The Bulge Was Not Tinfoil – It Was a Trope

The Hill reports, that the Bush bulge was a bulletproof vest:

Call off the conspiracy freaks. Now it can be told: That mysterious bulge on President Bush's back during the first presidential debate was not an electronic device feeding him answers, but a strap holding his bulletproof vest in place.

And why did they lie about it for such a long time? The supposed answer is also, I will bet, a lie:

The president’s handlers did not want to admit as much during the campaign, for fear of disclosing information related to his personal security while he was on the campaign trail.

Bah. The real reason is that they knew it looks cowardly and that would have been bad for the image. (If the security rationale were true, they wouldn't admit the truth the day after the eleciton unless Bush never plans to stir from the White House. )

Lies layered on lies. A fun four years, yes indeed.

This entry was posted in Politics: Tinfoil. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Bulge Was Not Tinfoil – It Was a Trope

  1. Ramar says:

    Too weird. Every President travels with a heavily armed entourage. Who would think less of Bush for wearing a bulletproof vest?

    I can’t help but think the Bush campaign realized that every word devoted to the “bulge” was a word not used to describe the President’s awful debate performances.

  2. Steve says:

    Of all the things I can fault Mr. Bush for, and, believe me, they are myriad, wearing a bulletproof vest (and not telling the truth about it) is not one of them. The Secret Service is by its very nature professionaly paranoid and would have a royal fit if the President or his handlers disclosed that he was wearing a vest. I’m not going to fault Mr. Bush for being prudent in this instance.

    A bit of corroborating evidence: I have personal knowledge of a situation where an artisan was hired by the White House to build a replacement for a decorative item in one of the semi-public areas of the mansion (I’m being coy about the exact details to protect the privacy of those involved). This is a room to which the press has access and has been photographed probably hundreds of times. Nonetheless, when this person took digital pictures for their own records, they were reviewed by the Secret Service and of the fifteen taken, only three were allowed to be kept. What “secrets” the other 12 might’ve divulged is anyone’s guess, of course, but, as I said, the Secret Service is professionally paranoid about anything involving His Excellency — er, I mean, the President.

    I always suspected the vest would be the answer all along and have posted as such in numerous forums.

  3. Brett Bellmore says:

    The real reason they didn’t come clean about it before the election, was that it was a remarkably cheap way to totally waste many thousands of liberal manhours, just when they were most needed by the Democratic party.

    And it worked, too. 😉

  4. Dan M. says:

    Sorry, but if that’s a bullet-proof vest, it has to be one of the worst made. Look at the images here:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/index.html

    I know Bob Nelson personally. He’s liberal, but he’s a good scientist and he’s honest. I don’t know what that
    thing IS on Bush’s back, but it wasn’t designed to stop bullets.

  5. Barsk says:

    I don’t buy it.

    But if he was wearing one, I say good…I’d rather have Bush than Cheney.

  6. John Kelsey says:

    I agree with some previous comments–who’d fault the president for wearing a bulletproof vest?

    –John

  7. Ugh says:

    If only we could go back to the good old overly-honest days of Bill Clinton.

  8. Steve says:

    Google images with the search term ‘kevlar vest’ . You’ll find several likely candidates.

    Even if Bush was wearing a wire, who cares? He lost, didn’t he?

  9. I’m confused. The election’s over, so now its safe to let the nation’s whackos know Bush’s kevlar only covers his chest, not his back?

    You’re all going astray from the incumbent philosophy with this talk of “why” the lie happened…the lie happens by instinct, automatically. Evidently based on the assumption that anything Bush is doing should be kept under wraps, presumptively.

  10. Randy Paul says:

    This mystifies me. I have always known that when the president goes out to throw a ceremonial first pitch at a ball game, he always wears a bulletproof vest.

  11. Yeah, I seem to recall the vest being used as an excuse for Bush throwing the first pitch in Nebraska back in ’01 (pardon the gender based insult) like a girl. Maybe they’ll tell us now he lost the debate because it was constricting his chest…

  12. Sue Adams says:

    Funny, there wasn’t any bulge under his tailored shirts when he was speaking to thousands of people on the campaign trail. Are they saying he was less safe in the very controlled environment of the debate? Do they really think we’re that dumb? He got caught cheating but it doesn’t really matter does it? And we thought Reagan was the teflon prez!

