Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » So, was Bush wired? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: So, was Bush wired?
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lots of people seem to think so.

Salon has a story about it (click to see the ad for a free day pass to the whole story).
quote:
Bush's mystery bulge
The rumor is flying around the globe. Was the president wired during the first debate?

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

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

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

So what was the mystery bulge? Sure looks like a pack.
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That would be hilarious.
I wouldn't be shocked if it was the case; then again, I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose fair is fair after the "note card" rumors against Kerry.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tshaw
Member
Member # 1984

 - posted      Profile for tshaw   Email tshaw       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The one realistic answer to the Bush being wired argument is that if Bush had been wired, he would have done a much better job in the debate.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grendel
Member
Member # 1693

 - posted      Profile for Grendel   Email Grendel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although a wire would also explain that one long open-mouthed pause that he took at the start of one of his responses.

I laughed out loud at that slack-jawed look he gave the camera.

Posts: 249 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey grendel
That's his "I'm fixin' to blow your a__ away look."
Much nicer than mine. Most idiots even know when a man goes silent...look out.
I really hope Dubyah quits pulling punches on the dope and blows his demodonkey away tonight. [Smile]
Bean

[ October 08, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: KenBean ]

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doubtful. Haven't you learned yet Bush doesn't know how to speak if he's not teleprompted?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, after comparing O'Reilly's interview with the debates, I would have to say the exact opposite is true: he speaks terribly when he's going off of other people's talking points.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While we're talking about Bush debate rumors, Bush sort of looked like he was medicated. His rhythm was way off from what it was during the debates with Gore, and he kept making weird facial tics, which is a symptom seen in some people when they're medicated on mood-changing drugs. I've read rumors on the Net that he's been on anti-anxiety drugs for quite some time now. I don't know how true those rumors are, but I do know he looked a lot worse that last debate than he did in the ones with Gore. It could just be that he was stressed out. Or maybe the Presidency hasn't been very kind to him.

[ October 08, 2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Anonymous24 ]

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam-
He's fine when he's on a script, and if he doesn't have to veer from the script, he can talk. But, he doesn't do press conferences... I think there's a reason for it. If he had to answer anything like a tough question on a day to day basis, he'd stumble and fall all over the place. His performance in the debate was very similar to everything else I've seen from him, when he's not "on script." Perhaps the telepromter was a poor choice of words.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naw!

The script has been the problem. Any of you naysayers want to sit down and visit with him?

If you do, would you be honest about your genuine impressions here and among your friends? E-mail me privately and I might be able to arrange it.

It is Mr. Kerry...the JUNIOR Senator from Mass. that refuses to give press conferences, not Dubyah.
Duh!
Bean

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would be honest. Absolutely.

You arrange a mtg and I will be there, respectfully.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Umm, are you friggin kidding me, Ken?

Bush has had fewer press conferences in his first term then Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter. Probably further back then that, too.

As of March 7th 2003,

"First, I'm glad the president actually held the press conference and did so in prime time. Just last week I was complaining about the paucity of Bush media briefings and the importance of these events. The Washington Post reported that this was his eighth stand-alone White House press conference and first since early November. Of course, if he wants to start to catch up to other presidents from the television era, he's going to have to hurry. (At this point in their respective presidencies, the number of press conferences per president is as follows: Clinton 30, H.W. Bush 58, Reagan 16, Carter 45, Ford 37, Nixon 16, and Johnson 52.)"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000290.html

So, you're saying that Bush gives press conferences? For a president, he doesn't give any.

Compare that to Kerry, who's actually made a campaign promise to have open press conferences at least once a month, which would soar him past Bush's four year terms in Kerry's first year.

I'd love to visit with Bush, if only to yell at him about the disaster his presidency has been.


So, Ken, can you provide ANY substantion for your claim " is Mr. Kerry...the JUNIOR Senator from Mass. that refuses to give press conferences, not Dubyah."

