Bush using Wireless to perform in Debate?

The left is in melt-down mode..

Published on October 12, 2004 By ShadowWar In Democrat

Thanks to my buddy Andy for pointing this one out to me. This is a typical example of how badly the left is melting down and grasping at straws. Don't you think the man in charge of the most advanced nation in the world, with access to all the CIA, DOD, NSA and other technology would do a little better than use a common wireless system if he was going to do this? Maybe a descrete in the ear only, transmitter/ Receiver?

Was Bush packing Wi-Fi in TV debate?
By Thomas C Greene
Published Tuesday 12th October 2004 09:58 GMT
Opinion Wireless technology might explain why US President George W. Bush performed better than usual in the last two presidential debates with his opponent, Senator John Kerry.

Unless he's reading a well-rehearsed speech, the President is normally much given to malapropisms and incoherent syntax. When confronted with questions for which he is not prepared, he typically muddles along unintelligibly when starting a reply, until he finds a path to one of his prepared talking points, as he repeatedly did during his televised prime-time press conference of 13 April 2004. It is not unusual for him to take refuge in his prepared points, regardless of what question is asked, and his answers are often irrelevant as well as confused. That is, he tends to stay "on message," rather than "on topic".

Yet, during both presidential debates, he miraculously spoke in clear, organized sentences that were fairly relevant to the questions asked. He stumbled only occasionally, and then only briefly. The public has declared Kerry the winner of both debates - the first by a wide margin, and the second by a narrow one - but it is undeniable that the President far exceeded his baseline performance when confronting the unexpected. Or, said another way, he may have looked bad in comparison to Kerry, but he looked very good in comparison to himself.

Bush's bulge

Interestingly, screen shots of the first debate, courtesy of Cryptome, show a cigarette-pack-sized object positioned between Bush's shoulders, impressing itself on his suit jacket. A wire appears to run from the object, up towards the President's neck. This is best seen in the first column, fourth picture, and in the second column, fourth picture. (Note: The Register has not verified the authenticity of these images. They appear to come from a C-SPAN feed, but we cannot vouch for that.)

The impression is consistent with common wireless gear used by public speakers and entertainers, enabling a remote coach to offer prompts and suggestions. Typically, a rig consists of a wireless radio transmitter used by the coach, and a wireless transceiver used by the speaker. For stealth, the transceiver is concealed under clothing, and connected to a flexible wire device encircling the neck and worn under the shirt, which generates a signal picked up by a wireless receiver within the ear canal, much like a small hearing aid, and virtually invisible.

Additional evidence
The pictures might be suggestive, if not conclusive, but they are not the only evidence suggesting that Bush enjoyed the benefit of a wireless hookup. The very fact that he rarely stumbled or babbled itself suggests that something extraordinary was afoot. And there were a couple of moments in both debates where Bush's behavior is best explained by presuming a remote coach.

In the first debate, during a reply to Kerry, he ranted, "Let me finish!" Oddly, neither his opponent, Senator Kerry, nor the moderator, Jim Lehrer, was attempting to cut him off, and he had plenty of time left on the clock. One explanation is that he was disoriented and confused, as he often is without a script. But a somewhat better explanation, in view of the pictures and his sudden debating competence, is that he was addressing not his opponent or the moderator, but a remote coach who had prompted him to move on to a fresh topic before he was ready to do so.

In the second debate, Bush went off the rails, again in a way that suggests remote coaching. According to the rules, each candidate answers questions in turn. The one to whom the question is addressed gets two minutes to reply, and his opponent gets ninety seconds to rebut. At the moderator's discretion, there may be a one-minute extension, providing each candidate an additional thirty seconds on each question.

At one point, when Bush had taken a question, and Kerry had delivered a spirited rebuttal, moderator Charlie Gibson decided to extend the session. But he had trouble getting the words out, as Bush leapt up and leaned into his face, repeatedly demanding the very extension that Gibson was attempting, without success, to offer him.

Kerry: "We're gonna build alliances; we're not gonna go unilaterally [into war]; we're not gonna go alone, like this President did."

