Boston Herald: Web wags are wondering if W was wired

read it here

THIS is why I had such a hardon over the stupid earpiece conspiracy threads. I kept saying it was stupid and would act as a distraction to REAL issues.

Flamers told me I could choose to ignore topics and we don't influence mainstream media. On the ignore point, they missed the point.

This article demonstrates how ridiculous it appears to mainstream America to make the accusation without proof and how it's a distraction and an opportunity for the Bush camp to change the subject and mock the "laughable" charge being made against Bush.

The Bush campaign is now having to address this question...the best they could come up with is that the bulge was a PUCKER in his expensive suit. The fact that they are having to deny that he was wired is a GOOD thing.

see article where the Campaign bactracks and puffs a lot of smoke

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1022300

It's obvious that Dems cannot spread rumors with the same effectiveness as the RW. There will never be (and never should be) an effective progressive version of the drudge report. We need to win by combatting this negativity, not by perpetuating it.

We have real issues to win on, anyway. It's been painfully obvious for over a year that we were on the right side of the war. It's a shame that we haven't been able to make them fess up to that.

...but one important to the credibility of someone calling himself president of the United States. It shows that he and his gang are willing to do anything to win...even cheating.

- Democrats glossed over the stolen election in 2000 because they wanted to 'move on'. Fine...but how many times must we move on when we suspect that the other side is cheating?

- And this is why there are so many 'conspiracy theories' about 9-11. Instead of just telling the American people the truth about 9-11...we've seen everything from attempts to prevent an investigation to outright lies about what happened.

- Look...there was obviously SOMETHING on Bush's* back...it wasn't a 'crease' in his jacket. If there's nothing to hide...why not simply tell the American people what it was?

Wow, so Ken Mehlmen says its ridiculous? And that's the FINAL word?

If there was anything of substance to the article, it'd explain what actually WAS under Bush's jacket. Why not ask the Bush campaign that or do some research on that?

"This article demonstrates how ridiculous it appears to mainstream America to make the accusation without proof", because the Bush campaign's response is given the final word and is made into the sole authority as far as the viability of the rumors.

(I also think the earpiece-at-the-debate theories are laughable, for the record. Bush would have done an infinitely better job if he actually did have the answers fed to him, I believe. Still, the article is worthless.)

n/t

Maybe that litte pat on the back that Kerry gave him messed it up,
because * was much worse than usual last week. He really seemed
to be straining to hear something during those long pauses.

by Kerry's wife, the "Cheney you" crap, the Bush twin tongue thing, the AWOL doc's and others are all meant to distract. Planted stories? Rovian crap? But, we all seem to get wrapped up in this stuff.

The media will ALWAYS cover the stupid quirky stuff. It's unavoidable. So we can shrink from it and do a Gore. Or we can say and do whatever the fuck we feel like saying and doing - and be respected by our fellow Americans for standing up for ourselves.

That's an idea so terrifying to freepers that they might even come to DU and try to frighten us into not doing it.

23.

I would take the view that freakrepublictypes would come here and throw thier weight into conspiracy theories because they see it as eating up our time and painting us as wackos.

Freepers are the kings of asinine conspiracy theories. Of course we have our fair share here, but the Dan Rather/memogate thing? That was an unsubstatiated claim until it was picked up by RW blogs.

There are so many to mention....Kerry with intern, Foster "suicided" by the Clintons. These are beyond tinfoil hat stuff. These are dangerous rumors that actually get picked up by the mainstream press.

My stance is that we have less than a month. If it comes out tomorrow that bush* was cheating in the first debate, that's great. It's just another addition to our mountain of evidence in the case against our unelected president.

And as for "painting us as wackos", they've been trying that for as long as I've been paying attention. Looking at the recent poll numbers, I don't think their attempts have been successful. I actually think they're afraid of our ability to expose them.

The WaPo is on it now, too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18734-2004Oct8.html


Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe pointed to Bush's shaky, repetitive performance in the first debate. "If he had an earpiece and those were his answers, they ought to fire every person in the back room," he said.

get less play.