Incidentally, a Junior senator in his fourth term is hardly worthy of capitolizing the word for emphasis.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where was Kerry on Fox?

His wife owns the other networks [Big Grin]

You are mis-informed.....once again.

Again...I asked for a private e-mail.

If you cannot answer a simple request...if you cannot follow simple directions...then why should I waste the man's time?

You anonymous persons can hide behind your handles all you want. You can be a brilliant debater when it costs you nothing. Stand up in the daylight? HA!
Stand FOR something?
HA!

weasle around in the shadows of your computer room/home...ahhhhhhh bravebrilliant [Big Grin]
Bean

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not going to privately email you, Ken. I have no interest in meeting Bush. What a person is like face to face has no influence on whether I want him as a president. Bush's policies are disastrous for our nation, and his inability to lead is disastrous for our nation.

"weasle around in the shadows of your computer room/home...ahhhhhhh bravebrilliant"

So leave us alone, Ken. Bring your rhetoric without substance somewhere it is appreciated.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken-

Last night on the Daily Show while Kerry was interviewing O'Reilly, Bill said that Kerry had agreed to go on his show (or Stewart said it or something). So either way, Kerry will apperantly be on The Factor.

And Bush has held the fewest press conferences of any President since they invented the damn thing.

Also, how many Senators do you know of who hold press conferences? I doubt many because they wouldn't get any air time.

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh my God, the fewest press conferences!

Clinton accomplished SO much with those!

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe they don't accomplish anything, but they serve transparency, which is a huge complaint I have with this administration. They do not trust us to make informed decisions, but would rather have US trust THEM to do whats right, without them telling us why they are acting, what information they are acting on, and without public discussion.

I am pretty certain I've seen you speak in favor of transparency before in economic activity? I believe it is the single most important issue in a successful democracy, and teh Bush administration has done its best to not give us ANY information that isn't carefully crafted, and the dissent edited out. That is not transparency, it is the active attempt to subvert the democratic process.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe they don't accomplish anything, but they serve transparency
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

Transparancy in the Clinton administration was sooooo helful. It really helps us trust them when they are open and honest [Wink]

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev -
Where we disagree is that you think press conferences serve transparency. I don't think they do. I haven't seen anything but spin in a press conference since I can recall first seeing them on TV sometime in the Clinton administration.

Anytime a press conference is held my bulls*** detector goes up to Orange Alert.

You indeed have seen me argue for transparency in economic activity, I think. If I haven't argued it here by now I should have -- my favorite politicians are the "what you see is what you get" fiscally responsible people like Tom McClintock.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where we disagree is that you think press conferences serve transparency. I don't think they do. I haven't seen anything but spin in a press conference since I can recall first seeing them on TV sometime in the Clinton administration.


Even if this is true, press conferences are still preferable to not. If the president answers questions to the press (the people's surrogates), he is either lying or he isn't. If he won't answer those questions, there isn't even the possibility of getting the truth. So in one scenario, we might get the truth, in the other definately not. Also, if the president is forced to lie about controversial policies, then there exists the possibility of accountability. Secrecy in the executive gives the people one chance to effect change every four years. Transparancy forces the office holder to be accountable all the time, which is much better for us.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clinton was ever held accountable for any of the spin he used to prevent US involvement in saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, we don't have the opportunity to ask Bush why he's preventing the US from saving hundreds of thousands of lives. At least we, theoretically, had the opportunity to ask Clinton.

I think thats an extremely important distinction. In the case of Clinton, we never asked the tough questions, so we failed at democracy. In the case of Bush, we're not getting the opportunity to ask tough questions, so the administration is circumventing democracy.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, Clinton said he was "getting creamed" because he continually stonewalled the press who were asknig him about Bosnia. It was said/joked that during press conferences they'd look for an Asian face so that they wouldn't have to answer a question about Somalia, Rwanda or the Balkans.

