Before we consider whether Bush is radioactive, there is a matter of a misspelling of a Hebrew name in a previous essay about “piling on.” And so we start this essay with an apology called:
Correctimus Errata Mistakenismus
The title of this apology is in Latin, of course. An apology like this has a two-fold advantage. It provides me with an opportunity to show off my agile facility with the tongue that underlies the later developing Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French), and it also demonstrates a basic difference between this writer and the United States President anointed by Rehnquist, Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the U. S. Supreme Court.
On the rare occasions that Bush holds a press conference or in the case of a question during one of the presidential debates, where he was asked to recall a mistake made during his tenure in office, Bush said he could not remember any miscues while he has held the U.S. presidency. None what-so-ever. Not even one.
Republicans who adore Bush say that in his complete blamelessness, W is emulating the founder of the Christian faith. If he wins a second term, perhaps all of us will be required to refer to him as George of Crawford, while spelling his name in all capital letters.
On the other hand, this ink stained wretch who writes these essays, makes his share of mistakes. The difference with BUSH OF CRAWFORD, is that this essay writer admits his mistakes and regards them as learning experiences. In this instance, the Hebrew name for piling on should have read “allis kleptsach”. The meaning is the same, but this essayist is indebted to our neighbor Frances Licht, who is in charge of theological affairs for the Jewish faith on this end of our street. By pointing out the misspelling, Mrs. Licht provides me with a welcome opportunity to learn a little more about the faith of many of our neighbors in Millburn and Short Hills. On the other hand, it is sincerely hoped that my use of the Latin phrase, “correctimus errata mistakenismus,” is an inspiration to other sinners who indulge in misspellings. We can’t all be as blameless as BUSH.
Is Bush Wired?
Earlier this Fall, Bush and Kerry sent representatives to meet to establish the ground rules for the debates between the candidates for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency of the United States. The teams were headed by lawyers; James Baker for the Bush side and Vernon Jordan for the Kerry people. In the end, they produced a detailed brief of something like 32 pages covering every aspect of what could be said and they even divided the platform or stage into a Republican side and a Democratic side. What the lawyers overlooked is that their document was never submitted to the television networks, so the networks felt free to ignore the overblown agreement because they were not signatories to it.
During the negotiations Jim Baker, representing George Bush, insisted that there be no camera shots from behind the debaters. Baker also insisted that there be no split screen so that the reaction of one debater could be seen as the other debater was talking. As it worked out, FOX had the responsibility for the television feed for the first debate on October first. It is assumed that everyone knows that FOX is a part of the Bush apparatus. They are anything but a “fair and balanced” network. But FOX was not a signatory to the agreement worked out by Baker and Jordan, so they had camera shots from behind the debaters and they used the split screen technique much to the detriment of George Bush who grimaced and scowled throughout the debate. And to think FOX did this to its own candidate!
Within hours after the first debate, it became eminently clear why Jim Baker had insisted on no camera shots from behind the debaters. The shots from Bush’s back made it clear that he was wearing a device – perhaps an electronic device – to conceivably receive answers to the questions he was asked. Could it be that Karl Rove or Karen Hughes was feeding the boss information? Many impartial observers think so. In any case, a bulge was clearly visible between his shoulder blades. (see attached newspaper clipping)
Bush reacted during the debates by having his deer-in-the-headlights look on his face. He stalled at inappropriate times and on one occasion, he demanded, “Let me finish”, when no one had interrupted him. On another occasion, his answer was completed while 25 seconds remained in his allotted time. If Bush was wired in the first debate, it may have contributed to his miserable showing.
Fifteen days have passed since that debate. The question about Bush being wired is not diminishing at all; it is increasing day by day and week by week. It has become a staple on late night comedy shows. On the David Letterman show, John Edwards said that Bush was wearing a battery. (The context implied that Bush was a battery operated robot.) Perhaps five minutes on one of Jay Leno’s monologues was devoted to Bush wearing a wire to get his answers.
When confronted, the Bush apparatus said at first that the photographs had been altered to show the bulge in the back of his jacket. Then they said there was noting under his suit. After several misfires, Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman said, “It was most likely a rumpling of the portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric”.
This led Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times correspondent, to ask Ms. Devenish why the “rumpling” was rectangular. No answer was given. Rectangular rumpling is unknown to me after observing and wearing suit jackets for more than 60 years.
From the Internet, there are pictures in my files of Bush wearing his bulge to the first, second and third debates. Curiously, on his ranch, the bulge appears under a tee shirt with a wire running up to his head. An old vaudeville routine asks, “Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?” The lying eyes have made the case convincingly clear. It must be apparent to every disinterested observer that Bush is wearing a wire so that he can be helped with answers. Given Bush’s lack of curiosity and given his intellectual deficiencies and given the obvious fact that he avoids hostile questions at every opportunity, it seems to me that the office of the presidency is being profaned by an imposter.
Before he was anointed by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court in a decision that could not pass the laugh or the smell test, this old soldier and essayist called Bush a coward who fled to the National Guard when a war began that called him to serve. Bush is a consummate bully in his arrogant dealings with other countries. He is an outright liar in the way he took this country to war against a sovereign country who had no plausible hostile intentions toward the U.S. To this list of coward, bully and liar, we must now add the words of fraudulent cheater for the way he has required others to answer his questions for him.
On the lying front, it is instructive to note that in recent days, Bush and Cheney have begun to lie in statements that are easily contradicted. In the VP debate, Chaney stated he had never met John Edwards until that night. Television clips show their meetings on at least three previous occasions. When Bush denied that he had ever said Osama bin Laden did not trouble him much any more, every television network had readily available clips to show the depth of his lying. It seems to this long standing observer of the American political process, that Bush and Chaney have become indifferent to their own lying.
Again, this essayist must contend that the office of President of the United States and the Vice Presidency have been profaned in the last four years by fraudulent imposters who richly deserve the title of coward, bully, liar and cheater.
E. E. CARR
October 17, 2004
~~~
It’s not like he ever made any of his own decisions during the presidency anyway, so during the debates he was just trying to give the country a sense of what was to come.
Here’s the shot in question:
http://www.salon.com/2004/10/09/bulge/
It’s also worth noting that A) we never figured out what that was and B) Democrats apparently get the questions in advance sometimes. What an excellent system we have!
It’s hard reading these 2004 election-era essays about the threats of a second Bush term when a Trump presidency is less than a week away. I’m sure my comment quality is reflecting that and probably isn’t up to par. Ultimately though I just can’t shake the feeling that when it comes to gross incompetence, we ain’t seen nothing yet.