Talk about the real issues and Kerry wins points.

Talk about earpiece conspiracies and best case scenario people scratch thier heads and get distracted from Bushs horrible record, worse case scenario they get confused and think the crazy accusation is coming from the Kerry camp.

of bush's credibility. We know he lies, now he cheats. That would be the headline if there were any liberal papers -DID BUSH CHEAT?

You do realize you're on the DEMOCRATIC Underground web site, right?

It's kind of like cinnamon on an apple - it's the spice that helps bring out the flavor of Bush*'s other, larger, bloodier distortions.

23.

wiregate at least distracts the media a bit
from singing Boosh's praises.

Web wags are wondering if W was wired

Say it 5 times real fast.

Which web wags were wondering why W was wired?

Or
Why were web wags wondering why W was wired?


Everybody knows why...he's a cheat and a liar and will do anything to win. Do I believe that he was??? Maybe not; maybe so. But there has got to be an explanation about the rectangular "thingie" showing through his jacket. The designer's label??????? :-)


But I can tell you I have looked at a lot of men's jackets in the back and I can tell you I've never seen anything like that "box-shaped hump".

My husband last night noticed that Kerry had his hand on Bush's back...just checking out the sound system!!!

:bounce: I don't give a hoot what he had on; it didn't help him a damn bit. And I agree we have far more important things to discuss. BUT isn't it a bit fun--called spice by someone above--to surmise what it is? I think so; I got lots of laughs from the posts. LIBERALS ARE CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS!!

over whether or not Kerry had a pen of mass distraction, we probably would have never notice the perfectly rectangular brick in the middle of W's back. Sorry, expensive suits don't wrinkle like that.

We can't begin to guess what kind of custom made concealed BP vest Bush might be wearing, but we can look at rifle plates that might be sewn into that vest.





The plate below is described as
Our most popular Ceramic FRONT Rifle Plate
Triple-Curved to hug your body, plus extra taper for more freedom of movement.
The Back Plate is also Triple-Curved but more rectangular


The "triple curve" in the back would cause a shadow to fall accross only one of the three rifle plate sides, thus giving the impression that the object is only 3 inches wide.

Kerry should have been given a vest to wear also.

I think Bush is probably the only president to wear a vest. It's a shame he so afraid of everyone, that he doesn't even trust his own people to protect him. Clinton never wore a vest and there were certainly millions of people who hated him in this country.

"according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one."

from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1097295299-qqP3f7WYefZMl4l4+RwTaA

:sigh:

Web Wags Wonder Whether W Was Wired.

... there is something going on.

the * people first deny there was anything strange.

then they are shown pictures.

so then they say the pictures were doctored.

then they are shown videotape and the square lump is visible.

then they say it was a bad suit.

*******

if there was an innocent explanation, they would have given it.

they haven't.

It was probably a protection vest. They won't admit it because they don't want to give anyone the idea that they believe him to be physically vulnerable in that venue. I don't think that explanation is particularly sinister. Anyway, like we said, if he was wired, his handler sucks!

Could it have been some kind of corset to make the President look, I dunno, bigger chested or something? Notice how he was all hunched down for debate number 1 like it was strapped really tight or something.

No evidence or proof, but I'm just supposin'.

this very thing... BECAUSE of all the noise on the blogs about it. And the White House and campaign have NO valid answer for it. EVERYTHING is a distraction, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1016937

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1097295299-qqP3f7WYefZMl4l4+RwTaA

<snip>
First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.

"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.

"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."

Ms. Devenish could not say why the "rumpling" was rectangular.

Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.
<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2467257


and they categorically DENIED that either man had ANY electronic devices..
THIS PICTURE clearly shows the "object".. It's from a FOX feed.. (They were told NOT to photoigraph from behind...why??

The whole place was JAMMED a few hours before the debate.. NO electronic device of ANYONE there worked (and they had all worked perfectly BEFORE * arrived..

The numerous articles in the link detail SEVERAL "odd" electronic transmissions at SEVERAL other * events..


The WH has told many different accountings of it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=893204

or in another forum. Thank you