Bush earpiece...again

(or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Corporate Media)

I didn't see this posted yet, so here's a link to Bush getting busted yet again for being wired up during a public speaking appearance.  He can be clearly seen to pause, look down, and mutter "in a minute" after he is asked a question.

Here's the thing.  I no longer expect the mainstream media to "reveal" this.  They obviously are familiar with people using earpieces to receive information.  That happens all day long in newsrooms.  So, any suggestion that they can't immediately tell what is going on is hogwash.  

Why will the media ignore this?  A combination of fear and complicity.  We can debate in what exact proportions later.  Okay, that's my take on the media.

But what about the Democrats?  When are they going to realize that the battle with Bush isn't about policy issues.  It's about fighting for the image of the Bush presidency in the minds of the public.  When you utter the name "George W. Bush", what will immediately be conjured up in the minds of the public?

Will it be an image of Bush standing atop rubble with a megaphone?  Will it be an image of Iraqis standing in line to vote?  That's what Bush wants.

Or will it be an image of Bush reading My Pet Goat?  Of an Abu Ghraib prisoner, standing on a box with wired attached?   Of Bush looking under his desk for missing WMD?  Of Bush standing at a podium, looking distracted as someone talks in his ear? (Might it soon even be an image of a bald male prostitute sneaking into the Lincoln Bedroom?)

Well, if we want "earpiece" to become synonymous with Bush we need to just start talking about it.  And don't stop.  If someone questions the evidence, don't debate it. Don't get indignant about it.  Just roll your eyes, say "whatever", and laugh.

•  The point about fighting for the Image

  of Bush as president is excellent. I have been thinking these "emperor has absolutely no clothes thoughts" for about 3 1/2 years (and he wasn't too well-dressed before that, I can assure you). But I couldn't put it succinctly like you did. I would always say things like, "Why are the Democrats pretending that he is acting within a normal range of behavior for a president?" You said it much better.

  by lecsmith on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:48:00 AM PDT

  •  This is an excellent phrase:

    "...normal range of behavior for a president"

    Holding hands with Prince Abdullah would be a great honor for a loyal Saudi citizen.

    For Bush, the "culture of life", "moral values", and "freedom, freedom, freedom, liberty, liberty, freedom" president to be this intimate with royalty from a dictatorship that is despised by so many of its citizens, shows that he is out of his depth and his handlers just can't cover all the bases.

    Saudi Arabia has beheaded 31 people so far this year.

    by nuttymango on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

    •  No matter how many times I hear

      the word "beheading," I can't get over it; I still recoil. Which makes me wonder--Bush's "handlers" (ah hem, Karl and/or Karen?) must have wanted that handholding picture to be taken and displayed--I mean, these pictures weren't taken by the yellow press or anything. They weren't taken by the people chasing down Princess Diana. So, what could they possibly have been thinking when they put that picture out there? It isn't good press (or am I completely missing something here--which is always possible!)?

      by lecsmith on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

      •  Maybe ment for an Arab audience

        Maybe the handholding photos were ment for an Arab audience.

        by greycat on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

  •  I'm not not convinced about the earpiece....

    I think people are mistaking "in a minute" for a hemming stammer of "in a broader."
    

    However, it should be noted that all this clearly shows Bush avoiding the actual question about Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran, a huge issue, in favor of his practiced talking points on Russian democracy, which had nothing to do with the question other than being connected to Russia.

    by js7a on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:34:55 PM PDT

    •  bingo

      that was the most intelligent post in this diary.

      by Ray in TX on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:17:19 PM PDT

•  Say it as Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's earpiece n/t

  by TarheelDem on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

•  I agree as well that we should work

  to discredit his image (which is, after all, false).

  by lecsmith on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:49:29 AM PDT

•  Sorry

  Don't see it. It looked more like he was just thinking about what he was going to say.

  by jiffykeen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:50:31 AM PDT

  •  I agree.

    Sorry, no-one would be happier to catch him at this than I would, but I replayed it several times, and it just seemed like a stumble to me - remember we're not dealing with the most articulate guy here.

    now if we could see an earpiece, that would really be something!

    by sidnora on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:59:33 AM PDT

    •  I'm all for it

      The issue is not the certainty of the earpiece, but the shadow of a doubt that there is one.  I'm in favor of using their playbook against them.  Throw thier own book at them.  It'll get them on TV denying there's an earpiece, or they'll ignore it, ala Kerry/SBVFT.  

      by x on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        now that I like!

        by sidnora on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:39:57 AM PDT

      •  To get this meme going

        ...you'll need an echo chamber.

        ...Or maybe the first few assertions can be designed to look as if its a well established long term truth.

        "Bush was looking really good last Thursday, his earpiece was definitely operating at peak load."

        DFooK

        by deepfish on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

        •  But the feedback

          was distracting at times.  

          by x on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:12:30 AM PDT

    •  I can actually hear the voice!

      It's definitely him listening to someone feed him lines. I could hear the voice answering for him.

      by upstate NY on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:37:08 AM PDT

      •  I too can hear something.

        I can't say I hear the voice but I hear something.  There is no doubt that he is listening to someone and then answers.  I am so confident that I will bet my broken down farm on it.

        Someone should be able to analyze the tape.

        by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

        •  He says:

          "kinda-in-a..." under his breath before again says "in a broader sense"

          Its not "in-a-minute"

          But I still think he looks like he's listening to someone just then, and its not his own actual brain he's listening to.

          by Sue in NH on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:55:15 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            Here is exactly what he says.

            by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:58:23 PM PDT

      •  Come on!

        He's in a room with a hundred other people, some of whom may be speaking softly -- and the audio quality in file is awful.

        by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:07:23 PM PDT

        •  You can clearly hear a broadcast

          voice.

          What can I tell you? I hear it.

          by upstate NY on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:46:22 PM PDT

    •  Remember the debate, he did the same thing

      http://youthfulindiscretions.com/bush-let_me_finish.mp3

      it was a little less noticeable than his "let me finish" during the debate.

      Listen again, he says "in a minute" real quick.

      by qw3rty on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

    •  What was on his desk?

      I do not see an earpiece, but he could have a notebook instant message that he was reading. They make them quite thin now a days. Like a message, "Don't go there. Stick to the usual".

      by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:33:15 PM PDT

  •  I repsectfully disagree.

    I watched the press conference having completely forgotten about the "bulge" story, but more and more I was drawn during it to repeated instances of the following:

    1. Bush running out of impromptu talking points.
       
    2. Looks down, eyelids half closed, eyes moving rapidly (as if he is listening and can't multi-task).
       
    3. Looks back up and delivers a cogent response.

    I suppose he could be concentrating to say the right thing, but his deer-in-the-headlights brand of stupidity leads me strongly to believe that he is being fed lines.

    I believe the protocol is thus: Bush says whatever he wants.  then when he pauses, he is fed talking points, which he either chooses to use or doesn't.

    It explains a lot of the stammering, and returning to earlier points in the middle of other ones, and his sudden clarity in the midst of fuzzy speech.

    by Republic Not Empire on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:42:49 AM PDT

    •  My take on this...

      was that he was searching his "cheat sheet."

      Anybody could predict with a fair degree of accuracy the subjects that he would be asked about.  Rove, or whomever, could easily have prepared a page of talking points, keywords, reminders, or basic statements that Bush could refer to throughout the event.  It accomplishes the same thing as an earpiece but in a less technological way.  Afterwards, the paper can be shredded and nobody knows the difference.

      I've watched the video several times and it just sounds like stammering to me.

      JMHO

      by kissfan on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

      •  my interp too

        I watched carefully on Thursday, and thought it was pretty blatant that he had to check for the appropriate talking point on his lecturn.

        From my perspective, even having to check his (or Karl's) notes is really, really pathetic.

        How did we get this moron for pResident?

        Please.... wake me up.  I'm having a nightmare.

        by Sue in NH on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:22:00 PM PDT

        •  Do I need more tinfoil?

          I've changed my mind after watching that section of the tape about 20 times.  It really does appear as if he is listening to his earpiece.  He looks down, but not at his lecturn, which is a bit behind and to his right from where his eyes seem to be pointing.  He has a bit of a vacant look in the eyes, and a sense of concentration on his face for just that second or two, then launches on more confidently.  He looks EXACTLY like someone listening to another voice, in his ear, like when people are on the phone.  His focus is internal, not on the audience, but its internal in sort of a "listening" way, not a "thinking for a second" way.

          Now I might be nuts to try to interpret his expressions and actions this precisely.  But we humans have evolved to interpret the tiniest most subtle nuances of expressions in our own species.  In addition, I do believe (this is going to sound sexist) that many women are better at reading this sort of thing than men.  Certainly not solid evidence, but just enough observational information to spur a scientists to investigate furhter.

          Anyone else see this as I do, or should I apply thinker tinfoil?

          by Sue in NH on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:34:20 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            I think the body language clinches it.

            by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:10:55 PM PDT

    •  i agree

      I am not interested in conspiracy theories and I have no way of knowing for sure what's going on in the tape, but:

      1. the technology exists
         
      2. there's no good explanation for the box in his jacket from the '04 debates
         
      3. nobody can listen and talk at the same time, which this tape seems to confirm
         
      4. this story is so much fun.  keep it alive!  

      by markymarx on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:48:25 AM PDT

    •  honestly though

      I think he's saying "kindofinna"

      As in, "kind of in a broader sense."

      by markymarx on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:53:55 AM PDT

  •  Turn up the volume

    It's only audible if you turn up the volume on your speakers, but then it's very clear: he looks down at the podium and says "in a minute."

    by baggy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:51:27 AM PDT

    •  Thats what I heard

      Yes, before I read your post I thought he said "in a minute".

      by qw3rty on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:49:56 AM PDT

  •  He said

    "kind of in a broader sense"... not wait a minute.

    Please, there is enough to slam him with without making stuff up.

    by spiderleaf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Close

      
      "just in a broader....innaminute... broader sense"

      Now, people can disagree about what 'innaminute' really is, but whatever it is, its wedged between two utterances of 'broader', and its at a different volume and pace (softer and rushed) than the 'broaders'.

      Doesn't prove a bug or wire, but its not as cut-and-dried obvious as just saying he said "kind of in a broader sense" implies.

      by Yaright on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:19:20 PM PDT

      •  I heard "kind of in a broader sense"

        quite clearly. So I disagree.

        by spiderleaf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:30:34 PM PDT

        •  He's just getting better at it

          Remember his "let me finish" during the debate.

          http://youthfulindiscretions.com/bush-let_me_finish.mp3

          by qw3rty on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:43:22 PM PDT

        •  I know you do

          
          I was just putting the debated utterance in context.

          Your statements would make it sound cut-and-dried to someone who hasn't heard the tape for themselves.  That's a shame, because you aren't mentioning the phrase in any context, nor are you commenting on the change in volume, tone, or pacing between the clear "in a broad", the murmured "innaminute" or your "kindofinna" and the clearer continuation "broader sense".

          While you may "quite clearly" hear "kind of in a broader sense", I think its safe to say that Pres Bush did not clearly say that.  He murmured some hurried words in a softer voice before continuing with "broader sense".

          Thats all.  Not drawing any conclusions, just trying to be accurate when describing the event.

          by Yaright on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

          •  I appreciate that

            but I may have heard what I did because I took it in context -- what he was saying right before and then how he finished the sentence the "kind of in a broader" made sense to me and that's what I heard. I'll try again and just isolate the specific mutterings and see what I hear.

            by spiderleaf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:01:23 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    Nothing there.

    I don't think they would risk feeding Bush answers. It would be WAY obvious -- I'm sure he wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cover his ear, tell a reporter to shut up and say "Ok, now, what was that?"

    by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM PDT

•  he does have hearing loss

  and he's an idiot so he gets confused and talks to himself.

  by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:54:10 AM PDT

•  To those who doubt the evidence

  Hear me laugh and watch me roll my eyes.

  I am LONG past debating this.  I'm in the "make him deny he's not a pig-fucker" stage and I'm not leaving.

  by space on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:57:19 AM PDT

  •  It Was Obvious...

    Back during the debates. A NASA image analyst performed some enhancement techniques on the images and concluded that it couldn't be anything but a wire. Of course, people here doubted this too - claimed he just applied some bad Photoshop filters, that he'd made up the images, even that he was a Republican operative.

    Mostly the same people who embrace those that tell them that we need to abandon Ohio to the Republicans, that there was no vote fraud at all (and that the Ohio recount went perfectly), and that Jeff Gannon wasn't a male prostitute.

    A lot of "Partisan Democrats" have a strange pattern of attacking their friends and embracing their enemies. Perhaps they really want to be Republicans?

    by RHunter on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:27:39 AM PDT

    •  Not necessarily

      while being skeptical about this bit of evidence - which doesn't mean he wasn't wired, just that this clip doesn't do it for me - I firmly believe that Ohio was stolen. And I won't dignify that Gannon comment with a reply.

      Don't try to fit your personal tinfoil hat on every head in the room. And don't you dare try to call me a Republican. I was campaigning for Adlai Stevenson in 1952.

      by sidnora on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:44:30 AM PDT

      •  Got a Chip On Your Shoulder?

        Why'd you think I was talking about you? Note the mostly in my comment - by no means was I implying that all were like this, merely that a noticeable number were. Perhaps there's some lingering guilt there about your beliefs after all?

        Also, this bit of evidence alone doesn't. But combined with prior evidence - the wire at the debates, other instances of him using one - I think it's pretty obvious that he's wired for any and all public appearances.

        by RHunter on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:06:22 AM PDT

  •  Well

    I agree with here you are.

    But   

    I did watch that video several times looking for the "wait a minute" line quoted in the Op.

    It doesn't exist.

    If you and I are at the stage where we feel it is Bush's job to prove he's not a lying sack of shit determined to ruin the middle class and kill every Muslim on the planet we shouldn't put words in his mouth.

    He is obviously waiting for an answer from god in that clip but he never said what is claimed or suggested.

    We should be saying..

    Hey bush why do you look like such a fool when you are asked a semi tough question?

    

    by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:42:36 AM PDT

    •  opps

      I'm missing a w in the first sentence.

      And I said wait a minute instead of in a minute.

      But either way what he said was...

      "In a"...waiting for god..."in a broader sense"
      

      by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:11:43 AM PDT

    •  He clearly says

      "In a minute."  I will stake the life of my pet pygmy goat on it!

      by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:12:47 AM PDT

      •  Sorry Sharon, I disagree

        If you hear what he said right before the pause -- "in a broad" - and then what he stammers is a continuation -- "in a broader sense".

        by spiderleaf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:50:07 PM PDT

        •  Nope

          Try turning the volume way up and listen again.  Or better yet, have a kid listen.  

          He says, "At first, hu, just on a broader..."  Then he looks down and pauses.  Watch his face carefully.  Then he says, "In a minute".  Then he says, "broader sense."

          The "just on a broader" and "In a minute" are fast and run together.

          I've watched it 20+ times now.  The last 10 or so times I focused on a different word each time so I could determine exactly what words were said and not just sort of repeat what he said.  He says the exact words I wrote above.

          by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:39:47 PM PDT

          •  I slowed it down

            Sped it up, played it backwards, zoomed in to watch his lips, cranked the volume, and he didn't say shit.

            He was obviously listening to the answer being feed to him but he didn't say anything.
            

            by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:48:06 PM PDT

            •  I slowed it down too

              and I don't know what you used but this is pretty irrefutable evidence he said something:

              http://www.pixelthief.tv/audio/bush_inaminute.mp3

              by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:06:47 PM PDT

              •  lol

                by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:08:01 PM PDT

  •  Debating Evidence

    How can you defend your statement? Are you saying that your desire to smear Bush (which I share deeply) is so overwhelming that you refuse to scrutinize any evidence that makes W. look bad?

    I think we should have higher standards.

    The video on Crooks and Liars is usually of good quality. Don't you find it strange that the audio quality is so bad?

    by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:24:09 PM PDT

    •  OK, I went to my tape

      Uncompressed Autio Clip:

      http://www.pixelthief.tv/audio/Bush_inaminute.wav

      by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:40:50 PM PDT

•  I'm not sure he said "In a minute"

  He seemed to just stammer.

  Which doesnt' mean he wasn't wired.

  by coloradobl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:03:05 AM PDT

•  In a minute....

  He begins his answer, stops short, looks down having the body language of someone being given directions or instructions, and then mumbles "in a minute", and then continues his initial answer.

  How the FUCK is this not being discussed?
  

  by zubalove on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:23:08 AM PDT

  •  re

    holy shit. could he be talking to someone on stage left?

    it was really strange how he blurbed all together "inaminute" instead of spacing out the words..

    by cookiesandmilk on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:27:57 AM PDT

    •  Perhaps God on stage left?

      by coloradobl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:31:01 AM PDT

      •  Surely, Bush's god

        would be at stage right?

        by Mnemosyne on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:16:20 AM PDT

        •  Stage Left would put Bush on the Right hand of God

          by dukestriker on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:59:03 AM PDT

          •  If Bush were on my right hand

            I'd brush him off with my left.

            by coloradobl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:09:34 PM PDT

            •  Like this?

