"Stolen Honor:" Hidden truth

Daily Kos has published a transcript of the anti-Kerry propaganda piece "Stolen Honor," which Sinclair Broadcasting planned to pipe into millions of homes just before the election. (For a good commentary on this brouhaha, see here.) This "documentary" begins with our genial host, one Carlton Sherwood, introducing himself thus:

SHERWOOD: My name is Carlton Sherwood and I am a journalist. As an investigative reporter I have written about corruption in government, corporations and the military. I have helped to expose doctors who were actually ordering the starvation of handicapped infants, and charlatans who preached faith from the pulpit, but who practiced greed and deception in their personal lives. In every case the guilty party dishonored their professions and they were made to answer for the hurt they caused.

What unbelievable hypocrisy! Sherwood was himself the hireling of the world's worst spiritual charlatan.

Sherwood is a paid apologist for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, one of the most corrupt and megalomaniacal figures ever to assail the field of religion. Sherwood also worked for Moon's newspaper, the Washington Times, a conservative propaganda sheet that loses an astounding amount of money each year. (Some estimates run as high as $100 million a year.) Where does Moon get that kind of dough? Various exposes have linked Moon's finances to money laundering, organized crime, and Japanese fascists.

Why, I wonder, didn't Sherwood include that info on his televised resume? Why didn't he tell viewers that his egg-and-cheese money has come from Moon's filthy cashbox?

If you think Sherwood is just another crusader for journalistic truth, take a look at this excerpt -- and notice how our host tries to ape Michael Moore's tone:

SHERWOOD: Wait a second, I asked myself, did I hear that right? Was I or my fellow marines being accused of the same atrocities John Kerry had committed? Later in his testimony he claimed that American soldiers in Vietnam were guilty of even more heinous acts of barbarism:

KERRY PICTURE FROM TESTIMONY

KERRY VOICEOVER: "...they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."

"Quotation can be slander, if you gerrymander," as Oscar Wilde once put it. By editing out the first part of Kerry's remarks, Sherwood has -- to put the matter bluntly -- lied.

CSPAN broadcast the complete video record of Kerry's testimony (or almost-complete: some sections exist only as audio). What Carlton neglects to mention is that Kerry did not report that he had personally witnessed these atrocities -- in fact, Kerry made clear that he had not seen such things. Rather, Kerry told the committee that he had attended a rally called "Winter Soldiers," and that during this event various vets described participating in, or being an eyewitness to, war crimes.

Many of the same soldiers told many of the same stories in "Conversations With Americans," a book which made quite an impression on me when I first read it. Over the years, both that book and the "Winter Soldiers" testimony have been questioned. Some critics doubt the bona fides of some of the veterans who reported atrocities. I do not have space here to present both sides of that debate; I would simply point out that Abu Ghraib has reminded us, once again, of what happens in war.

That controversy does not affect the truthfulness of Kerry's testimony to the committee. All he said on that occasion is that he was present at a public gathering where men who announced themselves as Vietnam veterans described certain experiences.

No one denies that such a rally took place. No-one has ever accused Kerry of misreporting what those men said. No-one on that committee expected one private citizen (and that's all Kerry was at that time) to double-check everything he heard from speakers at a public event. That is a job for journalists and government investigators.

Kerry was an observer at that event. He later told Congress what he heard. And that's it. That's the story. Any Republican who tries to tell you otherwise is twisting the testimony.

Whether the "Winter Soldiers" spoke accurately or not, one thing is certain: They did not accuse every American soldier of participating in atrocities. To say "atrocities occurred" is not the same as saying "everyone in the military is guilty." That simple point of logic seems to escape Republicans.

We should also take note of the cute little hoax Sherwood sneaks into the beginning: "Was I or my fellow marines being accused of the same atrocities John Kerry had committed?"

Kerry did not testify that he had personally committed atrocities of this sort. As noted earlier, Sherwood deceptively snipped out the section in which Kerry testified that he had not even seen such things.

True, during a debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavitt show -- a debate Kerry was generally thought to have won -- Kerry did say that he later discovered that the rules of engagement under which he operated contravened the Geneva accords. This is a valid criticism of the command structure.

