Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Kerry Edge Universal, Was Bush Wired?

Expand Messages
  • Ed Pearl
    Hi. I d better start with the question, or it might get lost. If true, it absolutely must be widely exposed and then shut down. Also, Larry Bensky noted the
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi. I'd better start with the question, or it might get lost. If true, it absolutely must
      be widely exposed and then shut down. Also, Larry Bensky noted the increase
      of bombings and attacks on Amara and other cities now controlled by insurgents,
      that it was likely Carl Rove ordered, and we expect more. These analyses don't
      critique the broad policies. I will send you those, but today's news is horse-race.
      Ed

      From: "Conrado Hinojosa" <conrado@...>
      To: "SB Social Justice"
      Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:40 PM
      Subject: [SBSJ] Was Bush Wired?

      As in wired with a communication device so he could be coached during the
      debate?

      I watched the debate tonight and noticed 2 things that raise this question:

      1 ­ On Bush¹s lower ear lobe of his right ear, all through the debate I
      noticed an unusual dark spot, about 1/4² square in area:

      2 ­ At around minute 82 of the debate, the camera showed the only back shot
      of Bush ­ I noticed an S-shaped bulge from underneath his suit coat that
      went from the waist area to his right shoulder ­ about the size of a wire.

      Did anyone else notice?

      Conrado

      ***

      http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aMxxB0WrdhqE&refer=europe

      European Commentators Give Kerry Edge in First Debate With Bush
      Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- European commentators declared John Kerry the winner of the first U.S. presidential debate, hailing the Democratic challenger's pledge to rebuild alliances that they said President George W. Bush trampled by invading Iraq.

      Kerry, a French speaker with a Swiss education, was bound to go over well in Europe, where opposition to Bush's foreign policy was at 76 percent in a June Gallup poll.

      Kerry, trailing in the polls a month before the Nov. 2 election, accused Bush of sidetracking the war on terror and alienating allies by attacking Iraq instead of putting more troops into Afghanistan to hunt down al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

      ``The race is once again wide open,'' German television's Thomas Walde told a breakfast audience from the debating hall in Coral Gables, Florida. ``Before the debate Kerry was lagging far behind in the polls, but with his performance tonight he's gained ground.''

      In the U.S., snap polls after the debate gave the edge to Kerry. Gallup said a phone survey called Kerry the winner by 53 percent to 37 percent for Bush. A CBS News instant poll said 44 percent called Kerry the winner and 26 percent picked Bush. In an ABC News instant poll, 45 percent said Kerry won; 36 percent picked Bush.

      Bush's Lead

      Bush, 58, went into the debate with a lead of 5 to 8 percentage points in four national surveys released this week after his campaign painted Kerry as a ``flip flopper'' who repeatedly changed his position on Iraq.

      Denouncing the Iraq invasion as a ``colossal error,'' Kerry said he would have pursued bin Laden in Afghanistan and given UN inspectors more time to uncover the illegal weapons Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was suspected of harboring.

      Kerry, 60, scored ``a very narrow victory,'' Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the French Institute of International Relations, said on RMC radio in Paris. He welcomed Kerry's argument that ``even after Sept. 11, we need allies.''

      Bush's unpopularity in Europe began with his rejection of the Kyoto treaty on global warming and the International Criminal Court, peaking with the decision to attack Iraq without United Nations authorization in 2003.

      `Certain and Wrong'

      Against Bush's charges in the debate of sending a ``mixed message'' about Iraq, Kerry responded that ``you don't take America to war without a plan to win the peace. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.''

      German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac were the chief European opponents of the Iraq war, withholding consent in the UN Security Council and within the NATO alliance.

      Moving away from Iraq, Kerry called for direct U.S. engagement with North Korea over that country's nuclear programs, a policy Bush said would sideline China and lessen international pressure on North Korea.

      Some 87 percent of the French are behind Kerry, with only 13 percent for Bush, according to a CSA poll for La Croix published on the Nouvel Observateur Web site today. Sixty percent say a Kerry win would heal French-American relations.

      ``What you saw for the first time in a long time was President Bush on the defensive,'' the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Clive Myrie said from Coral Gables. ``John Kerry relentlessly made him have to defend his decision to go to war in Iraq.''

      Kerry, a four-term senator from Massachusetts, criticized Bush for turning away from the Kyoto global-warming treaty -- an agreement that faced near-unanimous Senate opposition -- and the International Criminal Court.



      To contact the reporter on this story: James G. Neuger at jneuger@...

      To contact the editor responsible for this story: Catherine
      Hickley at chickley@....
      Last Updated: October 1, 2004 03:56 EDT

      ***

      It Was a Rout
      By William Rivers Pitt
      t r u t h o u t | Perspective
      Friday 01 October 2004

      "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"
      - Howard Cosell
      There was a President on that stage in Florida on Thursday night, and his name was not George.

      This was supposed to be the debate that played to the strengths of Bush and his administration. Foreign policy in general and the protection of the United States from terrorism in particular, according to all the polls and every talking head within earshot, are the areas where George supposedly commands the high ground. That illusion came crashing down on the stage in Coral Gables.

      Shrill. Defensive. Muddled. Angry, very angry. Repetitive. Uninformed. Outmatched. Unprepared. Hesitant. Twenty four minutes into the debate, Bush lost his temper, and spent the remaining hour and six minutes looking for all the world as though he were sucking on a particularly bitter lemon.

      This is what happens when you surround yourself with yes-men. John Kerry put the bricks to Bush and the last four years of his administration clearly, concisely, eloquently and with devastating effect. Bush reacted like a man who has never, ever had anyone tell him anything other than "Good job, sir."

      That is what happens when you have to defend your record as President, something that no one in the media or elsewhere had managed to force Bush to do in the last 1,000 days. In the October 2000 debate, Bush managed to hold his own simply by making promises and telegraphing an aw-shucks charm. On Thursday night, Bush faced a reckoning at the hands of a man who cut his teeth prosecuting and imprisoning mob bosses.

      This was not a Bush meltdown. It was an exposure. George W. Bush was required to speak for 90 minutes without having the questions beforehand, facing an opponent far less pliable than the national press corps. The man he has always been, stripped of the hero-worship veneer, was there for all to see.

      Don't take my word for it, though.

      "They need to make Americans forget what happened tonight," said ultraconservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, speaking on what he believed the Bush campaign needed to do post-debate. Right out of the gate, Scarborough and the other talking heads gave the debate to Kerry, hands down, turn out the lights when you leave. "I think John Kerry," said Scarborough a bit later, "looked more Presidential."

      A post-debate caller to C-SPAN announced herself as one who had voted for and supported Bush, and then described the Democratic candidate as "President Kerry." Freudian slip? We report, you decide.

      At FreeRepublic.com, the bastion of far-right cheerleading, the faithful were fashioning nooses. "It's really painful listening to Bush," said one Godebert. "Kerry has had him on the defensive from the beginning. Kerry sounds confident while Bush has a pleading defensive tone. Not good so far."

      "Kerry looked much more experienced," said one whadizit. "He appeared to be relaxed and in control. W looked weary and worn and sounded weary and worn."

      "Unfortunately," saith The Sons of Liberty, "Kerry looked more prepared. He seemed to have more facts, however questionable, at his command and he delivered his message succinctly. Even when confronted on his flip-flops, he had plausible explanations. On the other hand, The President seemed to lose his train of thought at times. He continued to repeat the same things, and he looked tired and a little haggard. He needs to do much better next time."

      The comments went on and drearily on in this vein, in conversation thread after conversation thread, until a forum participant named areafiftyone threw the distraught legions a lifeline: "I had that feeling that Kerry had the questions beforehand. He seemed to have his answers right on target. Bush seemed like he was surprised by the questions. I wish they could investigate to see if the DNC got a hold of the questions beforehand."

      Yeah, that's it. Never mind that one participant had command of the facts, an understanding of the foreign policy realm, a firm grasp on the situations in Iraq, North Korea and Afghanistan, while the other participant seemed shocked that faded platitudes and repeated campaign slogans weren't getting the job done. The shattering, humiliating, obvious defeat handed to George W. Bush before a massive television audience must have come because moderator Jim Lehrer somehow conspired with debate host Fox News to telegraph the questions to Kerry beforehand.

      Or something.

      The two most embarrassing moments for Bush, culled from a symphony of embarrassing moments, came while discussing the situation in Iraq. After many minutes of being pummeled about the head and shoulders with the realities of the mess he had created, Bush lost his temper for the ninth or tenth time and insisted, "We're going to win this war in Iraq!" Yet it was many months and many dead American soldiers ago, on May 1st 2003 in fact, that Bush stood below a banner reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and proclaimed, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

      The second embarrassing moment came after Bush repeated his mantra about "staying the course" until the paint started to peel off the podium he was slouching over. We have to be resolute, we have to stay the course, we cannot send mixed messages to our troops and the world...and yet after an hour of bombardment from Kerry, Bush finally said, "Well, I think -- listen, I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq."

      So, OK, let me get this straight: We have to stay the course and not send mixed messages, and you've been blowing voluminous amounts of sunshine up the collective American backside for weeks about how boffo the Iraq situation is, but after an hour of taking rhetorical body blows from your opponent, you suddenly claim we are going to change tactics? It seemed for all the world that John Kerry, his opponent, convinced Bush that things in Iraq are as bad as people have been saying for weeks and months now.

      The most amusing aspect of the whole debate came several hours before it began, when ABCNews.com posted an Associated Press article discussing the debate in the past tense. "After a deluge of campaign speeches and hostile television ads," wrote AP, apparently putting the Way-Back Machine they've been building to use, "President Bush and challenger John Kerry got their chance to face each other directly Thursday night before an audience of tens of millions of voters in a high-stakes debate about terrorism, the Iraq war and the bloody aftermath."

      "The 90-minute encounter," continued AP reporter Nostradamus from his post somewhere in the space-time continuum, "was particularly crucial for Kerry, trailing slightly in the polls and struggling for momentum less than five weeks before the election. The Democratic candidate faced the challenge of presenting himself as a credible commander in chief after a torrent of Republican criticism that he was prone to changing his positions."

      The bloggers got hold of this masterpiece of gun-jumping by about 4:00pm EST, and ABC scrubbed the page. As for the 'flip-flopper' tag, you can put that particular Bush campaign talking point to bed. If this had been a boxing match, it would have been stopped. If Bush shows up for the next two debates, I will be, frankly, amazed. Watch for his campaign to reach for the chicken switch before the weekend is out, claiming perfidy on the part of the networks or some other sad folderol.

      No amount of spin will be able to undo the reality of what took place in Florida on Thursday night. What happened on that stage was an absolute, immutable truth. Bush looked bad. Worse, he looked uninformed, overmatched and angry. Worst of all, he's going to have to go through it two more times.

      If he shows up.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.