              Note the use of the left hand.

              by Rayne on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:43:35 PM PDT

              •  Yes. Like that.

                by coloradobl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:54:25 PM PDT

          •  It's not a matter of

            Bush being at the right hand of god, but--in the creed of the American Taliban--of god being at the right hand of Bush.

            by Mnemosyne on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM PDT

      •  Would he tell God "in a minute"

        by greycat on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:01:28 PM PDT

•  He mumbles it

  so fast that it is hard to discern.  It does sound like "inaminute."  Strange.  Is there a media player that can slow it down?

  by paranoidAmerican on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:32:09 AM PDT

•   spooky guy

  it did appear he said wait a minute to someone but i think  he may  have been talking to himself.
  the scary thought is this guy is in control of our nukes, he just looked unbalanced at that moment.
  i bet kerry shakes his head every morning and says how did i lose to that moron!

  by JOEL1954 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

•  It was an odd pause

  but I just listened to it a bunch of times and it appeared to me that he just mumbled "in a" as in the sentence he just finished, "in a broader ..."  I do believe he could have been using a hidden ear piece at the news conference but I don't think that he was talking to someone off camera in this case.

  by Dr Colossus on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

•  Sorry

  I don't hear him saying anything.  Now that doesn't mean he wasn't listening to someone in an earpiece.  It COULD be construed that way.  But as far as him mumbling "in a minute," there's nothing there.  

  by lilnubber on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:47:34 AM PDT

  •  It's there

    He starts out with an answer, pauses as he looks down, says "inaminute" and then begins again with a different direction on the answer.

    I showed my daughter -- she saw it too.

    Sweet cheese-on-rice, we're being led by a meat puppet.

    And an ugly one, too.

    by Rayne on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:29:01 AM PDT

    •  It's definitely there.

      Just before he says, "In a broader sense" at normal speaking volume. (And what he mumbles is not "in a broader," as if warming up for his next phrase, it's "in a minute".)

      by pigpaste on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:44:21 AM PDT

      •  "in a minute"

        He says this just as his right hand rises from behind the lectern and reaches the level of his lapel. Turn the volume up all the way. Also audible are some discrete but fuzzy sounds, just prior to his "in a minute".

        by pigpaste on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:53:41 AM PDT

      •  That is,

        after he says "on a broader" and pauses, before saying "in a broader sense",

        by pigpaste on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:55:41 AM PDT

•  I noticed this when it happened

  right off the bat. In fact I mentioned it in someone's diary. It was obvious he wasn't talking to anyone in the press corp or to himself.  I remember reading an article about a Hollywood director who uses earpieces for his actors who have a scene with a lot of dialogue but can't use cue cards in the scene, because they may be outside or other reasons.  And he said you can tell when someone is using one because they look down as if they are listening to something or they look upward toward the sky with their eyes fluttering.  Well, I don't know about you, but I have seen W doing that many times.  I think the Democrats don't mention anything because I think Clinton has also used them in the past for security reasons.  However, I would be surprised if he needed to cheat and use them in a debate or a press conference.

  by LimosineLiberal on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:48:19 AM PDT

•  I think the point is...

  I think the question becomes, "Well if you don't think he has an earpiece, how do you explain his performance? Is he hearing voices that don't exist? Is he just unable to complete a simple thought? Is he unable to understand a simple question? What do you this is the matter with him?"

  by DaveW on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:58:04 AM PDT

  •  um, should be...

    THINK is the matter with him.

    Sigh.

    by DaveW on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:07:22 AM PDT

•  Earpiece aside,

   . . . and I think he was wearing one (he was at a podium where no one could see behind him), the really important thing about the press conference is that Rove made the strategically foolish decision for Bush to go on prime time TV during sweeps week to tell the American people that he was going to do the "hard work" necessary to cut their Social Security benefits. What planet do he and Rove live on? The fallout from this press conference should be disastrous for the Republicans.

  by marysz on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:06:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you. What were they thinking?

    Even without sweeps week conflicting, why did they think we'd respond well to cutting SS benefits! Is their hubris so great that they think they have the masses so well under control? Is George the only one in the WH protected from bad news?  

    I, for one, have never depended on my SS for support because I believed them when they started saying it would runout years ago. But I'm angry about this on general principles.

    And all I can think about is all those tax cuts for the wealthy, and the horrible deficit, and now the middle class carrying the SS burden for everyone else? Something is rotten, and not just in Denmark!

    Well, it's a funny thing about hubris. It finally gets so great that it angers the gods who bring down the fool who dared dream he was their equal. Even those fools who believe they can out-think the rest of us mortals crash and burn in the end.

    by paluxy1945 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:37:35 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Bush was supposed

      to spill the beans.

      I think he gets confused as to what he can say in public vs in the company of his fellows.  He gets rewarded by his keepers when he talks about gutting social programs.  On Thursday he tried to not sound quite so obvious, but he still slipped up.

      After all, we know the GOP hidden agenda is to destroy SS.  They've been strategizing as to how they can do this right in front of the American people without them knowing it.  So they thought up this idea of trying to dupe us by tangling us all up with "slower rate of increase" stuff.  This was what they were going to put out in the next set of talking points to the press.  It sounds more reasonable in print.  But Bush up there lying his ass off as he always does, comes accross as the charlatan he is when he says it.