As I recall that era (I was quite young but precocious, and liked to hear from guys who had returned from Vietnam), a lot of soldiers criticized the command structure. I suspect that nearly every soldier in nearly every war has complained about the way the war was run.

None of this substantiates the inane claim that Kerry accused Carlton Sherwood or his Marine buddies of participating in atrocities.

G.O.P. flacks would have you believe that John Kerry attacked his fellow veterans during his testimony. In fact, Kerry's testimony emphasized that the veterans were getting a raw deal from the government -- in particular from the V.A. At the time, few other voices spoke up for veterans' rights.

The reactionary propagandists want you to think Kerry burned babies, while all other Americans acted like angels.

Alas, the above excerpts represent only the opening section of Sherwood's stroll down deception avenue. The rest is just as bad. Salon's piece on "Stolen Honor" does not begin to convey the profundity of this film's lies. Sherwood has once again "Mooned" America -- and in the process of mooning, he has displayed the orifice from which he extracted his facts.

The dark art of elections

Check out this fine piece in the L.A. City Beat (the hip freebie publication here in Los Angeles, where the L.A. Weekly has become, I am sorry to say, an institution). It details all the Rovian shennanigans we have seen, and can expect to see, in this election. A similar theme sounds in this October Surprise overview by the Plaid Adder in the Democratic Underground.

Both stories, incidentally, make mention of "wiregate"...

The Bulge at the 9/11 hearing

This clip purports to display the bulge during Bush's visit to the 9/11 commission hearings. You have to look carefully when he turns around. Make your own judgments; I am told that the thing is much more apparent at higher resolutions...

For a good overview of the "bulge" aspect of the 9/11 testimony, check out this article by Michel Chossudovsky and Ronald England. A few excerpts:

There is reason to believe, however, that the behind closed doors meeting was being monitored by key advisers and that Bush was being briefed through an earpiece connected to an audio receiver. (see photo below).

Bush's earpiece has been known for some time to White House accredited journalists. The issue, however, was only recently brought to public attention after the first Bush-Kerry presidential debate. (For details see Is Bush Wired? Is he prompted through an earpiece? 8 October 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/IBW410A.html ).

Bush uses a 'passive transducer earpiece', through which he is fed a script that has been transmitted to and then from a device hidden on his body; photographs from the first presidential debate on 30 September show what appears to be a box, placed underneath his jacket and between his shoulder blades. (New Statesman, 18 October 2004)

"Is it really so bad?" Why this story is important

For a long time now, I felt that the first sign of the "Bush bulge" story gaining credibility would come when apologists started running columns devoted to the theme of "Let's say W did wear an earpiece -- is that really so bad?"

The first such column has already seen print. See this piece by Mercury News writer Dan Gillmor. An excerpt:

I would argue that in this case the rules need updating. Voters would have been better off if the candidates had all kinds of technology at their disposal, so they could double-check their own facts and precisely rebut opponents' misstatements.

In the Information Age, the ability to find relevant information quickly and use it intuitively will be at least as important as the ability to memorize numbers or slogans.This will be as true for everyday people as presidents and their staffs, and powerful tools will soon be at our beck and call.

Technological aids of this sort aren't new, though their use has sometimes been contested. Remember the debate when children first started taking calculators to school? It was assumed (with some truth) that kids would forget how to add and multiply the old-fashioned way, using a pencil and paper.

This argument so thoroughly annoyed one reader that he (or she) offered this open letter:

Mr. Dan Gilmore asks why so many people are disturbed by the possibility that President Bush might have been cheating in the debate by using a secret earpiece for coaching during the debates. Mr. Gilmore compares the rule against such aides to the rule some teachers have prohibiting use of calculators in math class.

Why, really, would it a problem for the President of the United States to have a secret voice telling him what to say during a Presidential debate?

Well, Mr. Gilmore, let how many reasons would you like to have?