  13. If you had a shirt tailored to fit, and weren’t wearing a vest at the time, you wouldn’t even be able to get it buttoned properly with a vest on. My tailor has worked on occasion with the local branch of the F.B.I., and often tells interesting stories of having multi-gunned half naked agents being fitted for a suit of clothes, because if the bulge isn’t hidden in the stitching, it isn’t hidden.

    This tells me one thing as an absolute certainty. Whatever was causing the bulge was not contemplated when the suit was made. Which was very likely less than a year prior to the appearance….and you’re talking about a six month process with multiple refittings…at least
    on a very good suit, and I’m willing to wager Bush’s are nicer than mine.

    So if its a vest, as claimed, he just started wearing it. Which I doubt. Why the change? And if
    he’s willing to vest up now, why wouldn’t he have before? Of course, if you know the suit had to have been tailored at least 6 months before, its entirely conceivable that no one contemplated the future wiring of the Prez. for sound…

    Regardless. This is still them admitting they lied, right? Why haven’t I seen the standard barrage of stories on the major media asking if the lie was ok?

  14. Brett Bellmore says:

    Because nobody who retains a shred of sanity CARES.

  15. Its insane to care if your commander in chief lacks credibility? Perhaps that’s a decision you’ve made, as a republican, in favor of your own sanity, but I hardly see it as a universal, Brett.

    Granted, its not the secret bombings in Cambodia.

    But in a courtroom, at least, the assumption is safe that liars lie as pattern and practice, not on random and isolated occasions…

  16. By the way. After Rove, Card, and others decimated George De Paris’ reputation after 40 years of making suits in this country, and have now admitted that was a lie, is there any question whatsoever as to De Paris’ right to civil relief?

  17. Dan M. says:

    Steve, I took your advice and google’d “kevlar vests” just to see if
    the state of the art in protective vests included protecting most of the vital
    areas of the wearer’s torso. The following is probably the best site of the lot:

    http://www.policeoneproducts.com/police/products/tactical/body-armor/

    (this has links to all of the major vest manufacturers, including Second Chance, Dupont, etc)

    Then I relooked at the images produced by Bob Nelson:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/index.html
    or here:
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_402.html

    If you bother to follow these links, you’ll notice something quite shocking.
    If you really believe he’s wearing a vest…..it leaves 70-80% of his torso seemingly
    unprotected.

    Given the choice bewteen

    A: The Secret Service is criminally negligent in providing
    Bush with a vest that might just protect a toddler, or

    B: Bush’s handlers are lying regarding this being a vest.

    I think most folks would choose B. I’m sure Rove and company can come up with an
    option C, but isn’t that hat he’s paid to do?

    At any rate, it seems rather silly to suggest that it’s a moot point since Bush lost debates.
    The issue is not whether he was wearing a wire, but rather who was Kerry debating? I
    would like to know who the real leader of our country is. If Bush wore a wire, then he was simple a poorly performing marionette (though perhaps muppet would be more appropriate). Who is really pulling the strings, and why weren’t the American people allowed to decide if that person was fit to govern?
    Make no mistake, the days of the Republic are growing few if most people just allow this to pass without comment.

  18. Sigh says:

    Finally got around to watching Bush’s Brain last night, and am now convinced that the whole bulge issue was another Rove special (à la the bugging of his own office during his tour in Texas state politics). In other words, the bulge was deliberately created. The goal, of course, would be to get to blogosphere (and the MSM) to spend more time speculating as to the nature of the bulge, and less time analyzing Bush’s debate performance (just like the Texas office bugging was an attempt to break the deadlock in poll numbers in that race). There was a risk, of course, that the MSM and others would push back harder than expected, and the joking attempts at deflection (also scripted) wouldn’t carry the day — but not a large risk. And the ploy seems to have worked . . . .

    —–

  19. Pingback: Heartburn & Acid Reflux Disease Remedy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *