Final attack in the battle of the bulge

I had dreams of publishing a huge story today -- actually, several days ago.

Those of you following the bulge-gate controversy may not know that, behind the scenes, odd things have happened over the past few weeks. Writers pursuing this story have received anonymous missives offering "confirmation" of the earpiece theory. These faceless communicants often convey the promise -- never delivered -- of grand, on-the-record revelations to come.

One such missive advised that we were heading in the "right direction," but could expect no direct aid from any insider.

Then there was the haunting tale of the pseudonymous "Brad Menfil," who has peppered the Indymedia boards with alleged insider revelations about bulge-gate and the Osama video. I do not accept Brad's tale at face value -- in fact, I think he has tried to snooker his readers. On the other hand, I don't consider him as a mere leg-puller, since his tale is intimately linked with the Knoxville G.O.P. headquarters. (It's a lonnnnngggg story; see here.)

We have good reason to suspect that the "Brad" operation had a purpose beyond mere yocks. But what could that purpose have been?

Indymedia (which has become something of a fixation for certain hard-right haters) was also the recipient of one of those anonymous communications. This one alleged that a company called Tether Technologies, of Columbia, MO, constructed Bush's communication system, using an extremely thin (so thin as to be virtually invisible) earpiece developed by the Israelis. If such a firm exists, it remains invisible to a Google search and to the online telephone pages I have consulted.

Indymedia received still another anonymous message claiming that Bush used a device designed by a firm called Otologics, which does exist; they manufacture a revolutionary hearing aid. Their device requires surgery; the result is an undetectable earpiece. Most researchers have resisted this suggestion. The idea that Bush would undergo surgery in order to fool the public strikes most people as improbable, although I am not sure we should dismiss the idea.

The most fascinating of these anonymous tipsters sent the following words to the Is Bush Wired site:

As a Secret Service Agent, I can tell you that President is always wired with a communicator receiver to enable him to acquire detailed information in advance of situations that may arise. In the case of his first and second debates, campaign advisors were providing rebuttal information to President Bush as Senator Kerry was answering questions. This is not uncommon for an incumbent president. Having worked for President G.H.W. Bush, President W.C., and now President G.W. Bush, I am at all times aware that the president is wired, primarily to inform him of hostile crowds that he may encounter.

This missive (which I have reprinted only in part) offered potentially verifiable details. If one could prove the contention that "W.C" or the elder Bush -- or any previous president -- used earpieces to warn of hostile crowds, one has gone a long ways toward proving the further contention that Dubya used such a device during the debate.

Not only that. This claim resembles one made by a countersurveillance expert who -- wonder of wonders -- isn't afraid to use his name. James Atkinson confirmed that Clinton also used such aids, though not during any debates.

When I read this, I thought: "Now we have a direction, a lead, a task, a positive action, Something To Do." I needed to find someone who worked for a previous administration who could provide on-the-record testimony that, yes, modern presidents re routinely wired for sound.

That confirmation did not come easily -- in truth, "on the record" confirmation never came. But it was oh so close.

One Salon writer tried his darnedest to get word from the Clinton camp. You would think that Clinton would return Salon's call, considering how helpful that publication has been to Democrats. But...no luck. Neither did my own "write Hillary" campaign achieve anything but the silent treatment.

The silence strikes me as odd. One would presume that someone on her staff would have cobbled together a pro-forma denial.

I could not reach anyone connected to the Clinton administration who would touch Atkinson's claims. Frankly, this sort of work is not easily done by a mere blogger. A CBS reporter can expect a call back from Dee Dee Myers; I cannot.

I was able, however, to contact a former staffer in the Ronald Reagan White House whom I will here call "Bob." (Don't make any presumptions regarding this source's actual name or gender.) Bob's initial response seemed like paydirt: Of course Ronald Reagan used an earpiece to receive prompting from staffers.

My response to this was obvious: How do you know, and will you go on the record?

The answer was disheartening. Bob could not go on the record -- for very good reasons which I will not discuss here. More importantly, the RR earpiece was not something my source had witnessed personally; rather, this business fell into the category of "Oh, everyone knew."