       Just like "everyone born before 1950 will get their checks" obviously means those of us born after 1950 are totally fucked.  When the man opens his mouth there is a sign flashing above his head saying "warning: be suspicious of everything this man says, and also of the things he avoids saying"

      by Sue in NH on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:51:42 PM PDT

•  What I found more maddening

  was the way all the so-called journalists pretended his stupid little attempts at comedy were the funniest thing since Mark Twain. What a bunch of shameless suckups. They're so thrilled to be part of the "insiders" the President wants to entertain, they're about shitting their pants.

  It's too bad there was no video when the courtiers were doing their syncophant thing before the feudal monarchs. At least we'd be used to the spectacle.

  by DaveW on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:12:27 AM PDT

•  I'm convinced

  Bush the Sock Puppet.  Not even smart enough to cheat right.

  by Anglico on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:21:42 AM PDT

  •  And wouldn't it be fantastic

    if a reporter asked:

    Mr. Preznit. Are you or are you not wearing a wire that allows someone else to help you answer our questions?  Because if you are, you're a dumber shit than anyone could ever have imagined. Because our questions suck even more than you do.

    by Anglico on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:24:29 AM PDT

•  Correction on Goat

  space writes:
  

  Or will it be an image of Bush reading My Pet Goat?

  This perpetuates what may have been the only factual error in Michael Moore's film--the book Bush was reading was "The Pet Goat".

  The Pet Goat
  Reviewed by: Gene Weingarten  
  In this uplifting allegory of prejudice redeemed, a girl gets a pet goat. [snip]

  In the end, "The Pet Goat" is the story of an authority figure -- the dad -- who learns to exercise his powers with restraint. When the security of his home is threatened by the goat's appetite for mass destruction, the dad's initial impulse is small-minded and simplistic. He focuses on one evildoer -- the goat itself -- to the exclusion of anything else. He thinks he knows goats, and they're trouble. Other voices -- specifically, the girl's -- raise less drastic possibilities: Possibly the goat can be reasoned with, or coerced, into altering its behavior. Possibly the goat is not the threat the dad thinks it is. Possibly the family is even complicit, for having trained the goat poorly. Possibly the goat is really . . . a scapegoat.
  MORE

  There you have it,
  Hal C.

  by Hal C on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:23:51 AM PDT

  •  That's right

    But it will always be My Pet Goat to me.

    That brings up a related issue.  Why does the Right hate Moore so much?  The expressed reason is that he is an "extreme liberal".  But does anyone actually believe that Moore's ideological stances are the root of their hadred?  Or anyone other than Al From and his cronies?

    No, Moore has been attacked for daring to show Bush reading My Pet Goat.  Nothing more and nothing less.  They know perfectly well how damaging that video is.  For anyone watching it, GOP talking points, focus group-tested arguments, and media domination go out the window.  You can't help but have a visceral reaction that Bush is an incompetent.  And that, my friends, is profoundly dangerous.  If not for Farenheit 9/11, the 2004 election would not have been close.  

    Instead of letting Democratic leaders take the bait and denounce Moore, Kerry should have followed his lead and run commercial after commercial featuring Bush's miserable My Pet Goat moment ("Bush opened the door to questioning his performance when he said he would do the same thing again.  If he is pround of his actions, we should be able to debate them.")

    by space on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:41:04 AM PDT

    •  That would have been

      a devastating ad: Bush reading (while New York burned), followed by the sound bite "I'd do the same thing again."  You just know the repugs would have used it.  Why didn't the Dems?

      by frsbdg on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:13:41 AM PDT

    •  Does anyone have

      a segment from F9/11 with this in it? Why don't we get it and use some guerrilla marketing and get it out there for all the world to see.

      It doesn't even have to be an ad to place in the SCLM. We can do a Sportka-type ad. That'd really piss off the Republinazis.

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

•  yes, I heard it

  I thought maybe I was crazy...it was plain to me and when he left I was looking at his back to see the box....must have put it someplace else....haha...wonder where???

  by Mary Anna on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

•  Whether it's in the political arena

  or the media arena, facts have been becoming less important for a long time. We know the Bush regime ringmasters believe that the "reality based" community is hopelessly out of touch with the way things work, and that it's only "empire builders" and "image makers" like themselves that who are clued in to how the world turns.

  This explains their delusional beliefs and hopelessly inept yet dangerous behavior. Like deranged bulls in china shops, they have no idea how their bungling is destroying the very things they claim to want to advance.

  With the self-annointed leaders of the evangelical crusade, there is the same affliction. They want their faithful flock to believe that it is all us "non-believers" who are threatening their faith, but it is actually these very creatures themselves, Dobson, Perkins, Falwell, Robertson, et. al. who are attacking their faith. It is these fascist zealots who are telling their  flock their faith is not sufficient to protect them from the ravages of gays and interracial couples and Hollywood and drugs and who knows what else. These wingnuts are precisely the characters who are attacking the faith of their very own followers, attempting to replace that faith with the fear that faith is, in the end, not sufficient, despite their words to the contrary.

  All of this represents the height of hypocrisy, but it's to be expected. Just as Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment Joesef Goebbels knew, just as shameless self-promoting hacks like Frank Luntz know, just as all political and religious strategists know, their main task is to deceive the public, not to enlighten it. Their main job is to "weaponize ignorance", not dissipate it.

  This is how a complete imbecile like Bush can become president. This is how double-dealing hate mongers like Perkins and Dobson can portray themselves up as the voices of piety. This is how Bush can wear a wire to help him thru press encounters and the press itself doesn't even investigate.

  We're living in the world of "Maya", (Illusion), and the creation of more illusion has been institutionalized into society. This is why so many people no longer even think the truth is important. Image rules, to our detriment.
  

  by sbj on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:31:34 AM PDT

•  Seems possible to find out for sure

  Someone needs to try and get close to one of his meetings with a scanner to try and find what frequency his earpiece might be on. If it was true and instructions being fed to him could be taped, then you'd have something.

