater" accidentally broadcast over a slightly delayed "live" broadcast. We'll take off this part of the discussion until we determine that is otherwise.]

Reporters should have looked into this long ago. But for the past four years through Bush's first debate last week with John Kerry -- and even in the days after the debate -- the press has ignored the evidence of its eyes and ears, and failed to ask whether the president secretly relies on unseen handlers for some public events, including press conferences. If Bush wore a hidden earpiece to cheat in this way during his first debate with John Kerry (however unsuccessfully), it is urgent that the fraud be exposed before the election.

The agreement set by the debate commission barred shots of the candidates from the rear of the stage -- a provision reportedly demanded by RNC negotiator James Baker. (It also specified only hardwired podium microphones for the first debate, i.e. no lapel mics.) The networks refused to comply with the camera angle rules, broadcasting occasional shots of the candidates from behind. The images here are from the Fox video pool feed.

Many viewers thus saw a squarish bulge the size of a large battery pack under the back of Bush's suit jacket, with an S-shaped cord appearing to snake up the right side of his back. Several blogs have carried speculation that it was an audio receiver.

A poster to NYCIndymedia says, "Think 'passive transducer' earpiece." He writes, "The bulges under his jacket are likely receiver/repeaters that pick up the transmitter (and encrypted?) signals from his handlers and transmit them, at very low power, to the earpiece."

"Sure, Bush uses an earpiece sometimes," a top Washington editor for Reuters said to me last spring. "State of the Union -- he had an earpiece for that. Everybody knows it," he said, or assumes it. But everybody doesn't know it, I said. Why hadn't Reuters investigated? The editor shrugged and said it wasn't so different from using a teleprompter.

Except that a teleprompter isn't a secret. And Americans have the right to know if the president can't or won't speak in public without covert assistance.

Television hosts and news anchors wear earpieces, called IFBs (for internal [or interruptible] foldback, or feedback) which fit in the ear canal and are almost invisibly small, to receive cues from their producers. (Language scientists say that "shadowing," repeating the words someone else is speaking, is not at all difficult, but it is difficult not to move your eyes when listening.) Television journalists would be likely to spot the use of an IFB or at least to suspect it. So, why haven't they raised the question? I suspect it's untouchable in part because asking the question now points up all the years they let go by without asking it.

But these are the questions that must be asked now, by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and journalists: Does the president use an earpiece in his meetings with the public and with journalists? Did he wear one in last week's debate? How can members of the public who suspect he wore an earpiece be assured that he will not do so in the next debate? What was the object underneath his jacket?

--Ed.

Email tips and information to isbushwired@gmail.com
Postscript, Friday a.m: Salon just posted a story in which the debate commission confirms the candidates were not equipped with wireless mics, and that it doesn't know what the object on Bush's back was.

To read "The Voice in Bush's Ear," the earliest-dated post on this site, go to archives and scroll to the post at the bottom.

MORE LINKS:
Many links to photos and articles at bushwired.blogspot.com

A documentary maker explains why he thinks Bush is wired for sound.Discussion of audio "shadowing" here. A news photograph from July 7 shows Bush with another odd bulge at the back of his jacket. The suspicions of Veritas were aroused by a moment in Bush's December 2003 news conference. Here is an excerpt from his post :

Q I know you said there will be a time for politics. But you've also said you wanted to change the tone in Washington. Howard Dean recently seemed to muse aloud whether you had advance knowledge of 9/11. Do you agree or disagree with the RNC that this kind of rhetoric borders on political hate speech?

THE PRESIDENT: There's time for politics. There's time for politics, and I -- it's an absurd insinuation.

- White House Press Conference, Dec. 15

A funny thing happened at the December 15th presidential press conference. Asked to comment on an earlier statement by Howard Dean regarding his alleged foreknowledge of 9/11, Bush stumbles about the stage, clearly caught off guard by the question, then delivers the line: "It's an absurd asinuation."

...it could not be more clear that Bush was provided the words with which to answer. At first, Bush stumbles about, repeating his previous line that "there's a time for politics." During this time, he's avoiding eye contact, shrugging, and delaying. Then, the answer is given to him, presumably through a wireless ear piece. Bush then suddenly delivers his line that "it's an absurd asinuation." The suddenness of his reply, after having been speechless, the smile in his eyes when he's given the correct answer, and his incorrect pronunciation of the word "insinuation" all lead to [the] conclusion that he was prompted to provide this answer.

More images below: The first is an AFP photo taken in July at a press event at a Michigan airport, where Bush spoke about six judicial nominees.. The debate images are from the Fox video pool feed.

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

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 from The 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