Gibson: "Mr. President, let's extend for one minute..."

Bush: "Lemme just one question; I, I gotta answer this."

Gibson: "Exactly, and with reservists being held on duty..."

Bush: "Let, let me just answer this, what he said about goin' alone."

Gibson: "Well, I wanted to get into the issue."

Bush: "You tell Tony Blair we're goin' alone. Tell Tony Blair we're goin' alone. Tell Servio Belisconi we're goin' alone..."

A fair reading of the scene would have Bush's remote coach urging him to respond at that moment, with enough vehemence to distract the President from what was happening right before his eyes. "You've got to respond to that - you can't let it go. He's insulting our allies," we can imagine the coach saying. And we can imagine Bush getting flustered to the point that he failed to grasp what the moderator was trying to tell him.

Detection
Technologically speaking, it would be painfully easy for Bush to have received remote, wireless guidance during the debates. But whether he would risk pulling such a cheesy stunt is less clear. Bush may be a generous risk-taker when it comes to spilling other people's blood in Iraq, but when his own political career is at stake, he tends to play a very cautious, conservative game. If the scam were ever exposed, he would certainly lose votes that, in such a tight race, he knows he can't afford to squander. A mere pat on the back from Kerry after a debate would suffice to reveal the game.

There are other ways, too. Surveillance specialist James Atkinson has written a good generic description of the wireless device that Bush would likely have been connected to, along with a list of the radio frequencies that such devices typically employ.

All that remains is for Kerry to pat Bush down during the next debate, or for some enterprising geek to use Atkinson's information to intercept the President's coaching session, and record it. In the interest of public disclosure, we note that the final presidential debate will be held on Wednesday, 13 October on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, at the Gammage Auditorium, located on the northeast corner of Mill Avenue and Apache Boulevard.

Not that we're suggesting anything.

LOL I got a real kick of this article. Keep trying left! You may just sit in a corner and suck your thumb begore you push yourself in a self destructive frenzy.

Comments (Page 1)

Deference

on Oct 12, 2004

I would like an explanation of what the object in question is. Is it the wrinkles caused by his undershirt? What? I'm not trying to allege anything here, but it's ridiculous that things in plain sight are given no address and questioners are laughed off as conspiracy theorists. I don't feel I received a satisfactory answer about Kerry's "unfolding" pen either...

Bungy32

on Oct 12, 2004

This is a typical example of how badly the left is melting down and grasping at straws.

And what, then, was all that JU hullaballoo about Kerry's super-secret spy pen with the crip notes? I think both stories are pretty silly, really. But this second one shows that both candidates can be the butt of conspiracy theorists and video hawks. The true desperation isn't on the extremes of the Left or the Right. The greater desperation lies with the real "average joes and janes," who I think are ready to hear about issues that matter rather than these non-issues and are becoming desperately frustrated at all this BS.

Myrrander

on Oct 12, 2004

This is pretty much a dead issue IMO, there have already been several posts about it.

Deference

on Oct 12, 2004

...yep, it's been pointed out then: 1.)some have used these stories to try to smear the candidates, 2.)some have used those attacks to attack their fellow bloggers' "bias" 3.)some unknown spokesmen for the candidates camps have offered some lame explanation 4.) People like me go unfullfilled still wondering what the FOCK I was watching and wondering why the hell NO explanation is ever given. I can see the next presidential debate happening four years from now and some friend of mine pointing out some weird bulge in a candidate's suit and asking,
"What's that?"

Should I reply,

"Some thought it may be a wireless of sorts, but we never found out what it might be, ignore it, bulges in candidates suits during presidential debates happen all the time."

...but then the other candidate takes a "pen" from his pocket and "unfolds" it on the podium...

"Hey, are those his notes? I thought they said nobody can bring those in."

"Naw, buddy, that's nothing, it may be a pen, they may have been told that nobody can bring anything with them, but hey, who's gonna' cheat in plain sight?"

I like how people have been told to ignore what they see and hear this election, even what one sees on camera is subject to being explained away. I say phooey!!!