First, may I begin by telling you why children sometimes need to learn to do math without calculators. Let's imagine that little Georgina always uses a calculator for math. She grows up and becomes President. One day, while she is visiting an elementary school to read with the kids, the US is attacked by terrorists. They have hijacked two jet planes are clearly intent upon crashing those planes into buildings where large numbers of people work. The voice in the President's ear rapidly describes the situation and concludes, "Oh NO! What shall we do first? We one fighter jet in a position to intercept. It is located exactly between the two of the planes. It can stop either but not both. It looks like USAir 347 can hit a building where about 5000 people work. It's 7:30 in the morning and we estimate that 10% of those people would be at work. The other plane seems aimed for a building where only 4,000 people work but it is the a time zone where it's 8:30 and we think at 90% of those people would in the building. What shall we do? We have only 60 seconds to decide. After that there will be no time for any interception at all. Oh NO! They are now reporting several more planes. One is flying straight at..."

The little voice goes silent and President Georgina spends the next seven minutes trying to think where she can go for a calculator. The fighter flies circles and waits for orders.

Oh well, let's not worry about that. Who would ever imagine the possibility that anyone would hijack jet planes in order to crash them into buildings.

Now, why would it be inappropriate for a President to use a little voice telling him to say during a Presidential debate? Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. If the debater has a little voice, how will I, as a voter, know if I like this President's ability to think and respond in an quick and independent manner?

2. If debaters have little voices, how will I know if I'm voting for an intelligent person or selecting the intelligence and reason of a good actor's little voice?

3. How do we ask the world to respect a President who needs a little voice when debating? Would the President, himself, negotiate with other world leaders or would that also be the work of a little voice?

4. What if, in the middle of a world crisis, the little voice turned out to be a member of a long-silent terrorist sleeper cell?

5. What if the little voice died in the middle of a world crisis?

6. What if the little voice is really the secret employee of a evil megalomaniac financial genius bent on world domination?

7. Finally, from another perspective, how will I, as a teacher, answer the student who first wants a calculator for math tests and then asks why she has to do independent work in classroom debates if Presidential candidates are allowed to have little voices?

I could mention more things but I'd need to have some information. You know, the sort of things you find in those boring newspapers with the big words and in those awful thick intelligence reports. My little voice usually helps me with things like that he's too much to drink tonight and he's about to pass out. I'd order a pizza so he'd have some food to help him sober up but I lost my calculator and I wouldn't have a clue how much to add for a tip.

I'll have to sign off now. I sure hope my little voice wakes up before my stupid teacher makes me solve any more terrorist jet plane math problems.

Necessarily Anonymous

The bulge may break soon...

I can't post much now, but I thought I might drop in and inform readers that there are rumblings on the "Bush bulge" front. I'm told that the video of Bush in front of the 9/11 commission show definite signs of incipient Quasimodo-ishness.

More than that. Remember this part of the key Salon story (the one which leads off with a few words from yours truly)?

Atkinson also says that it's not just Bush who's been coached -- Bill Clinton, too, received ear-prompting. John Ashcroft is "quite notorious for using wireless headsets," and Janet Reno used a system during the siege at Waco, Texas. Atkinson has documented the dozens of radio frequencies that the White House uses for its communications, and has pointed to the make and model of the prompter devices popular in the government. One of these devices is the RC-216 Receive-A-Cue system, manufactured and sold by Comtek Communications in Salt Lake City.

This info neatly details with the alleged communication from the Secret Service agent -- who specified that Clinton used an earpiece for security purposes, but NOT during debates. (One wonders, though, if he had help when he had to bluff his way through that State of the Union address in which his teleprompter went mysteriously blank.)

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this. If Clinton confirms that, in general, presidents do indeed use hidden earpieces, then "promptergate" receives a masssive dose of credibility. There will be a you-ain't-seen-nothin'-yet flurry of news coverage.

Of course, if that confirmation is forthcoming, the Right will use the occasion to indulge in their usual orgy of Clinton-hate, but I think we can prevent the issue from being diverted. Clinton is not on the ticket this year. Bush is.

How to get movement on this issue? My suggestion: Write to Hillary via her senate email address. It'll take you only a second.

If she gets a thousand letters asking her "Did Bill Clinton use an earpiece for security purposes?" she may well have to answer, or at least ask her husband to answer. Make sure that she understands that this question is not phrased as an attack on her husband.