  Even better, if you knew the frequency you could jam it. Or best yet, frequency jack him and feed him lines of your own.

  by Poeschek on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:34:24 AM PDT

•  Here's what's really astonishing...

  The fact that no one is calling out that CNN whore on referring to Syria and Iran as "outlaw nations."  Unbelieveable!

  And notice how the other whores heartily laugh when bush skips another reporter because he's not a "tv person". These people are fucking hopeless.

  by mrd71 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:40:56 AM PDT

•  Turn up your speakers...

  I believe I can actually hear the voice in his ear. What is that, feedback? His lips aren't moving and someone is speaking.

  by upstate NY on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:42:45 AM PDT

•  Look

  he routinely uses these things for planned speaking engagements. Reporters use them all over the industry. This technology is a given. It exists and is used widely every day.

  John Q. Public is not aware of this technology, just as they are not generally aware of what Final Cut Pro does, or how oil is converted to gas.

  Outing Bush over using this technology, especially to cheat while debating or commanding a press conference, would essentially out the TV journalism community, who want you to believe that anchor people never get grey hair.

  It is KNOWN that Bush has used this technology as a speaking aid. In 7 or 10 years the truth will come out about using it to cheat during public appearances, and then we'll all feel better. At this point nothing short of Bush's jacket catching fire and revealing robotic circuitry while the President launches into "I Am What I Am" as his eyeballs disintegrate will call media attention to this issue. And even then it would be iffy.

  by mrblifil on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:56:38 AM PDT

  •  I

    I wish Bush was robot, man... that would make things so much easier for all of us. All we'd have to do is reprogram him.

    by thewildman on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:21:20 AM PDT

  •  If his back caught fire

    and his eyeballs started rotating, the analysts would coo about how "hot" he was and how "on his game" he was. "Really was on fire tonight, Sean, put those liberal media right in their place."

    by Demfem on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:17:21 PM PDT

  •  routine for public appearance,

    well, okay, I guess... But for a debate?  A contest between candidates that is supposed to allow us to measure their fitness for office, ability to think on their feet and command of facts and issues?  It sure as hell should not be allowed or if there's no way to frisk the candidates at the door, then maybe journalists ought to start asking outright if the candidate is getting piped-in assistance from the man behind the curtain.

    I think this is outrageous. I don't know how to get it out in the open, but I wish someone would figure it out...

    by sarany on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:35:06 PM PDT

    •  Of course

      I'm only saying that the forces that distribute information have vested interests that prevent them from talkin about the Emperor's nakedness. Witness the killing of the Bush Box story by the NY Times in the weeks leading up to the election. Why was it killed? Too potentially inflammatory before the election. OK. Where's the story AFTER the election is settled? Killed, dead, put away, treated as though it never happened. This represents a profound abdication of responsibility by the third estate, one that bodes horribly for our country, and one that is not set to improve anytime soon as far as I can tell.

      by mrblifil on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:41:29 PM PDT

•  That's just his brain

  trying to get through to him.

  by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

  •  Now

    That's cute!  What is sad for me though is that the reporters were so FUNKY HAPPY about even getting such a press conference I don't think they are going to start picking it apart now!  That might make waves and then OOPS....no more press conferences, like press conferences are ever going to be habit with this administration!

    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:19:48 AM PDT

    •  It's all just a farce

      What's sad is that even the real reporters have been manipulated so that they can't even see that they've become the administration's pets. Keep withholding food, then when you give them a little bite, they start barking up a storm. And of course, they wuoldn't think of biting the hand that feeds them.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:51:11 AM PDT

      •  at least NPR

        changed it's tune on the 'nuclear option'

        we have to keep after them...

        by sarany on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:36:33 PM PDT

      •  We just had a litter of puppies around Xmas

        I'll always look at the press at the Whitehouse now and think about doggy doodles all over the back porch and all of them bowling each other over to get the "attention" first....sad days these days!

        by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

•  a recent invention

  is a way to broadcast sound directionally so that only one person can hear it. using that technique would eliminate the neeed for a wire. it is not a radio broadcast, but a method that is used to "beam" sound in any desired direction.

  by CrawfordMan on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:38:22 AM PDT

•  Use every piece in

  your arsenal. It doesn't matter if there's an earpiece or not. Focussing on the existence of it is reality-based thinking and we've already seen that the SCLM and Joe Sixpack aren't in that community.

  So seen from that perspective - Bush is having trouble talking and listening to his handlers at the same time as much as he has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.

  All together now - Bush doesn't think for himself and has to get his answers from Rove.

  by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

•  I, for one, am convinced....

  that he was listening at the same time he was talking?

  He has this habit of speaking in stoccato phrases (which is fairly normal) but the phrases were not always compatible with each other (which is NOT normal).

  Also, he kept correcting himself on a mistake in a previous sentance right in the middle of the next sentance ("blah..., blahh, Syria, blah.  And on Social Security -- Lebanon -- we need personal accounts").  This is also normal, except for the fact that he kept doing it exactly 8 seconds after he misspoke.  Just like someone was prompting him.

  And yes, the "in a minute" phrase, which was muttered but audible, and certainly off-the-cuff.  It is a phrase that one would use in a three way conversation, but never in a two way conversation where one conversant is NOT speaking.

  And yes, I realize I still have that first debate in my mind.  But it is amazing how consistent he is with someone talking and receiving info at the same time.

  by sp0t on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:54:34 AM PDT

  •  imagine all the coaching he gets

    ... to be able to work with the earpiece in. And he still screws up.
    Our president...  how low we've fallen.

    by sarany on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:38:26 PM PDT

  •  This is where I thought he might be wired

    He said something like, "sales to Syria," then he went on until he corrected himself right in the middle of the next sentence by switching Syria to Lebanon.

    by otto on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:09:04 PM PDT

    •  Right.... That was it.

      There were a couple of other spots also.  But the delay between when he mis-speaks and when he corrects himslef is about the same each time.  

      Couldn't someone hack into that wireless transmission and really fuck with him??  Now that would be a shining monent!

      by sp0t on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:42:00 PM PDT

•  Oh, you mean this?

  I'm sure the President is just, erm, hard of hearing.

  Makes me wonder...was Reagan's hearing aid really what we thought it to be...or a way of prompting the Alzheimer-afflicted Gipper?

  
  
  

  by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:02:01 PM PDT

•  Slowed it down

  Slowed it down in increments of 10%.  From 100% on down to 40%.  Decide for yourself.

  Sounds like he says "in a minute" to me.  Coupled w/ the body language I'm convinced.

  http://www.pixelthief.tv/audio/bush_inaminute.mp3

  by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:07:14 PM PDT

  •  Someone should collect all of this in one place.

    http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/BushAndTheOddSync.wmv

    CNN feed from Bush at the D-Day memorial. The microphones accidentally picked up the signal transmitted into Bush's earpiece.

    http://youthfulindiscretions.com/bush-let_me_finish.mp3

    Bush says let me finish, for no reason.  No one interupted him, he had plenty of time left, the light that signals that his time is up hadn't come on.

    by qw3rty on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:00:31 PM PDT

    •  A 4 for the first link .

      I'd seen the debate but never the D-day video. That is very strange. Whose voice do you suppose that is telling him what to say?

      by greycat on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:02:35 PM PDT

    •  The CNN video

      I made two copies of the audio in Acid, and moved one track over so that the words in the echo sync with what his mouth is saying. The echo is an exact duplicate of his words.

      I think it is fairly evident just by listening to the original. What makes this clip stand out is that the echo occurs before the original words. An A/V technician screw up, or wacky satelite link is much more likely than Bush repeating EXACTLY (wording, inflection and timing) what he is being fed.

      by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:18:58 PM PDT

      •  you may be right.

        But it didn't sound like the same voice to me.

        by greycat on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:39:00 PM PDT

      •  Uh,

        It is impossible to hear his words before he speaks them.  No technical SNAFU can account for that.

        by pixelthief on Sun May 01, 2005 at 09:36:24 AM PDT

•  It's too bad that

  a reporter hasn't thought of going in with a jammer in his pocket. That way Bush would be on his own..LOL. That would be an interesting sight, don't you think. Ask a question, and then flick on the jammer in your pocket, and watch him fall apart.

  by Demfem on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:12:31 PM PDT

  •  And you don't think...

    ...that the Secret Service would consider this an immediate threat to the security of the President?

    Any jammer that would blot out the feed from his handlers would most likely affect any similar devices nearby, including the comms used by the President's protective detail.

    I think they might get just a bit upset about this, as they would if someone brought a radio-frequency scanner to deliberately intercept the signal.  As in, several years in federal prison levels of upset.

    -AG
    

    by AlphaGeek on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:44:03 PM PDT

    •  If you could find out the frequency,

      with a scanner, say, you could only fritz his earpiece and not the SService's. Actually, someone with a scanner could also record the entire prompt session.

      by Demfem on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:01:03 PM PDT

•  Actually

  Perhaps the lost looks on Bush's face in the Pet Goat clip merely indicate that his earpiece was malfunctioning, thus leaving him unsure of how to pronounce any of the words in the book.

  by NonemptySubset on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:19:33 PM PDT

•  I didn't see an earpiece -

  I looked for it throughout the show and didn't see it.

  I have a hard time actually digesting the words in his speech because I'm busy trying to decipher his body language.  And looking for the earpiece.

  I have concluded that it is entirely plausible that he has an earpiece much more sophisticated than the newsroom variety.  In fact, earpiece may be a misnomer.  It may be a direct implant.

  by rockin in the free world on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:40:16 PM PDT

•  If he is dyslexic...

  ... he can't read his speech from the monitors.

  by d3n4l1 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:50:25 PM PDT

  •  but,

    Evidence is mostly from debates and Q&A sessions.  Not just speeches.

    by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM PDT

•  remove the tin-foil hat, please

  It looked to me like he was simply pausing to gather his thoughts.

  by Ray in TX on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:20:55 PM PDT

  •  Remove the blinders, please

    and try to be a bit more courteous to others and not stoop to personal attacks.

    You didn't hear it.  We get it.

    by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:43:20 PM PDT

    •  oh, I heard it

      The problem is that it requires a pre-judgement of an earpiece to draw the conspiratorial conclusion of this diary.

      by Ray in TX on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:20:45 PM PDT

•  Swift Boat Veterans for Earpieces

  Who cares if he was wearing an earpiece or not? (Though in my opinion he's probably always wearing one when speaking 'extemporaneously'). The real issue here, as has been stated by others, is that we repeat the accusation again and again and again -- to the point that Bush and earpiece become synonomous. We must spread this meme. There is perhaps no meme that more powerfully illustrates how hollow this man truly is -- how the emperor has no clothes.

  by Zweibel888 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:22:09 PM PDT

  •  I have to agree with you

    on the whole earpiece thing and answering public questions.  I would faint if he didn't have an earpiece in!  I already know he is fucking stupid beyond my own comprehension and I have come to accept it I guess.

