David Okrent, an editor at the New York Times, has corresponded on the topic with Chris Shaw of BushWired. (The same correspondence can be found at Okrent's site.
Okrent denies the unverified report that the NYT killed the story because Karl Rove placed a call to the paper:
If this is true, it's because "Bushwired" has much better sources than I do. I have never heard this, nor do I believe it.Shaw's response to this deserves a fairly lengthy quotation:
In late October 2004, after the Times' report was "spiked", I received several reports of the incident at Bush Wired. The reports ranged from simple information on the "spiked" story, to a laundry list of complaints against the Times' editors. One report mentioned a "near mutiny" in the Times newsroom and that people at the Times were "aghast" over the Bulge story's untimely death. All reports correctly identified both the authors of the story and the date the story was killed, several weeks before this information was otherwise made public. As these reports turned out to be correct, I feel these sources are somewhat credible. Because of the timing and accuracy of these sources, I can only ASSUME that they are within the Times itself. I promised NOT to reprint or post the original e-mails from these sources, and I will keep my word. Additionally, I have not heard anything more from these sources since early November.As for David Lindorff's suggestion that the bulge story, if properly publicized, could have changed the course of the election: Shaw tosses this idea into the "What if?" category, but I tend to think that greater publicity could have helped Kerry's chances. Indeed, that was pretty much the main reason why I spent so much time on the topic in the run-up to the election.
Three of these reports mentioned that Karl Rove called the Times, and subsequently the story was killed. I have no way to independently verify this information, but I decided to simply post what I was told, based on the previous accuracy of the sources.
Are there any new bulge reports? No, not as such. But I have heard a fairly consistent rumor, which my readers may help identify.
Not many days after the disaster of September 11, 2001, Bush delivered a fine speech to the nation during a service at the National Cathedral. A number of people tell me that they heard a "pre-echo" of another voice cuing Bush's lines before he spoke them.
Yeah, I know: There are possible "innocent" technical explantions for such a phenomenon, if it existed. We can't judge if we don't have a videotape record to study.
And thus I ask the readers: Do you have a tape of the that event? Do you know anyone who does?
13 comments:
It's always a good day when I'm quoted on my favorite blog, Cannonfire!
I agree that if the Bulge was properly investigated by the press, and it turned out to be a prompter or a defibrillator the story may have cost Bush a lot of votes and probably the election, but that's not entirely the Times' fault. The media and press as a whole are to blame.
If the NY Times' account is true AND the "spiked" article only covered the enhanced photos and Dr. Nelson's account, I don't think it would have mattered much. Thats why its a "What if..." to me. The Times still should have run the story in my opinion, because now we'll never know what would have unfolded.
And perhaps thats the biggest disappointment with the quashing of the Bulge at the Times... if the story was run, I'm sure it would have resulted in further "professional" investigation (by somebody) and perhaps an answer to this strange mystery.
nuff said,
Chris Shaw
Bush Wired
www.bushwired.blogspot.com
Of course the most obvious evidence is the speech he gave with Chirac in which his coaching voice is heard throughout. That's the most incredible thing I've seen. I'm sure I got that link in one of these blogs. Why isn't that discussed more often?
I would also think you would feature that and the 30 second run of him saying 'Let me finish' at one of the debates.
I've seen (and perhaps heard, it's difficult to remember) conflicting accounts of the Chirac "echo" -- at the time, claims were made that a *different* voice preceded Bush. And there were other recordings and other instances, including cases of highly improbable and very sudden Bush expertise and fluency on relatively arcane subjects, during press conferences, suggesting ventriloquy of some kind.
More to the point, however, there is evidence we've all seen: Bush delivering speeches. He looks from side to side, he does not appear to be reading, and it is highly unlikely this president could get through 40 minutes of teleprompter text unaided.
In addition, we know the device has been in use for years, and not just by Bush. It would be more surprising to learn he *doesn't* use it, than that he does.
Concerning the speech with Chirac, I'm surprised some are 'muddying the waters' here. The coaching voice is definitely NOT a George Bush 'pre-echo'. It is a coaching voice.
I remember it sounding like him but there were distinct differences in delivery. I'll watch again. He may have practiced the speech and had the tape fed to him.
Bush is incredibly adept at repeating and 'sounding' natural about it. There's a point in the tape where the audio of the coaches voice increases. Chirac looks up, startled, at that point. Now, tell me how a pre-echo, can precede the voice (ha, ha). I can't say for certain, but it certainly looks like he heard the 'pre-echo' too.
Incredibly, there is a q&a with one planted question. And a different coaching voice chimes in. This one sounds very different than George and George copies it word for word. You have to see this thing. It's startling.
Why would someone muddy the waters here? What are they gaining?
George is REALLY good at repeating. He's had a lot of practice.
Fire up that video and watch.