I'll have further ideas and contact info later.

Updates...

Aside from my general notes below on the bulge bafflement and its relationship to the larger issue of conspiracy theory, we should also take note of two items of interest.

This piece may be of interest, although even some converts to this thesis now accept that protrusion as a shoulder blade.

There's a new site devoted to this controversy: BushBulge.com. I like the Bush/C3PO photo comparison.

A reader to Is Bush Wired? makes a terrific suggestion vis-a-vis the alleged Secret Service Agent's anonymous confession (referenced in an earlier post). The tale makes reference to Bill Clinton as another president who wore a wire for security purposes, although not in a debate situation. Which means that Clinton can confirm this story. At least in substantial part. He cannot confirm that Bush was wired for the debates, but he can confirm whether presidents do wear wires in a general sense.

I was intrigued by the way the bulge popped up during the famous/infamous Jon Stewart segment of Crossfire. An audience member directed a question on the subject to Stewart. The host pounced and declared the matter a non-story. It's just a wrinkle in the jacket, we were told.

Most of those who have seen the photos disagree. So do many who have heard the audio. Why not let Stewart speak for himself?

What if 2004 is the new 2000?

What if massive vote irregularities hit us again? Some say they are already cropping up. My own suggestion as to how to deal with vote fraud --unrelenting civil unrest and a general strike until a fair revote takes place -- seems to have attracted few converts. Here's another possibility: An emergency recount commission. It can happen, but we all need to get behind this idea right now.

Good conspiracies, bad conspiracies

Since the promptergate/mystery bulge controversy has elicited the usual snide allusions to black helicopters and Elvis sightings, I thought I would offer a few remarks on the general topic of conspiracy.

Like masturbation, theorizing about the evil schemes of our political adversaries is a common vice which most practitioners discuss in embarrassed tones. Most – but not all. Some folks are paranoia addicts; for them, suspicion is smack.

What separates the legitimate researcher into subterranean politics from the fear-junkie grasping after his next fix? I offer two basic guidelines:

1. We can categorize most conspiracy theories as either “right” or “left.”

2. The theories proffered by right-wingers have a much worse track record than do the theories proposed by left-wingers.

The first tenet has exceptions. Some conspiratorial notions are neither right nor left but off the map. For example, the once-popular Roswell silliness escapes easy political classification. The same can be said for many of the more outrageous allegations to come out of the World Trade Center disaster, or for the speculations in The Da Vinci Code.

In most cases, however, the “right/left” filing system really does work. Let’s look at some popular scenarios on both sides and see how they have stood the test of time. Yes, I fully admit that my selection is subjective and biased. I look forward to perusing any alternative lists readers might wish to offer.

Ten theories by Right-wingers:

1. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The classic anti-Semitic canard was cobbled together by Matheiu Golovinski, a right-wing émigré in Paris operating under the direction of the Tsar’s political police. It has been debunked many times.

2. The Satanic Panic. Is a worldwide cabal of Satanists raping and eating our children? Hell no!

3. “The Soviets are coming!” As late as 1995 – 1995! –reactionaries were telling lecture audiences that Soviet troops were massing along the U.S./Mexican border, just waiting for the “go” signal to come streaming in.

4. Whitewater. The scandal that wasn’t.

5. The Illuminati controls the world! Actually, the Illuminati was an anti-royalist society in Bavaria, squelched by the same Emperor played by Jeffrey Jones in Amadeus.

6. Was the Holocaust a hoax? In a word: No.

7. The Catholic Church assassinated Lincoln! This one dates back to a book of buncombe flung together by one Charles Chiniquy, an unstable defrocked priest with a grudge against his former church. Many fundamentalist Protestants still recommend his text.

8. The China/Soviet split was a fraud! So, at least, ran a theory popular within certain CIA circles throughout the 1960s. The prime mover behind this idea was counterintelligence chieftain James Jesus Angleton, a patriotic paranoid who nearly destroyed the agency he had hoped to serve.

9. Hillary and/or Bill killed Vince Foster (not to mention dozens of other alleged “enemies”). Taxpayers spent tons of money investigating this allegation, and ended up with little more than a chemical analysis of baloney.

10. The Communist Party in the United States was a powerful entity which had subverted much of Hollywood. Some folks (Ann Coulter, for example) still want you to believe this drivel. The reality: The CPUSA never had any real power or influence, and might well have died out if not for the dues paid by FBI and police infiltrators.

Compare the above to this list of ten conspiracy theories offered by left-wingers:

1. The CIA aids -- or at least overlooks the activities of -- drug kingpins useful to the Agency. The CIA had always denied this claim until a few years ago, when the Inspector General released a report which (in its unheralded second half) confirmed some of our worst fears. For further reading: The Politics of Heroin by Alfred McCoy, Cocaine Politics by Peter Dale Scott, and Acid Dreams by Martin A. Lee.

2. Watergate. Would Dick Nixon use spooks and Cuban operatives to spy on rivals? At one time, only the most paranoid Democrats would have answered yes.

3. Were hard rightists within the intel community behind the assassinations of the 1960s (JFK, RFK, MLK)? There’s no way I can summarize here the many arguments that have gone back and forth on this topic.

4. The CIA’s mind control experiments. In the 1960s, this was a rumor few dared to credit. In the 1970s, a small flood of documents on Project MKULTRA proved the point.

5. October Surprise. Did key members of the Reagan campaign make a secret deal to keep the American hostages in Iranian hands until Carter lost the election? Establishment pundits cackled at this notion. We haven’t heard much cackling since the allegation was confirmed by French intelligence chieftain Alexandre de Marenches, Russian prime minister Sergei V. Stepashin, Israeli secret agent Ari Ben-Menashe, former Iranian president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and former Israeli prime minister Yitshak Shamir.

6. Was the Soviet military threat inflated? In the 1970s, left-wingers who made this suggestion were mocked. We now know that when the CIA’s main analysts provided data the hawks found insufficiently useful, George H.W. Bush assembled a “Team B” which churned out hyperbolic assessments of the USSR’s armaments.

7. Yamashita’s gold. Did the Japanese hide an astonishing cache of loot during World War II? And has that loot funded right-wing activities in more recent times? Don’t answer until you’ve read the books of Sterling Seagrave.

8. The CIA and the Nazis. Did the Agency rely on such unsavory characters as Hitler’s spy Reinhard Gehlen? Did Gehlen and company manipulate our view of the cold war? A number of books, including Christopher Simpson’s Blowback, have substantiated an idea once considered mere fable.

9. Did the Bush family do business with Nazis before, during and after the war? Yes – and the scandal goes far beyond what you will read in Kitty Kelley’s bestseller. John Buchanan has the documentation.

10. Did George W. Bush invade Iraq under false premises in order to grab dwindling oil resources? Most Americans deride this notion. Most Iraqis don’t.

I emphasize once again that the above lists represent nothing more than the first ten “right-wing” and “left-wing” theories that popped into my noggin.

Even so, I think most people would agree that list numero uno contains a greater number of outrageous and untrue notions than you’ll find on list number two. The left-wing theorists have a far from perfect batting average, but they often hit at least a double, while their reactionary counterparts rarely manage to get on base. More importantly, the left-wing theorists usually try to construct an argument based on evidence, while their rightist analogs tend to eschew footnotes in favor of high decibel levels and appeals to emotion.

Black helicopters? Post-mortum Elvis sightings? Those are red-state beliefs.

Theorists on both sides, alas, tend toward name-calling whenever any scoffer assails a much-beloved thesis. I would argue that the right-wingers are a little quicker to calumniate, and much nastier in their opprobrium. I will also admit that on both sides of the aisle, the conspiratorial viewpoint tends to transform adherents into creatures who are obsessed, insular, anti-social and just plain unpleasant.

Bottom line: Whenever someone decries “mystery bulge” allegations (or similar claims) as the stuff of conspiracy theory, you can counter by pointing out that not all theories are created equal. Many have proven risible; some have contained a measure of truth. Although the left-leaning theorists have proven all too capable of wild leaps and foolish presumptions (my own fallibilities remain on humiliating display in previous postings to this column), they have nevertheless amassed the better track record. They don’t ask for immediate credence – just a hearing.

