Bush’s Mystery Bulge

Much flying talk about a mysterious square bulge on Bush’s back, clearly visible beneath his suit during the first debate, leading to rumors that he may have been channeling Karl Rove through a tiny wireless earpiece. Salon has a pretty compelling analysis concluding that the likelihood is high. Mediachannel has another.

One videographer was asked by a Bush crew member what frequency his camera was on – speculation is that the question may have been a probe to prevent another episode like the one in France at the D-Day memorial event, when TV viewers were able to clearly hear a male voice speaking Bush’s words just before he spoke them. isbushwired.com explores the topic in some depth, and includes images. Networks had agreed not to shoot the debaters from behind, but did anyway.

An earpiece isn’t materially different from a teleprompter. But debaters don’t get to use teleprompters. Especially not presidential debaters. If this story blows open, the game changes.

Music: Lou Reed :: Endless Cycle

13 Replies to “Bush’s Mystery Bulge”

  1. You’re right, it’s down. But AOL? Just did a whois on the domain and don’t see anything AOL-related about it. Registered at godaddy.com, DNS on jomax.net.

  2. Alex, thanks for posting. You make some good points in your online response, but then I came to this sentence:

    “I don’t believe our president would be dishonest in such a way. It’s against the rules, and I trust him.”

    Wow. I’m speechless. How people can feel trust toward this man after all we’ve been through over the past four years is utterly beyond the realm of my comprehension.

  3. “if this blows open, the game changes.”

    Would that it were so. Honestly I don’t think so. Witness that quote from Alex, who trusts Bush. It feels like the half that are behind him really don’t care whether he’s a robot or a liar or stupid. Or all of the above. It’s baffling to me. And with all of the things he’s done, having someone helping him get through his bullet points in a debate probably won’t matter at all to those supporters.

  4. “How people can feel trust toward this man after all we’ve been through over the past four years is utterly beyond the realm of my comprehension.”

    Scot, we live in a country where laying about getting blowjobs and lying about it is worse than invading a foreign country on false pretenses.

    I just wish that in November that I could vote against Bush more than once.

  5. Alex wrote: I don’t believe our president would be dishonest in such a way. It’s against the rules, and I trust him.

    Well, that verges entirely too closely on führerprinzip for my taste. (Godwin’s Law, anybody? ;-)

    “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson

  6. I have been trying to stay out of political crap recently. Read more about why here:


    But hasn’t *anyone* thought about the fact that a President of a nuclear-equipped country that is at war might have need of instant communication because of his office?

    If I had sent troops into harm’s way, yeah, I’d want someone to have a direct conduit to me all the time.

    Jeez, this country needs a chill-pill.

  7. Cheney to debate moderator: “Mr. Moderator, urgent business has arisen that will unfortunately require the president to terminate the debate immediately.”

    Moderator to Cheney: “Sorry Mr. Vice President – the President is more than 20 feet away from me, and I’m not allowed to say anything other than my prepared questions right now. And no, no one from your staff is allowed to get up onstage to talk to him. We have no way to inform him of pending nuclear attack until the debate is over!”

    Cheney: “Damn, if we’d only thought to wire him beforehand, the nation could be saved.”

    mnep: It’s an interesting theory, but doesn’t hold water. And if it was the case (needs to be wired at all times), don’t you think we would have seen one or two bulges in the past four years? Nope, we just never noticed before now.

    Sorry, the chill pill ain’t going to happen – apathy is what got us into this mess to begin with.

  8. And this is why I’m not discussing politics any more. These days it’s turning people into self-righteous, sarcastic people more inclined to believe what they want than what is likely.

    I’ll count my blessings and be grateful that at least this time you weren’t telling people what their political moral obligations are. While slamming the Christian right for doing the exact same thing.

  9. I believe in Occam’s Razor too. To me the theory that Bush was cheating in the debate seems a lot more likely (and supported by facts) than the theory that the device is a permanent feature necessary for security reasons.

    Here’s a rational, even-handed attempt to learn more about the topic, worth reading:

    Getting to the bottom of the bulge

    Like the man referenced in the first paragraphs of that piece, I’m not a conspiracy nut (in fact I have zero tolerance for conspiracy theorists in general) and am perfectly ready and willing to hear a good explanation of exactly what that device might have been. I am not wedded at all to the idea that Bush was cheating. What I am is extremely concerned.

    Of course I’d love to see Bush with yet more egg on face this close to the election, but I’m not trying to alter or skew reality here. Given what we know, the “Bush was cheating” theory has a lot of supporting evidence, and seems the most likely scenario. Until I hear evidence or white house testimony with a better explanation, this one is best supported by facts, experts, and track record of the Bush administration.

  10. It is kind of weird, I read it in the newspaper, that it appeared again in the 3rd presidential debate. Do you think it could be a deformation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *