• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Did former president Bush wear an ear piece?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember seeing this photograph several years ago in a newspaper here but don't remember it becoming an actual story in the media (maybe it did?). I came across this Salon article that had illustrated some peculiar moments.

bush%20wired.JPG

iB4XLRG9oKnjx.jpg

ikR8LuCfMZsbP.jpg

iTQegEI6Xu5Gg.jpg

ixgUwmLQ6JZtH.jpg

iOmAOhRGKoVMp.jpg


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?

Bloggers are burning up their keyboards with speculation. Check out the president’s peculiar behavior during the debate, they say. On several occasions, the president simply stopped speaking for an uncomfortably long time and stared ahead with an odd expression on his face. Was he listening to someone helping him with his response to a question? Even weirder was the president’s strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he said, “As the politics change, his positions change. And that’s not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh — Let me finish — The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at.” It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared “Let me finish.” The green warning light was lit, signaling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish.

Hot on the conspiracy trail, I tried to track down the source of the photo. None of the Bush-is-wired bloggers, however, seemed to know where the photo came from. Was it possible the bulge had been Photoshopped onto Bush’s back by a lone conspiracy buff? It turns out that all of the video of the debate was recorded and sent out by Fox News, the pool broadcaster for the event. Fox sent feeds from multiple cameras to the other networks, which did their own on-air presentations and editing.

To watch the debate again, I ventured to the Web site of the most sober network I could think of: C-SPAN. And sure enough, at minute 23 on the video of the debate, you can clearly see the bulge between the president’s shoulder blades.

Bloggers stoke the conspiracy with the claim that the Bush administration insisted on a condition that no cameras be placed behind the candidates. An official for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which set up the lecterns and microphones on the Miami stage, said the condition was indeed real, the result of negotiations by both campaigns. Yet that didn’t stop Fox from setting up cameras behind Bush and Kerry. The official said that “microphones were mounted on lecterns, and the commission put no electronic devices on the president or Senator Kerry.” When asked about the bulge on Bush’s back, the official said, “I don’t know what that was.”

So what was it? Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert and the owner of the Spy Store, a high-tech surveillance shop in Spokane, Wash., looked at the Bush image on his computer monitor. “There’s certainly something on his back, and it appears to be electronic,” he said. McKenna said that, given its shape, the bulge could be the inductor portion of a two-way push-to-talk system. McKenna noted that such a system makes use of a tiny microchip-based earplug radio that is pushed way down into the ear canal, where it is virtually invisible. He also said a weak signal could be scrambled and be undetected by another broadcaster.

Mystery-bulge bloggers argue that the president may have begun using such technology earlier in his term. Because Bush is famously prone to malapropisms and reportedly dyslexic, which could make successful use of a teleprompter problematic, they say the president and his handlers may have turned to a technique often used by television reporters on remote stand-ups. A reporter tapes a story and, while on camera, plays it back into an earpiece, repeating lines just after hearing them, managing to sound spontaneous and error free.

Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up — and broadcast to surprised viewers — the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies — notably during the Republican Convention on the day of Bush’s appearance. “They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera,” Schechter said. “The Democrats weren’t doing that at their convention.”

http://www.salon.com/2004/10/09/bulge/

So was this just a conspiracy theory or is it an accepted fact that he wore ear pieces?
 

Volimar

Member
They were used for streaming audio. If Bush didn't hear a steady stream of Disney cartoons, he'd throw a fit.
 
How much you heard about it depended on how liberal you were at the time, but it definitely got media attention.

There's no consensus and it's just old news now.

This is also Exhibit A on why general election debates don't make a big difference in the polls.
 

legend166

Member
Guys, guys, guys. I have big news. I think I have discovered time travel. I don't know how it happened, but I suddenly find myself back in 2004. A minute a go it was 2012.

My tips for all of you.

- Buy Nintendo and Apple stock (but sell Nintendo at the end of 2007).
- A black guy will be your President in 2008 (unbelivable, right?)
- Sadly, in that same year you'll have a massive financial collapse and all lose your jobs. Sucks for you guys.
 

Acheron

Banned
How much you heard about it depended on how liberal you were at the time, but it definitely got media attention.

There's no consensus and it's just old news now.

This is also Exhibit A on why general election debates don't make a big difference in the polls.