What the hell?

Today in Salon, we have a story about the increasing income disparity between whites and blacks. On the same page, Salon also links to a news story purporting to prove that black support for Bush has doubled since 2000!

Just what does this guy have to do to turn voters off? Even drooling in public seems only to have improved his standing...

CIA bombshell?

Robert Scheer has an article pregnant with possibilities in today's L.A. Times. (I've linked to the Daily Kos version of the piece to spare you the sign-in rigmarole; scroll down.) The CIA has compiled a 9/11 report which names names in the administration -- which the commissions refused to do. Scheer has spoken to someone who has seen this report; apparently, it looks bad -- very bad -- for Team Bush.

Two questions:

1. Will this document be leaked before the election?

I would bet "yes," even though the W brigade hopes to squelch the thing. The war between the Agency and the White House -- a meme once discussed only feverish speculators such as yours truly -- has made the mainstream news pages. Even Robert Novak devoted a column to it. My prediction: Although Congress won't succeed in shaking this apple from the tree, it will "just happen" to fall into the lap of a reporter -- maybe a week from now.

2. Will people pay attention to it?

That's a toughie. This country's unending hordes of Jesus zombies ignore all data that does not conform to the scripts in their heads. Those who care only about April 15 issues tend to rationalize away all other concerns. Many people shy away from stories involving the intelligence community because such matters tend to be involved and confusing.

Perhaps that's where we bloggers and other aficionados of the "internets" come in. We're going to have to read the information (once it becomes available), simplify it, and shout it -- over and over and over -- until the message becomes unavoidable.

The health "thing"

The other popular bulge explanation involves a portable defibrillator, such as the one manufactured by Lifecor. A commentator on Is Bush Wired makes two claims along those lines:

1. That tbe Bush family has a history of Atrial Fibrillation, or irregular heartbeat.

2. That W is particularly at risk because he takes presciption drugs for depression and paranoia.

The first point can be proven. From a July 17, 2000 Salon story:

In 1992, President Bush's reelection bid began badly when he vomited and collapsed in Japan at a dinner party thrown by the country's prime minister. From then on, the campaign was dogged with mostly unconfirmed rumors of his ill health. It was speculated, for example, that atrial fibrillation medications he took were affecting his mental acuity. What else would explain his pallid and lackluster performance at debates and appearances, particularly compared to the robust physical health and voracious appetite exuded by opponent Bill Clinton? The Bush campaign headquarters vigorously denied every ill health charge but it didn't change the fact that it wasn't only the economy that was ailing -- it was also Bush's physical image. His election results were equally anemic.

This goes a long ways toward explaining why W would keep any medical issues out of the public's eye.

The second allegation harkens back to this story (already mentioned in this column) from Capitol Hill Blue:

President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”

Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”

Many wonder why, if this story is true, it has appeared only in a small semi-alternative publication. I would note that Iran-contra was first reported in an obscure Lebanese paper. More to the point, Tubb has never denied the report, even though it has circulated widely.

Beware the Bulge!

High time, methinks, for a round-up of the latest on everyone's favorite mystery, the Bush dorsal protrusion -- or, as I like to call it, promptergate. From the Washington Post:

The Post's Mike Allen took several questions about the Bush "bulge" on Friday's Live Online.

Are you guys still working on the story, he was asked.

"Oy. Yes, we remain interested in this story, mainly because so many people are talking about it and because the White House and campaign responses have been so contradictory. Democrats love it -- Mike McCurry talked with reporters on the Kerry plane on Wednesday about how the alleged bulge in the back of Bush's jacket continues to pay play out on the blogosphere and TV. 'It's been on the Internet for a week,' McCurry said. Bush aides will tell you it is ridiculous, but they can't explain the bulge. Some of them tell you it's a cheap suit, some of them tell you it's one of his best suits. I thought maybe it was a Secret Service James Bond device, but they swear it is not. And they say he was not wearing a vest. Anybody who can help solve the mystery, I welcome your thoughts."

Okay, here's a thought: It's a radio which allows him to hear from aides. Keep it simple, scribes!

Did a secret service agent confess all? I'm not quite sure what to make of a story in Is Bush Wired?, which reprinted (with all due caveats) an anonymous comment from a reader:

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. Just because President Bush used this communicator receiver to provide voters with more appropriate rebuttal answers to questions posed does not warrant negative comment from this or any other website. The President has more on his mind than worrying about inconsequential people and whether his answers questions honestly, using his own thoughts, or the thoughts of campaign advisors and/or political analysts."

Make of that what you will. After the "Scott-n-Brad" fiasco of a week ago (a sub-mystery within this mystery known primarily to the bulge cognoscenti), we're all feeling skittish about revelations from anonymous commentators claiming to be insiders.

The same site has another such comment:

As a D.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and a communications specialist, I fully understand what has been said about the President being wired. In 1998, a small communications receiver was developed for the RNC to allow candidates to be cued on answers to provide for certain types of questioning. This receiver does not interfere with the communications equipment worn by Secret Service personnel and operates on a completely different frequency. With an adapter attached to the receiver, worn either on a shoulder harness or waist belt, a single Secret Service Agent, using a split frequency transmitter, a warn the receiver's wearer of any approaching danger. In the case of the President, it enhances his protection. He does not hear multiple voices or the chatter of numerous people. Using a satellite uplink on the transmitter--primarily for long distance communications--political analysts and advisors could easily provide verbal instructions to the President during a question/answer/rebuttal session, without any interference from an outside communications source. The corporation for whom I am employed, has developed numerous "special" communications devices for our government. The particular unit mentioned by the above listed Secret Service Agent is one of the devices we have manufactured. Anyone with $150,000 can purchase the transmitter base, satelite uplink adapter and receiver. However, they cannot purchase the unit with the same frequency used by the President.

For that kind of bread, I'd expect a more compact unit.

DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe offered this comment on the possibility of a Bush earpiece: "I honestly don't think the man is going to risk his presidency taking a transmitter into the debate." Unless not taking a transmitter remains a greater risk...? I refer readers to the "message to the troops" video noted in an earlier post...

If you haven't read it yet, take a look at David Lindorff's piece (republished here). And ask yourself: Would the coverage of this issue be the same if a Democratic president played the Quasimodo role?

Drudge still has yet to mention this story. He hasn't even linked to a piece debunking it. This, despite his history of making massive issues out of far tinier stories. Many believe that the RNC keeps Mattie-boy on a tight leash; if so, then his refusal to acknowledge the story as a story informs us that the Republicans may view this matter as radioactive.

October Surprise

The word-on-the-street concerns the October Surprise that everyone knows Karl Rove has planned. The big bloggers are predicting that we will soon be wowed by a spectacular stunt, such as the capture of Osama or a Bush visit to Baghdad.

The former may happen -- but I suspect we would have seen a few hints by now. They do like to lay the groundwork for these things. As for the latter: Such a stunt would be pretty damned dangerous, and would be seen as a stunt, even by Bush supporters. The cost/benefit ratio may work against this idea.

My guess? The Surprise will involve the Kerry campaign -- a frame-up of some sort. The groundwork for this has been laid, if you have been following Drudge.

Either that, or a mini-nuke will take out the Sears tower.

Then again, some folks were screaming that an "October Surprise" was nigh as far back as 1992. (Hell, I was convinced of it, that year.) And in 1996. And in 2000...

Unfit for service

New information with regard to the meaning of a special code which appears on George W. Bush’s Air National Guard discharge papers indicates that he was being thrown out of the Air National Guard for failing “to possess the required military qualifications for his grade or specialty, or does not meet the mental, moral, professional or physical standards of the Air Force.”

In other words, he was unfit for service. For the full details, see here.

The only question: Who pulled strings to make sure this fact did not continue to haunt W?

Promptergate: The best evidence

Read this new piece by David Lindorff right now. He presents what may be the best evidence so far that we are dealing with a very real situation.

For those of you who still prefer to believe that the Bush-in-France "pre-echo" was a mere technical glitch, as opposed to evidence of prompting -- prepare to have your comforting illusions shattered.