When the bulge saga began, I had no idea the tale would take so many surreal turns.
The New York Times killed a serious investigative piece by William Broad and John Schwarz. (Since others have published those names, I guess I am now free to do likewise.) They presented evidence that something odd was definitely going on beneath the presidential suit. NYT readers will not see that evidence; instead, the newspaper of record has published a piece by Elizabeth Bumiller, who takes her place as the Judith Miller of bulge-gate.
Bumiller interviews Tolkeinesque tailor Georges de Paris once more, and then repeats the new semi-official story that the bulge was caused not by a radio, but by the straps of a bullet-proof vest. Liz -- if that's your angle, then why are you talking to the tailor? Shouldn't you speak to someone who, y'know, has expert knowledge of bullet-proof vests?
And perhaps you could find out why Bush would wear a bullet-proof vest while debating Kerry, testifying before the 9/11 commission, and lighting a menorah in the White House -- even though he wore just a shirt (with rolled-up sleeves) to address large crowds at an outdoor rally? Did W really fear that one of those Jewish kids visiting the White House might pull a Jack Ruby?
And I'd like to see just one photograph of a bullet proof vest that straps up in the way suggested by the debate photographs...
Oh...and remember Robert Nelson, the satellite imaging expert from JPL whose photo analyses did much to legitimize this story? Reliable word has it that forces "on high" have pressured him to keep his mouth shut. Something about a cut-off of funding. Gosh. Now why would that happen, if the bulge was just a bullet-proof vest?
10 comments:
It's interesting that prior to the election, the American media collectively either ignored this story or fed back the absurd explanations they were given, i.e the bulge was a bulletproof vest, no wait, it's only bad tailoring, no wait...
Since the election, the media has apparently decided to demean the public further by mentioning the bulge in a patronizing, dismissive context,followed up by condescending references to the interent. You know those bloggers. *Sigh.* I'm making specific reference to the ABC "Person of the Week" story last Friday, 11/5, and to the Andy Rooney segment on 60 minutes, this past Sunday, 11/8. I'm sure there are other examples of this as well.
If there's any clear mandate these days, it seems to be to ignore or actively attempt to kill any story that might expose the collusion between our 4th estate and this administration.
...Incidentally, the ABC Person of the Week was
Karl Rove.
I am a journalist and have looked into this story and it is indeed, very strange. I continue to visit this and other bulge sites, and while I agree that this story deserves further coverage, I don't agree that this story has been killed because of some media conspiracy. This story is both laughable and serious, however there is absolutely no concrete evidence of any wrongdoing. Very few journalists will be willing to cover the more serious aspects of this story without evidence or a concrete lead to follow. With the election results and the President's renewed hold on Washington, journalists will need to be careful. This is not self-censorship, it is responsible journalism.
The story here is why would the current admisnistration continues to mislead the press (and everyone else) by repeatedly offering different explanations to something that is possibly a non-issue. The Presidents remarks on the bulge also command attention, as they are on record.
You can whine about the press until the next election and that will not make this story get covered. Bloggers have done an amazing job at uncovering hard to find facts and information, a handfull of reporters cannot do the investigative work of thousands of web surfers. I hope you will continue to look at this issue and realize that the world IS watching.
I would look into the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, Karl Rove, and Barry jackson. If this was a "wire" then this is where you need to start.
"Very few journalists will be willing to cover the more serious aspects of this story without evidence or a concrete lead to follow."
With all due repect ---
Excuse me? So, the numerous picturess from every concievable angle do not count as evidence? OK. Well, then how about the President's perfomance in the 1st debate. Just circumstantial. OK, I get it. But what about the CNN coverage of the press conference between BUsh and Chirac in June where another voice could be heard by everyone? No? Well, then what about the conflicting White House explanations, when it would have been to their advantage to make this go away if they could? Oh, and the President's refusal to take a physical this year? Yeah, why even bother without any evidence or concrete leads with stories as potentially important as this one.
I mean, where's a stained blue dress when you need one?
I think certain members of our "free" media know exactly who the puppetmasters are. They are afraid that when the truth comes out, and the implications become even more clear, the public will be asking: What did THEY know and when did THEY know it?
Regarding the Anonymous Journalist posting above:
I am somewhat confused by the conflicting comments presented: for example, "I agree that the story deserves coverage" versus "there is absolutely no concrete evidence of wrongdoing" versus "why the administration continues to mislead the press." Surely if the administration lies continually about something that "deserves coverage" that is "laughable and serious, surely this could be construed as a first instance of wrong-doing.
Perhaps more bothersome is that "very few journalists will be willing to cover the more serious aspects of this story without evidence or a concrete lead to follow. With the election results and the President's renewed hold on Washington, journalists will need to be careful. This is not self-censorship, it is responsible journalism."
