Does George Bush wear a small earphone when he's speaking in public? 
Is what he's saying being coached quietly by his staff in the
background? How could we find that out?  If it were so that he is
being told what to say and that became public knowledge it might have
a serious effect on the upcoming election.    I'd pay more for this
question if there turned out to be substance to it.

---

Request for Question Clarification by jbf777-ga on 20 Sep 2004 06:38 PDT

Hello, jimlawson1953 -

When it seems as though Bush and other political speakers are being
"prompted," it's because this is, at least sometimes, if not most of
the time, happening.

Take a look at the item second picture down on this page labeled:

NEW - SP-160-LCD - Composite/SVGA Inputs - $5,295.00  
http://www.teleprompters.com/prompters/sp-series/sp-series.htm

This company, among other(s), has supplied the president with these
transparent teleprompters.  Sometimes you'll see them on a TV speech
when the camera pans.  I've seen them myself.  This allows the speaker
to continually remain at eye contact level with the audience, and
never needing to look down at paper notes.

Does this answer your question?

jbf777

---

Clarification of Question by jimlawson1953-ga on 21 Sep 2004 18:10 PDT

Dear jbf777,  excellent job so far.  The implication of my question
goes way beyond telepromters.  Most people expect that.  I assume you
read the comments you included below.  If the President of the United
States is being quietly told what to say in public when he presents
himself to be speaking genuinely as himself, that seems to me to be
earthshaking news that the majority of citizens would be shocked to
know.  I've been watching him speak and the thought occured to me
based partly on his speaking style, the pause between sentences, the
sudden improvement in his ability to be articulate and the notion that
if I were in charge of him, that's what I would do.  The technology is
available.

  With the upcoming debates with Kerry it seems like it would be a
huge advantage for the Democratic cause to make this fact public. 
Kerry needs to debate Bush the man, not his whole staff  of handlers
behind the scenes. My question would include wanting to know how much 
of this Kerrys staff is aware of and if not, how to make them aware. 
I can't imagine they have not spotted this and if it's true and they
are not acting on it in some way, I want to know why.   When Bush is
on stage speaking to the public, people have a right to know if he is
pretending.

As a contrast, listen to British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak.  You
can tell immediately that what he's saying is coming genuinely from
him.  He's extremely intelligent, articluate and thoughtful and I've
never seen him look at a note or act like he's reading from a
teleprompter.  Bill Clinton is also someone I respect as a genuine
speaker.  Keep up the good work and please let me know where this is
going.  thanks

---

Request for Question Clarification by jbf777-ga on 21 Sep 2004 19:44 PDT

Hello jim -

Just to let you know: The comments below were posted by another researcher.

jbf777

"Opinion: Bush The Articulate - Hearing Voices (9 Mar 03)"
http://radiofreeusa.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2120
  
"Opinion: More evidence that Bush wears an earpiece"	
http://radiofreeusa.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2123
  
"Humbug in Bush's Ear?" (posted by Bob White, Friday April 16, 2004)
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3037_comment.php
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Eu0ZgYIH8qgJ:hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3037_comment.php+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
    
"Apparently Bush DOES Wear An Earpiece" (posted by ebradlee10, Wed Jun 9th, 2004)
http://ebradlee10.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/122728/8176

<quote>
As a contrast, listen to British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak.  You
can tell immediately that what he's saying is coming genuinely from
him.  He's extremely intelligent, articluate and thoughtful and I've
never seen him look at a note or act like he's reading from a
teleprompter
</quote>

No way, our Tone is your typical git.
- a nasty, smug, incompetent, self-satisfied barrister
Probably what we deserve, but not what we need.

My thought is this: Given that the major media groups are definately
not pro-Bush, (CBS' recent eagerness to discredit the President is
just one example of how many large media groups would like to tell us
anything bad about Bush), if there were *any* reliable evidence that
Bush is being fed information via an earpiece (or something similar),
don't you think the mainstream media would pounce it?

Kriswrite

With regard to the entire discussion as to whether there is coaching
going on... It is largely if not completely irrelvent. the discussion
seems an issue of genuineness (for example the post with regard to
Tony Blair)  The fact remains that both camps have an endless supply
of speech-writers spin doctors or whatever by definition the american
Political systems fosters an attitude of who can hire the best and
brightest some and mirrors installers in the world.  The notion that
any of our public officials are genuine is rediculas
Just my opinion

The question it self, answers an unasked question. Which is, "What
level will people stoop to, in order to belittle the president" He's
the most photographed person in the world. Most of the time stand on
sitting dead still. And yes they do make tiny receivers etc . . . .but
really. get real! . . . .  Cast off that yoke!

I don't think it's shocking or surprizing at all.
For shocking things you should look a little bit deeper, most of the
world saw it already :)
To me the new rules that have been set for what I would call the use
of torture (oxygen deprivation probably is the prefered word) is more
shocking.
Or starting a war without a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Or offending the world community in the UN, and letting Powell (of
all!) do the lying. The list is endless, so lets end with the national
debt... a unprecedented shocker!

Just to emphasise a comment already made ("No way, our Tone is your typical git.
- a nasty, smug, incompetent, self-satisfied barrister
Probably what we deserve, but not what we need.")

TB has many excellent qualities, we are told, amongst which quivering
the lower lip and looking affected come top of the list. Intelligence,
however, seems to be lacking, as he's just admitted: oops, we goofed,
but hey, it was for the best of intentions; meanwhile, let's not
consider whether I misinterpreted things or MI6 etc got it wrong.

I'll take Tony over Bush any day, but mainly 'cause he at least has a
concerned party behind him.

<quote>
I'll take Tony over Bush any day, but mainly 'cause he at least has a
concerned party behind him.
</quote>

If it were a matter of choice, then I agree.
An ignorant psychopathic puppet with no feel for World (let alone
Middle Eastern) politics is a total liability.

In an ideal World we would have to endure neither of them.
Blair is a peculiar sort of 'salesman' that I have run into a few
times, they want - or rather desperately need - to ingratiate
themselves, but behind the facade of congeniality is ... well nothing
much.

I'm not sure about the 'party' behind Blair, they look like a curious
alliance with just one thing in common - a desire to stay in the
trough.

The interesting thing is that Clinton (who I consider a canny old git)
had the wit to have a heart bypass op to get out of supporting Kerry.
Curiously, our Tone is currently having a mini-op that I malevolently
hope is fatal, but will probably result in 'complications'.

When I was young I used to believe in 'conspiracy theory', but shortly
after sitting in the Stranger's Gallery at the age of 14, I decided
they were too thick to conspire. We have micro-cabals - but the rest
is chaos.

Read the blog www.filmbitch for March 14, 2004, for an extended
discussion of this and more links.
Those who write in and say it's not worthy of inquiry obviously don't
want the question to be asked. (They are probably RNC or Freepers).
Obviously, it would be an apalling fraud on the American people, as
much by the collusive media as by the White House, if the president
pretended to be speaking and responding to questions himself. Of
course voters need and deserve to know if Bush is getting prompted.
It's beyond belief that television and newspaper employees who call
themselves journalists have NEVER asked about this and that they have
ignored the evidence that he does use one -- for example, the apparent
prompting broadcast on CNN International and by Fox during Bush's
D-Day speech.

I asked another journalist, a high-ranking Washington-based Reuters
editor, about the rumor last spring. He replied blasely, "of course he
does, everyone knows that Bush uses an earpiece." I said, why hasn't
it been reported in that case? He had no answer, except to save face
perhaps, he implied that it just wasn't all that interesting a topic!
I can only conclude that reporters fear offending the White House by
asking about this. (Whereas the same reporters/editors think it's cute
to publish speculation about unimportant and entirely personal
questions about John Kerry.)

The earpiece device is called an interruptible foldback or
interruptible feedback device. Television producers use it to
communicate to anchors. The earpieces are almost invisibly small and
transparent these days.

Last night during the debates I and others I've since spoken to
wondered about the square-looking bulge tonight underneath the back of
Bush's jacket. It looked like the outline of a wireless receiver. His
odd eye movements and unnatural pauses at points also suggested that
he was getting prompts through an earpiece (not that it helped him
much tonight.)

www.dailykos had some speculation about a Bush earpiece in July, and
published a photograph of Bush that showed another odd bulge on his
back under his suit jacket (as he stalked away from reporters
questioning him about Kenneth Lay.)
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/8/152851/2384>

Personally I don't believe it but,

"During the Presidential Debate Bush made what may be his most costly
error- he exposed that he?s using an earpiece to help him answer
debate questions.
In the middle of an answer bush said, "now let me finish" as if
someone was interrupting him - yet nobody did - he was talking to the
person in his earpiece."
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3562

Speaking as someone who actually works in the major media, you could
not be further from the truth.  Bush's obvious ties to the bin Laden
family and the Saudis are never reported on the major news network-
and that's just the tip of the iceberg.  No one ever mentions the
terrorism breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia- or why Bush is not
invading Saudi Arabia.

But when Clinton was being smeared by the Right for 8 plus years, the
major media jumped all over it- and actually aided the Right's goal to
create the opinion that Clinton was somehow "evil".

Bush- who is, of course, a puppet for some very despicable people
(see: Reagan)- is given a pass by the media as a likeable good old boy
who is simply very headstrong.  And that's about as critical as they
get with him.

The strings are airbrushed out.

[quote]
No one ever mentions the
terrorism breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia- or why Bush is not
invading Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]

On the Thursday before the invasion of Iraq, I was having lunch with
two American friends of mine, one of whom (at least) is still well
plugged into the West Point Military-Industrial circuit (he is of
Korean war vintage).

They said that the US needed to establish a permanent presence in the
area, from which it could reach out and attack the terrorists.

I replied: 'What you mean attack Saudi ?'
They seemed to have no idea that the Saudi regime detests the
Islamists in its midst, who are more of a threat to the regime than to
the USA.

They also did not seem to understand that Baathists detest Islamists
rather more than .. well most people.

I suspect that the reason why the press does not go on about Bin
Laden's family, is that they have long worked out that being
intimidated and blackmailed by a black sheep in the gene pool is
pretty unpleasant, and that slagging off people who are your natural
allies .. is kind of dim.

More, I suspect, a case of the press being smarter than the administration.

This question has become a hot topic in the past several days,
including an entire web site devoted to it, plus articles in the media
and denials from the Bush campaign.

Is Bush Wired?
http://www.isbushwired.com/

"Bush's mystery bulge," by Dave Lindorff (October 8, 2004)
Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/salon/0,14779,1323334,00.html

"The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket," by Elisabeth Bumiller (October 9, 2004)
The New York Times (registration required)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html

"Bush aides deny Internet rumors he was wired" (October 10, 2004)
CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.rumor.ap/index.html

As a professional musician who uses an "in-ear-monitor" system, the
bulge on G.W.'s belt looks like a wireless receiver. There's an
earpiece that can be nearly invisible when in place and it's quite
possible that someone can feed him answers from an "undisclosed
location". You can see clunkier versions of these in-ear-systems all
the time on any live concert footage. I'm sure that with all the high
tech shops that our government has that someone can make one of those
earpieces so it literally can't be seen. The bulge on his belt is the
exact same bulge I get when I wear an in-ear-system. So if he is
wearing one of these things it's about as low as you can go. I
wondered why, all of a sudden, Bush could answer complex questions in
such an intelligent manner. I thought it was some kind of drug but
this is a horse of a different color.   W.

How can we demand he's checked before the next debate?  If this is
true, it's an outrage and thow world needs to know what a charlatan he
is....charlatan and puppet.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3776
It's all in the eyes

Of course he is a puppet he does work for the New World Order. If
Kerry had got in he woudl be doign the same work it doesn't matter who
gets in power or matter what political party they are from they are
both workign for the world government - New World Order for god sake
it states that on your one dollar note in latin under big brother
pyramid.