Weekly Shredder 14:
The New York Times and Bush's Bulge
by James Norton
President Bush misled us into a disastrous war. Cheney lied, flat out. Powell exaggerated like a crazy, story-spinnin' Cajun uncle, but clearly felt bad about it.
Bush's irresponsible tax cuts ran up the deficit more than the war did.
He has a simian affect, and often says comically inaccurate things.
He does not seem like a very nice man.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You could write a book about the reasons to boot Bush from office; in fact, many, many, many people have.
That said: Just what was New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller doing last weekend when she wrote her chronically undersourced story headlined "The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket"? It kicks off in an incredibly shaky manner:
What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week?
According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece. The prime suspect was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser.
Internet rumors. Yes. So, this could have just as easily been:
According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the primary architect of the devastating attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 was a leading figure within the US government. The prime suspect is the president, George W. Bush.
But it wasn't. Why? Because running that story would be completely irresponsible and unsupported by the record. Has Bush benefited politically from Sept. 11? Sure he has. Does the evidence point toward the administration's involvement in the attacks? Absolutely not. It points rather directly toward Al Qaeda.
For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.
|
Likewise, despite our president's famous penchant for being an idiot, pending any intercepted transmissions or links from within the Bush team, the evidence in the Case of Bush's Bulge points directly toward bunchy fabric. Or, perhaps, toward an excess of starch. Or a flak jacket, despite the White House's (prudent) denial — confirming a bullet-proof vest is just a freebie for would-be assassins.
Paradoxically, the biggest piece of evidence is the size of the bulge itself. If you were the president of the United States walking into a major debate wired up with a transmitter, would you want:
A) A massive rectangular box strapped to the top of your back, or
B) A very small transmitter hidden somewhere inconspicuous?
Well, perhaps for technical reasons, the box has to be huge. And at the top of your back. Or perhaps not.
If only there were some way to figure it out.
Fortunately, unlike the staff of The New York Times — who miraculously do all their reporting from an isolated office in Tonga — I work in Manhattan. And, by extension, I'm close to Spy Shops Inc., an appropriately inconspicuous security and surveillance emporium near 34th and Lexington.
I was buzzed in and immediately greeted by a salesman, Mario Vivas.
So. How big would a hidden transmitter working under debate conditions — that is to say, lots of cameras and microphones possibly creating interferance — have to be?
Vivas pointed at an enigmatic device within one of the Spy Shop's glass cases. It was the size of a slim deck of cards. In fact, Vivas added, "you could probably get something smaller."
OK. Would it need to be at the top of your back? Could it be in the small of your back, or taped to a thigh, and still reach a small hidden receiver located inside the ear?
"The lower back or thigh would be fine," he said.
This points distinctly away from the plausibility of our chief executive strapping a large box to one of the most conspicuous parts of his jacket.
So, why run a completely unsupported article about the bulge? It's a sign of the Times' desperation to support its decision that the third paragraph reads like something the paper's ombudsman cooked up in order to explain why the piece was published.
When the online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that White House and campaign officials were inundated with calls.
Ah, so... Salon ran a story, and Internet readers flipped out. Granted: Salon runs some excellent stuff. But it also has been firing optimistically dicey broadsides at the Bush administration for years.
Its current transmitter dispatch quotes a single expert to suggest that the seemingly massive size of the device is to provide "descrambling" capability. Ignoring for a second that the photo looks a lot — a lot — like a bulletproof vest, we're talking about the 21st century. Tiny digital cell phones scramble and descramble as a default.
Give Salon credit: At least they checked with an expert, going one step beyond the New York Times. But that Salon has run something conspiratorial — and that the White House has denied it — does not a story make. Particularly when the only comment relevant enough to print is a denial.
"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.
"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."
Ms. Devenish could not say why the "rumpling" was rectangular.
The danger (and appeal) of this particular unsubstantiated rumor — which has, by now, been unsubstantiated all over the place including Slate, a site that normally debunks this sort of crap — is that it plays into a greater theme: Bush is Not His Own Man. He can't think for himself. He's a puppet, dancing on the strings of Rove and Cheney.
There's plenty of evidence out there to support this; you don't need a copper wire to link Bush's brain to other people's more energetic agendas.
But the hidden transmitter is a potent little talisman for the Bush is Not His Own Man theory in the same way that the infamous blue dress is a talisman for Monicagate.
Except that the blue dress actually existed.