First, as one of the posters remarked above, what proof are journalists lacking, I mean the proof is presented all over the web. Second, notice that the last statement denies "self-censorship", but the preceding sentence is a complete give-away, noting FEAR of "election results, President's renewed hold, journalists...will need to be careful."
Both the WP and NYT dropped this story when they had the chance, just as they dropped other near election stories. It may not be collusion, but there is a self-censorship based on fear, of both the administration, identification with CBS's incompetence, and being branded as the liberal press.
As to why the Whitehouse continues to offer "different explanations to possibly something that is a non-issue" is that they did what all liars first learn not to do and that is lie about things you don't have to. The bulge could have been explained away initially as a "security device" or a custom bullet-proof vest. Everybody would have bought into this;however, they didn't do this. They lied about something completely obvious through force of habit, that the bulge didn't exist.
Once this was done, and they were refuted, then followed their permutations.
manowar
Let me play the devils' advocate for a moment regarding the anonymous journalist...
As a fellow follower of "Bulgegate" this comment interested me, they also posted on my site Bush Wired, I'm glad to see some dialogue here.
First, we have a lot of compelling arguments for further investigation of the Bulge, but we DON'T have evidence of wrongdoing... I think thats the evidence being referred to, not the photos. The photos show SOMETHING but nothing conclusive. Its something... thats it... and we know that besides all the various explanations, the President said it was bad tailoring. He lied for sure but even that isn't really PROVEN. Thats all we know ... despite the NASA analysis.
Personally I think it is a coaching device, but thats not relevant here...
If you are some journalist interested in a story that has huge implications if correct, but has nothing concrete to back it up... would you possibly risk your job to cover it? As a matter of honor and ethics maybe, but in real life? I agree that the story would need to be looked at very hard before press in any major publication. The press agency would also need the strength and resources to back up the reporter... thats not everyone.
I get nothing, and answer to no-one on my site... not much to lose, a different situation for sure.
If I was an investigative journalist, I would look into it... but the evidence is murkey at best... its hard to decide how I would cover the story. HOWEVER, as an investigator I would still ask the hard questions about this story... Thats something nobody is doing.
This story really needs to get covered by someone "big" with good sources and a "media pedigree". Anyone less will probably get destroyed...
ALSO, I find it somewhat annoying to drop a "tip" about Rove, Jackson and the Office of Strategic Initiatives... THATS WHAT THE PRESS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING!!! The bloggers are great at google searches, but I doubt we can dig up dirt on THAT office. Appreciate the "tip" though... I'm sure someone will start looking...
Icone
• http://bushwired.blogspot.com/ • THE OFFICIAL BUSH WIRED PHOTO GALLERY VIEW THE EVIDENCE!
SO we've reached the point where we assume that investigative journalists will lose their livlihoods by doing investigative journalism? By asking AND PERSISTING with hard questions? I'm getting so sick of the media apologists. If they're not going to investigate, say so. Say, "we are going to spend the next four years pandering to this administration like the lapdogs we have become," and be done with it. I mean, why even have "journalists" when all you really need is a few stenographers?
Regarding the above mentioned "tip" - Beware of strangers bearing gifts.
I enjoyed the comment about investigative journalists endagering themselves by doing investigative work. As for the anonymous journalist: I appreciate your comments. But when you say there are no hard leads, I think you mis-state the case. The Nasa photo analysis represented an excellent angle, but the resultant stories were killed -- and not just at the NYT. Now that the "bullet-proof vest" theory is the semi-official explanation, why didn't Liz Bumiller do the obvious thing and speak to someone who knows about bullet-proof vests? Why conduct another useless interview with Bilbo de Paris?
Thank you, Joseph. I particularly enjoyed writing that comment. I also much appreciate your posts, and the opportunity to throw in my 2 cents!
Regarding the bulge, I think Keith Oberman may be our last hope. He clearly gets it.
Kim in PA
This really has nothing to do with what President Bush was wearing but rather whether he cheated in the debates and is controlled by others. Everyone appears to be asking questions about the bulge and not about the behavior. The question to the White House should be: "Did Mr. Bush at any time during the debates or his 9/11 testimony receive any outside assistance by electronic or other means?" If they say no, then they need to explain the physical evidence.
I sent the above thoughts and an investigative protocol to the major media -- but we are aware of the lack of interest and courage.
Perhaps the mood of the country is best seen in the controversy over the last Doonsebury strip about this. Some papers were up in arms over "F*** yourself" rather than the implication that Mr. Bush is controlled by others.
Still following THE BULGE story?
• THE BUSH WIRED SITE has a few new posts and a concise BULGE HISTORY posted. Check it out!
Icone
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/ Be sure to see the THE BUSH WIRED PHOTO GALLERY View the Evidence!
Post a Comment