    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:28:19 PM PDT

•  Flame Me/ Troll Rate Me

  But, you guys may be interested in this:

  

  by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:39:56 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Reading a lot into this one instance may look foolish to you, but the fact is that this is just possibly one tiny piece of a much larger body of evidence.  And that body of evidence as a whole is rather convincing.  

    You're obviously unconvinced.  Fine.  And yeah, I'm gonna troll-rate you because you've offered nothing substantial here, just insults.

    by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:48:39 PM PDT

    •  Please, use this opportunity.

      Lay out the body of evidence. I never said he doesn't wear an earpiece. I did say I doubt he has the intelligence to get away with it.

      I was critical because you seemed to state that you are convinced that Bush wears an earpiece and nothing will convince you otherwise. Some people are convinced that is a picture of the Virgin Mary and nothing will convince them otherwise. I'm sorry that a valid comparison insults you.

      by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:17:06 PM PDT

      •  Lacks the intelligence?

        Where the fuck do you get that?

        It is abundantly obvious that George Bush has a narrow world view and has no ability to analytically approach issues of substance.  But you hnoestly think he is too stupid to listen to a voice in his ear?  My God, blow-dried local-news people do this every day.  Do you honestly think this takes genius?

        George Bush may lack the skills to be the President of the United States but he's not a drooling chimp.  Sometimes I'm amazed at how people actually believe this steretype.

        by space on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:25:34 PM PDT

      •  OK

        It's called google.  Try it sometime.

        And intelligence (lack of, anyway) is precisely why he needs an earpiece.  It doesn't take even an ounce of intelligence to repeat things someone is saying in your ear.  Anyone can get the hang of that w/ some practice.  Watch network news sometime.  

        Are you talking specifically about me?  Because I never said that I couldn't be convinced otherwise.  Who talks like that?  It's absurd.  

        by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:28:08 PM PDT

        •  I stand corrected

          You did not post the following:
          

          Hear me laugh and watch me roll my eyes.

          I am LONG past debating this.  I'm in the "make him deny he's not a pig-fucker" stage and I'm not leaving.

          
          Howevert, that kind of language still fits my premise that we have amongst us people who are "convinced that Bush wears an earpiece and nothing will convince [them] otherwise"

          by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:07:26 PM PDT

          •  Ok, but

            Read the last paragraph of his diary.  I don't think he has closed his mind off, just that this is how he proposes we approach the debate.  Obviously you missed the point of the pig fucker reference.

            by pixelthief on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:21:59 PM PDT

      •  He did the same thing at one of the debates

        http://youthfulindiscretions.com/bush-let_me_finish.mp3

        Bush says let me finish, for no reason.  No one interupted him, he had plenty of time left, the light that signals that his time is up hadn't come on.

        by qw3rty on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:35:12 PM PDT

  •  Stupid analogy

    I don't believe that is an image of the Virgin Mary, not because the resemblance is too poor, but because I don't believe God sends religious messages in corrosion marks on underpasses (or burnt grilled cheese sandwiches).  But if God did send such messages, I would believe that might be an example.

    However, for your analogy to make sense, we would have to similarly believe that nobody sticks earpieces in their ears and has people talk to them.  That the very idea is absurd because it could never happen.  Obviously that isn't true.  The question isn't whether a politician might do this.  It is whether Bush does it.

    You can continue to debate this.  Given the evidence so far (numerous suspicious episodes), I prefer to assume that I am right until Bush can prove otherwise.  And more importantly, it is stupid politics to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on anything.

    by space on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:17:21 PM PDT

    •  OK...

      As suggested, I reread the diary, and understand that your point isn't to prove Bush wears an earpiece. I think you're real motive provide enough doubt, and create a conventional-wisdom thing, similar to "Cheney's the real President, Bush just plays him on TV." Yes? No?

      Really, I just get worked up when questionable evidence is used to claim proof. The religious right does it all the time, and it is starting to creep into public policy.

      The day that faith and ignorance trumps empirical evidence marks the end of this country as we know it.

      There is something seriously wrong when the Vice President dismisses the necessity of a mid-winter summit held New York on Global Warming because on its first day, the temperature climed above 70.

      The fact that the missing Atlanta woman was not dead, "proves the existence of God," according to her father.

      There is nothing wrong with hypotheses, but only a honest critique of the evidence will elevate an idea above mere speculation.
      

      by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:03:59 PM PDT

  •  BTW

    I don't troll-rate people unless they are really asking for it, so I gave you a "4" to rate you up.

    But I do find your analogy stupid.

    by space on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:19:36 PM PDT

  •  I don't get it

    What is the picture supposed to be?  Some sort of vagina?

    by I disagree with the GOP on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:59:59 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      An Immaculate One.

      by Kudos on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:04:58 PM PDT

•  listen even closer....

  ....he clearly said "i buried paul".

  by KEvron on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:49:00 PM PDT

•  When he first

  appeared on the scene as the man to be the candidate for pres... I knew nothing of him... and saw him speak and knew he was an empty suit... nothing upstairs.  Right from the get go I saw him as the manchurian candidate... the perfect shell to push out there to be the guy the the wealth crazed agenda of the free marketers.

  They packages him as the guy anyone could have a beer with... the recovered alchie... the born again  who has come back to god... the MBA from harvard... the biz man who could make a silk purse from a sow's ear and run the fed gov like a tight ass corporation... a sportsman for the nascar assholes. Of course, he was none of these, just a failure with average or below intelligence, born to a powerful connected family with the right "look" who could be packaged and made to act like a puppet on a string because he was such a sppiled ego maniac.

  He has shown no evidence of intelligence beyond a 10th grader... nno grasp of what is going on in the world... or interest in it.  In fact he seems to have no interests as far as I can tell.  He is the perfect empty suit... manchurian candidate.

  Behind him are brilliant and nefarious people who have convinc