We asked plenty of tough questions. The answers were "acts of genocide" instead of "genocide," which apparently let him off the hook to not save 800,000 Rwandas for only a few million dollars, and not stop the chillingly Holocaust-like concentration camps the Serbs were running.

I'll continue in a bit, I'm watching sci-fi DVDs with Tez.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Transparency is its own reward. And the ability and willingness to be asked unscripted questions from people who have not signed loyalty oaths is something every president should share.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the ability and willingness to be asked unscripted questions from people who have not signed loyalty oaths is something every president should share.
Bush Talks to O'Reilly [Big Grin]
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard O'Reilly's praise of Bush for coming on the show. I agree that it would be great if an unbiased interviewer could ask difficult, unscripted questions to both candidates. Unfortunately, O'Reilly isn't close to that person. Whether or not he signs a document has nothing to do with his biases. I'd love to see a solid 1/2 hour with each man being posed questions that they can't duck, and they can't avoid with 2 minute dances around the subject.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually I was sort of being facetious but honestly I think O'Reilly is about as unbiased as you are going to get at a national level.

[ October 10, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Adam Lassek ]

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bearcatmark
Member
Member # 1507

 - posted      Profile for bearcatmark   Email bearcatmark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about Russert...I think Russert is always exceptional.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd love to see a solid 1/2 hour with each man being posed questions that they can't duck, and they can't avoid with 2 minute dances around the subject.
Heh, O'reilly complained about exactly the same thing. The problem is, you CAN'T do that. It's the President of the United States, and if he won't answer a question directly you can't make him do it without being disrespectful.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grendel
Member
Member # 1693

 - posted      Profile for Grendel   Email Grendel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...if he won't answer a question directly you can't make him do it without being disrespectful.
You can respect the office, disprespect the man and still point out his tap-dance: "Mr President, all due respect, but you did not answer the question I asked..."

The office IS due respect, the man holding the office MAY BE due respect.

Posts: 249 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... but usually not.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it comes down to finding how someone will truly govern, versus disrespecting them a little bit, there just is no decision. Elections aren't supposed to be about who SOUNDS the best. I think it should be required before election day. O'Reilly is not the best for this, but I would take him over these debates.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought OPL was referring to an alcoholic stupor. I thought we didn't need wires to 'wire' people these days. (His tailor, I hear, is going to be taken and shot.)
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cant it be some sort of Kevlar vest against assasinations?

or maybe somthing in the style of 24 you know some major criminal told the president to put this thing in his back or he whould nuke L.A

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is a Puppet Master!!!!!! Heinlein was right, aliens, that attach themselves to the base of ones neck to control you, have taken over the government!

The only defense is to go clothless at all times!

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
clothless with luisana lopilato maybe?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Might have been a heart and respiration monitor for help in evaluating his performance later.

I thought it was black helicopter tin foil hat doctored photo stuff to be honest, then I watched the tape. There is something there.

Judging from his performance it's pretty obivious to me it wasn't communications gear....Maybe the secret service had a low-jack installed on him just in case?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kilthmal
Member
Member # 547

 - posted      Profile for Kilthmal   Email Kilthmal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought OPL was referring to an alcoholic stupor
Yeah, I thought he was refereing to pixie stix myself. [Big Grin]
Posts: 728 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the NY Times response to this was interesting. The first debate tape showing Kerry with his back to the audience pulling something out of his pocket wasn't worth reporting even though taking any object from his pocket was breaking the debate rules.

But Bush with a bulge in his jacket is worth reporting.

I've got the same response to this as I did to the people who thought Kerry had a transmitter: the downside to getting caught with a transmitter is so huge compared to the use you'd get out of it that no one would risk using it.

Also ear pieces can be small but they aren't invisible. The candidates have repeated camera closeups then stand around for a meet-and-greet after the debate. Somebody is going to notice.

======

I wouldn't be surprised at it being body armor, lowjack, or his lucky baseball.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1