For the sake of argument, I reviewed that tape. For those who may not have seen it and don’t won’t to bother looking for it, I’ll describe. You hear a voice say almost a full sentence. This is not subtle, it’s very clear. Towards the end of the sentence, the president repeats it, word for word. The intonation is almost exact. Someone said, ‘hey, it’s a pre-echo.’. Like what the heck is that anyway? The voice is very much like the president’s (or, visa-versa). The intonation matches very well. In some dreamland, perhaps electronics and broadcast could throw a ‘pre-echo’.
Well, that gloomy theory holds up pretty well, until the voice says, “and I look forward to working with President Chirac…”; and the president repeats, “and I look working… I look forward to working with…”. Sorry, that’s no pre-echo, mister.
If that’s not enough, in some gloomy republican nightmarish interpretation, another distinctly different voice chimes in to lead him through the Q&A. It’s weird. Weird enough to dis-believe, until you watch it a few times. Then you wonder what sort of movie you’re living in.
You can look at all the enhanced lines and boxes on the president’s back, and it makes an impression. But listen to this tape, and the picture is very clear. The president is very schooled in audio prompting.
We know he’s used it (look at the tape). We know he’s good at it (ditto). We know he wore a box on his back for innumerable occasions. He came up with some stupid cover story for that box. You don’t have to be a genius here. It’s not a crime, at least not till you get to the debates.
It’s very weird, especially the answer he gives to a ‘Jim Angle’ the one reporter who asked a question.
First he says, after being cued even for this, ‘And now,… Jim Angle’.
Then Jim states his sentence and you hear someone else repeat his question, word for word, like they’re repeating it for someone else, off stage. This repetition comes after the actual voice. It’s not Jim’s voice, it’s not an actual echo. It’s someone else, also very good a repeating word for word, actually repeating the question, for what purpose, I have no idea.
Then a third voice, much clearer and louder, comes in to answer the question. Again, you hear almost a full sentence and then George starts repeating. The voice does not sound like the first coach and it’s not George. It’s a distinctly different voice.
The really weird impression you’re left with is, why can’t the president answer his own questions? Why this elaborate ruse? George is/was a puppet, literally. Bizarre.
Certainly this tape establishes his use and competence with hidden (although in this case audible) audio prompting. Is that important to anyone?
Ok, my guess is this. George had trouble giving a speech without tripping over words (isn’t that a fact?). For the purposes of this speech, perhaps they find that the ‘safest’ method of delivery is through audio prompting. He seems to be reading the speech and then follows the voice coach, line by line, word by word (almost) and matches the intonation as well. All well and good. But why use the coach to answer a ‘random’ reporter’s question? It’s too much.
Concerning the debates, well, you don’t have to reach too far for this. I’m sure the technology was too tempting for them, like an ace up your sleeve.
Oh, and one more thing, and I’ll get off of this. The first voice coach, it’s not George’s voice, though it’s similar in some ways. It’s very clearly someone else. And… how good he was at repeating the answer to the one ‘random’ question… well, it’s eerie, and it’s bizarre. I’m really not sure if we have a president or one of those Disneyland dummies.
Anyone want to comment on this tape? Please watch again.
The Bush/Chirac has been the source of much discussion for a while. I believe (way back when) it was found that it "was possible" for some sort of technology/satellite glich to of occured. The ghost voice could have been a coaching voice -or- simply a "pre-echo" of a translator. Nobody really knows, but I agree that the video is pretty amazing regardless!!! There are several versions of this video as run on the news networks, but unfortunately they were all from the same feed... so far I know of no other video from an independent source.
Maybe something new will turn up... I suggest searching in another language for a foreign source to the video.
I have links to two versions of this video at BUSH WIRED , among many other videos. Go to the BUSH WIRED ARCHIVE, scroll down the post to "Video & Photo Links". There's a bunch of links to Bulge-related video/photos... some links have expired, but the Chirac videos are still working.
Icone
http://bushwired.blogspot.com
First of all, your download is ultimately a 50+mb mpg file. The copy I have is a <3MB ram file. I thought you had another version of it or something but mine is 3 times larger perfectly clear (go figure). You should post my version.
>>it was found that it "was possible" for some sort of technology/satellite glich to of occured. The ghost voice could have been a coaching voice -or- simply a "pre-echo" of a translator.>>
I’ve been thinking about this statement. No, it’s not possible that this was some sort of ‘glitch’. This is very, very clear what this is and what is going on here however hard it may be to swallow (and believe me, it’s hard to swallow). And why would a translator translate English to English anyway? First, because the voice seemed so similar and the intonation matched so closely there was the theory that maybe it was George’s voice in some sort of technical ‘pre-echo’,. Well, that’s not it. Almost immediately, George is repeating what is said, but he goofs up. A pre-echo doesn’t do that. It could be George on tape being fed back to him (still an audio prompt necessitating the equipment we’re talking about). But, if you listen closely, you can tell; it’s not George, it’s someone else. Well, now we have a theory translator ‘pre-echo’ that translates (to English no less) that is perhaps matching intonation and sounding like George. Well, that’s some translator.
No, it’s not possible that this is a glitch, or a translator or anything else. This is quite clear. This isn’t a ‘smoking gun’, this is the gun being fired, silly.
How do I get my version up to you?
Personally, I think the video is still open to much debate... glitch or no glitch. Its all very odd and I'm not sure that I wholly believe in a "pre-echo". Back in October when this video was being widely circulated and debated, many thought this was the "smoking gun" ... If I remember correctly, the debate cooled off after a few "informed" reports that it WAS POSSIBLE (though not certain) that some sort of glitch COULD HAVE caused this echo. As I said, nobody really knows for sure!
I also remember at the time that someone "in the know" said that translators repeat everything said... whether needing translation or not. The french translator would carry all of Bush and Chiracs words in french, and an english translator would carry everything in english. However, that still leaves a lot to be explained... I know very little about broadcasting and audio glitches or translation specifics. I think someone who knows more should chime in here...
Regarding posting an alternate video source at Bush Wired, I will be happy to post any LINKS to further Bulge video/audio... but I don't have the space or resources to post the file itself online. Copy your links here, at Bush Wired, or send them to me at Bush Wired (c.shaw@mac.com).
Last, lets all remember that the Bush/Chirac video is one of several reported "pre-echo" instances caught on tape. However, nobody has ever turned up these other videos... just the reports. Also, if you can remember the Salon.com article from mid-October, a named source said that coaching was widespread in the Bush administration... This source said that he had "archived" audio of coaching and would dig it up... but nothing ever came of it in the end.
Since this seems to be a hot issue again, especially the video "evidence", perhaps I'll do a new post on the subject at Bush Wired... maybe something new will turn up.
Icone
www.bushwired.blogspot.com
i found a new version of the video on the white house site but no echo. surprise. did anyone in the media question this when it happened? what did they say? im sure the french press would have gone crazy if this was a clear instance of coaching. Can someone research this story in french, it may help.
I was googling and found this. it reminded me of how weird this story is and is interesting knowing what we know now. the lies are so bold and clear now. this is still a story I think.
From NBC News, Meet the Press, October 17:
MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, Mr. Mehlman, clear up this mystery that has been raging on the Internet. This was the first debate, George Bush at the podium, the bulge in the back of the suit. All right. Come clean. What is it?
MR. MEHLMAN: The president, in fact, was receiving secret signals from aliens in outer space. You heard it here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. SHRUM: You mean you sent Rove into orbit.
MR. RUSSERT: It was not a bulletproof vest or magnets for his back or anything?
MR. MEHLMAN: I'm not sure what it was, but the gentleman responsible for the tailoring of that suit is no longer working for this administration.
MR. SHRUM: Well, wait a minute. Now, the president only wears Oxford clothes. I'll bet that tailor is still there.
MR. RUSSERT: May we all be smiling this way on November 2.
It's obvious the White House lied about the bulge, but there's a simple and innocent explanation among those that have been floated, which none of you conspiracy fans seem to want to consider. This explanation is that it was a bullet-proof vest and that the White House denies it for the very reason that I have read expressed cryptically in at least one news article, which is that the Secret Service does not discuss their precautions for safeguarding the president. It only takes a moment's thought to realize this makes perfect sense: The president would wear such a vest foremost to protect against premeditated attempts to assassinate the president with a gun. Were the fact of the vest to become common knowledge, many would-be gunners might be expected to include in their preparations the purchase of specially tipped bullets that penetrate Kevlar or other vests. I wouldn't be surprised, furthermore, if many otherwise reluctant would-be assassins would feel emboldened by the news of a vest, because the use of a vest implies the Secret Service believes a clean shot is possible. So if I were in Bob Keller's position as Times editor and could reasonably and quietly euthanize this bulge story, I believe I'd be sorely tempted to do so. With regard to "reasonably," despite the FAIR article slant, there are indeed journalists quite willing to argue that the story was only borderline newsworthy at best. So let's go at this bulge thing Okkam style:
Q: What besides clothing is the most obvious thing for a president to wear at a scheduled public appearance beneath his or her jacket?
A: A bullet-proof vest.
Q: What's most obvious reason for the White House to deny a vest?
A: Because to acknowledge a vest would be largely to defeat the very purpose of a vest, which is to prevent penetration by those bullets that the would be assassin chooses to acquire and brings with him or her.
Q: What's the most obvious reason that the Times would choose not to draw attention to this lie?
A: Because the Times generally aspires to serve the public interest and sees the assassination of presidents as contrary to that interest.
Thanks for offering this great service to learn about leather goods pakistan. I have a website about leather goods pakistan which makes me very interested in what you have going here. I think I am going to start up my own blog so I can spread the news! Thanks you are offering this great service!
Post a Comment