All was not lost. Bob recalled reading a news story -- a serious one -- published shortly after the end of Reagan's second term, which confirmed that he used an earpiece for radio prompting. The article alleged that Reagan worried that the Russians might "tap" into his voice stream.

All righty then, I thought. It's just a matter of finding that article.

Easier thought than done.

If Bob still had the clip, it was packed away in a dusty box somewhere. I got much the same response from info-junkie acquaintances who collected stories of this sort during the pre-net days. A few folks vaguely recalled running across an article matching this description, but no-one could remember which publication (or even which type of publication) carried it.

I spent some time at a university library doing research the old-fashioned way -- ah, that wonderful smell of actual ink on paper! Alas, newspaper indices and the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature did very poorly what Google does so well. How the hell did we know anything before the advent of the world wide web?

So close. So far.

I have little doubt that such an article was published -- and that someone will pass it before my eyes after the election.

As we approach the finish line, what can we say of this story?

The bulge-gate meme traveled widely, but -- despite the impressive photographic and audio evidence -- never achieved true respectability. A number of skeptics scoffed at the latest "conspiracy theory" without explaining away those disturbing images. The White House's weak and contradictory excuses served only to keep the story alive. Conservatives soon learned to avoid the story altogether.

A few rightist pundits and bloggers tried to assail bulge-gate researchers as "monetized" (do you see any advertising on this site?) or as secret Kerry hirelings. In truth, we received zero help from anyone involved with the Democratic campaign.

When you think about it, the sphinx-like Democratic silence is more intriguing than the embarrassed Republican silence. Kerry gave Bush a pat on the back after the second debate. After the third, Bush (according to lip readers) privately asked to speak with his Democratic rival. If anyone outside the Republican party knows what the hell is going on here, it's John Kerry.

And yet he has refused to discuss this "rumor," for reasons which I can only presume to be strategically sound.

The mainstream reaction to this story is best summarized by this final story from David Lindorff. The bottom line: Few newspeople seem to discount the earpiece theory outright, and some truly wanted to look into it. But no-one in the so-called "liberal" media -- not even Bob Woodward! -- would countenance the commission of investigative journalism. For reasons outlined above, a diligent reporter for a well-known periodical could well have gotten "call-backs" that we mere bloggers do not merit.

By way of comparison: Mainstream news sources still credit the allegations made by right-wing bloggers that the CBS "National Guard" documents were concocted using Microsoft Word -- even though those claims have been decisively countered.

We come, at last, to philosophical issues.

How much evidence is enough? Some will aver that we never acquired enough proof to hoist bulge-gate out of the rumor category. Others feel that the available photographs, and the lame "blame the tailor" ploy, suffice to prove the point; no need to look further.

No-one can define your standards of evidence for you. No one has ever established absolute standards. I, for one, will always disagree with those who operate under the presumption that the only acceptable evidence is an admission of guilt by the accused party.

Has "bulge-gate" affected the election? Has the available evidence proven strong enough to convince some Bush supporters to think twice about their vote? Polls may one day give us an answer.

Finally, a question for my fellow researchers into this matter: Was it worth it? Did we do our part? Did we help uncover the truth?

Whatever the result of this election, I will always look back on these days as a great period, a time of promise and engagement. I never thanked my fellow researchers sufficiently, even though I always benefited from their writings and leads. They did amazing work, better than my own humble efforts. It was an honor to have some small role in the fight alongside them.

I'd also like to thank a special lady -- who, I like to think, is the one who started it all. She was not the first to ask "Is Bush wired?" That question was first posed years ago. Even so, when she asked me (during the rebroadcast of the first debate) "What's that thing on Bush's back?" she spurred me into taking a closer look. I publicized the controversy as much as possible, acquiring first the attention of Buzzflash, and then David Lindorff of Salon. Salon's terrific articles made sure that no-one in the country could ignore this matter.

Think of it: One lady, an unknown, sits on a bed while petting her scruffy little dog. She watches the television and wonders: "What's that thing...?"

A few weeks later, people all over the world ask the same question.

That is power.