ShadowWar

on Oct 12, 2004

Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine' -- A forensic scientist studying photographic evidence has identified an object which caused a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during his first debate with John Forbes Kerry.

"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry." Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features." When asked about the new evidence, Mr. Kerry said, "I had a spine when I defended this country as a young man, and I will have one again when I defend her as president of the United States."

ShadowWar

on Oct 12, 2004

Has anyone ever thought that it may be a bullet proof vest? Being president you would hope he wears one in public. ALso look at the back of his shoulder. That looks like a vest strap to me. Why do I say this? How would I know? I wear one every day and it looks just like that under my uniform shirt.

Hmmm but of course thats a logical reason and will be of course dismissed out of hand by those that want to find some other mysterious reason for the"buldge".

Deference

on Oct 12, 2004

The bullet proof vest theory was the first some friends and I discussed, we eventually decided that it would be an odd bullet proof vest if it was, however, since most zip in the front and are not subject to the type of "trail" like that shown in the first debate or the bulge in the second.

Myrrander

on Oct 12, 2004

Well, his own people said it wasn't a vest.

As for your lame attempt at satire...well...better luck next time.

eieio

on Oct 12, 2004

Now that's funny!

drmiler

on Oct 12, 2004

Reply #1 By: Deference - 10/12/2004 1:29:37 PM
I would like an explanation of what the object in question is. Is it the wrinkles caused by his undershirt? What? I'm not trying to allege anything here, but it's ridiculous that things in plain sight are given no address and questioners are laughed off as conspiracy theorists. I don't feel I received a satisfactory answer about Kerry's "unfolding" pen either...

First *prove* it was actually there, *then* ask for an explination.

Deference

on Oct 12, 2004

I'm not trying to prove any particular item present, I'm simply asking what it is I'm seeing. My personal best answer was that it could possibly be rumpled undershirts in the light tricking the eye in to believing a solid object present underneath. As for what I'm looking at in the Kerry video, I can't freakin' tell, but I'm not satisfied with the answer of it being a simple pen when looking at the action present. I'm just disappointed and frustrated that I can receive no satisfaction and that nobody seems to be curious or informed enough to provide a halfway plausible answer.

Now, if I was able to prove that something was there, would I need an explanation?

drmiler

on Oct 12, 2004

Reply #11 By: Deference - 10/12/2004 4:17:59 PM
I'm not trying to prove any particular item present, I'm simply asking what it is I'm seeing. My personal best answer was that it could possibly be rumpled undershirts in the light tricking the eye in to believing a solid object present underneath. As for what I'm looking at in the Kerry video, I can't freakin' tell, but I'm not satisfied with the answer of it being a simple pen when looking at the action present. I'm just disappointed and frustrated that I can receive no satisfaction and that nobody seems to be curious or informed enough to provide a halfway plausible answer.

Now, if I was able to prove that something was there, would I need an explanation?

No you wouldn't. But then this is America. Where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the Kerry campaign isn't worried about it, then why should you? Same goes for the Kerry film. GW ain't sweating it either.

Myrrander

on Oct 12, 2004

presumed innocent until proven guilty

Unless you wind up down in Gitmo...

on Oct 12, 2004

Not again. There is technology to make it wireless and much smaller than that. Bush may have that wireless equipment, but that bulge isn't it.

Before I get flamed, I am not bush supporter, I support Kerry.

This is a typical example of how badly the left is melting down and grasping at straws.

Oh I missed that. It's not possible having that bulge at second president debate anyway. Kerry have slapped Bush's back when they was talking to each other. I believe in anti-cheating being two way street. If Kerry were caught cheating I would not scream right evil planning, etc.

The GOPs Worst Nightmare

on Oct 12, 2004

I think that this just proof of just how pathetic George Bush is. He has to be told what to say?!? Is that the kind of person we need in the White House? A puppet? We need to dump this loser and pick up a president with HIS OWN THOUGHTS. John Kerry is a very smart person with plans that will turn around a nation that is currently being destoyed.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!