Good to see the Democrats have a their own crazy wing that will denigrate the office and validity of the President for the most crackpot reasons due to the letter in brackets after his name.
 

baekshi

Banned
Guys, guys, guys. I have big news. I think I have discovered time travel. I don't know how it happened, but I suddenly find myself back in 2004. A minute a go it was 2012.

My tips for all of you.

- Buy Nintendo and Apple stock (but sell Nintendo at the end of 2007).
- A black guy will be your President in 2008 (unbelivable, right?)
- Sadly, in that same year you'll have a massive financial collapse and all lose your jobs. Sucks for you guys.

didn't happen, haha
 

owlbeak

Member
If he was wearing an earpiece, the person on the other end was probably murdered for the horrible job they did. Some of the shit that came out of that dude's mouth was unbelievable.
 
Bush was only able to become the pres because of his fam, fam.

Ambition? Goals? He could have easily done without it. Entitled presidency.
 

Tristam

Member
Good to see the Democrats have a their own crazy wing that will denigrate the office and validity of the President for the most crackpot reasons due to the letter in brackets after his name.

'Signs indicate that Bush may have received surreptitious support during speeches and debate' versus 'Kenyan socialist Muslim Marxist atheist dictator'? C'mon, the left has a crazy wing, but nobody outcrazies the Tea Party crazies.

Besides, there were legitimate reasons to challenge the validity of Bush's presidency--at least the first term of it--since it was the only one decided by the Supreme Court.
 

Acheron

Banned
'Signs indicate that Bush may have received surreptitious support during speeches and debate' versus 'Kenyan socialist Muslim Marxist atheist dictator'? C'mon, the left has a crazy wing, but nobody outcrazies the Tea Party crazies.

Besides, there were legitimate reasons to challenge the validity of Bush's presidency--at least the first term of it--since it was the only one decided by the Supreme Court.

1) They're equally crazy as there's clearly nothing in his ear, and you think he's wearing a wireless receiver while driving pickup trucks, delivering standard speeches and at debates. It's crazy and disgusting.

2) Bush won. He won before the SC, the SC backed him and under the conditions required would have won. If somehow the SC mandated counties count the votes of people literally too stupid to live and ran overvotes on a best guess basis maybe Gore would have won. But the 2000 election was completely valid.
 
Besides, there were legitimate reasons to challenge the validity of Bush's presidency--at least the first term of it--since it was the only one decided by the Supreme Court.
There's a difference between being uncomfortable with the final stages of the 2000 general election and believing that President Bush was consistently being fed lines in broad daylight.

It's silly and conspiratorial, but as others have said it made a few waves a decade ago and the issue is largely over. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize about the Bush presidency without resorting to something as bizarre as this.
 

Jackson

Member
'Signs indicate that Bush may have received surreptitious support during speeches and debate' versus 'Kenyan socialist Muslim Marxist atheist dictator'? C'mon, the left has a crazy wing, but nobody outcrazies the Tea Party crazies.

Versus 9/11 was an inside job? Left has just as crazy nuts. Every group has equal crazies.

It's a bullet proof vest.
Also this. Occam's razor people.
 

nateeasy

Banned
Some one with that much money and power needs to use a ginormous radio receiver. The bigger the better. amiriteguys?
 

Tristam

Member
1) They're equally crazy as there's clearly nothing in his ear, and you think he's wearing a wireless receiver while driving pickup trucks, delivering standard speeches and at debates. It's crazy and disgusting.

2) Bush won. He won before the SC, the SC backed him and under the conditions required would have won. If somehow the SC mandated counties count the votes of people literally too stupid to live and ran overvotes on a best guess basis maybe Gore would have won. But the 2000 election was completely valid.

1.) No, it's not as disgusting as the Tea Party's crass racism. Jackson makes a better point about the left's crazies.

2.) Gore almost certainly would have won, and people being smarter than "literally" too stupid to live (Rick Perry, is that you?) is not a legal voting requirement. Bush v. Gore displays some of the worst jurisprudence in the SC's history, something even the majority implicitly acknowledged in their decision. You don't seem to be well-acquainted with the the full scope of the events that transpired during the Florida recount, but I would be happy to refer you to some reading material. The Nine is a good start.
 
'Signs indicate that Bush may have received surreptitious support during speeches and debate' versus 'Kenyan socialist Muslim Marxist atheist dictator'? C'mon, the left has a crazy wing, but nobody outcrazies the Tea Party crazies.

Um... truthers? Truthers out crazy everybody.
 
2.) Gore almost certainly would have won, and people being smarter than "literally" too stupid to live (Rick Perry, is that you?) is not a legal voting requirement. Bush v. Gore displays some of the worst jurisprudence in the SC's history, something even the majority implicitly acknowledged in their decision. You don't seem to be well-acquainted with the the full scope of the events that transpired during the Florida recount, but I would be happy to refer you to some reading material. The Nine is a good start.

This probably isn't the right thread to re-litigate this, but Gore wouldn't have won pursuing the strategy he did at the time. Recounts of the entire state suggested he would have carried it, but his team made a tactical and strategic error in demanding recounts in only a few counties.
 

Acheron

Banned
1.) No, it's not as disgusting as the Tea Party's crass racism. Jackson makes a better point about the left's crazies.

2.) Gore almost certainly would have won, and people being smarter than "literally" too stupid to live (Rick Perry, is that you?) is not a legal voting requirement. Bush v. Gore displays some of the worst jurisprudence in the SC's history, something even the majority implicitly acknowledged in their decision. You don't seem to be well-acquainted with the the full scope of the events that transpired during the Florida recount, but I would be happy to refer you to some reading material. The Nine is a good start.

Love the glib Rick Perry remark, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally, again literally has been used as an intensifier for decades, but hey we can just turn it into an attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through.

Regardless, you sound like a partisan hack bleating your conspiracy theories.
 

Tristam

Member
This probably isn't the right thread to re-litigate this, but Gore wouldn't have won pursuing the strategy he did at the time. Recounts of the entire state suggested he would have carried it, but his team made a tactical and strategic error in demanding recounts in only a few counties.

The problem was that Gore never believed a statewide recount would have been feasible.

Love the glib Rick Perry remark, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally, again literally has been used as an intensifier for decades, but hey we can just turn it into an attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html



Regardless, you sound like a partisan hack bleating your conspiracy theories.

First, the NORC's study that you reference had a well-known problem:

Then there is another small matter overlooked by the consortium: the numbers don't add up. The consortium handed over the job of counting the disputed ballots to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, which in turn employed 153 ballot examiners to visually inspect the ballots in all of Florida's 67 counties. In all, the NORC counters were able to inspect 175,010 disputed ballots that the counties identified as having gone uncounted or rejected. But those 175,010 uncounted votes are 1,436 ballots less than the 176,446 ballots that, the news organizations independently determined, had originally been reported by the counties as rejected or uncounted on election night.

What explains the discrepancy? Nobody can say for sure. Kirk Wolter, senior vice president at NORC, told Newsweek that each time the counties got asked to identify their uncounted ballots, they would come up with slightly different numbers. "Each time, they did it, it turned out a little different," Wolter said. The Dade County elections supervisor last week told the conservative journal Human Events that election workers had difficulty trying to sort out ballots as they were run through county voting machines.

Second, I continue to see only a cursory knowledge of the chain of events:

The previously undisclosed notes lend firm documentary support to recent comments by Lewis that he might well have expanded the Florida Supreme Court-ordered statewide recount of "undervotes"--the disputed ballots in which machines did not record any vote for president. The notes show that--just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order--Lewis was actively considering directing the counties to also count an even larger category of disputed ballots, the so-called "overvotes," which were rejected by the machines because they purportedly recorded more than one vote for president.

This is the group of disputed ballots that the consortium has now found that--had they been manually recounted--might have yielded a rich treasure trove of votes for Gore, enough even to put him over the top.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/11/18/the-final-word.html
 

LuchaShaq

Banned
There's a difference between being uncomfortable with the final stages of the 2000 general election and believing that President Bush was consistently being fed lines in broad daylight.

.

Honestly every President has a speech writer. Even if he is an even biggeridiot than most of us thought I couldn't care less if his canned answers were given to him on paper, teleprompter, psychic powers, or in an ear piece.
 

hayejin

Member
I remember people commenting of the photo back in 2004. I feel old. I remember white house or some officials making statement that it was a bullet proof vest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom