The US election is receiving a seemingly unprecedented amount of coverage in the worlds press, which I would have to say is largely brought on by the policies of this chap, his administration and their foreign policies.

His verbal blunders during his first term in office have been the focus of much mocking and satire around the world, according to a discussion on Radio 4 recently this has been particularly noted in the Italian, French and some South American press. China has been neutral, as decreed from above. Russia I don't think was mentioned, oddly.

Much of this mocking entered a new level following the presidential debates. Having watched parts of the debates I have to admit that George Bush's demeanor is quite perplexing. Charlie Brooker, the Guardian's acerbic TV critic (of which I'm a big fan BTW) put aside TV banter for one week to comment on the debates, I quote:

"So I sit here there and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage."

A sentiment I have to agree with, where do I start. He does this thing were he emits a burst of facts and then smiles in a way reminiscent of a nervous child at a bring and tell, looking for approval from the teacher. His verbal blunders are astounding, in his ending speech in the 3rd debate there is one word that he just gives up on altogether half way through saying it.

At the end of Brookers article he crosses the line bigtime by jokingly hinting that the world might be better off if Bush were assasinated. drudgereport.com picked up on this and it wasn't long (a few hours) before complaints were made, an apology was published and the article was withdrawn (from the net anyhow). Some of the more radical inhabitants on the net were asking for his extradiction, amongst other less tasteful things which I shall not relay here.

So what can I summise from this performance? Well I've been looking at footage of his past speeches were he seems perfectly eloquent while debating as governor in 1994 and during his inauguration speech in 2000. But of course these are largely pre-arranged, scripted speeches that he is reciting. One exception to this rule is his personal message to the Iraq Survey Group where he appears extremely anxious and just not, well, with it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/15/20363/328

Watching the presidential debates I put his demeanor down to being anxious, perhaps the combination of speaking to such a large audience, so much being at stake *and* having to debate with someone who might catch him out. Essentially this would boil down to a lack of confidence, in his ability to debate and perhaps in his level of knowledge?

Another explanation for the wide variation in his performances would be medication - many types of medication have a sedating effect and this can definitely be a cause of anxiety if you know you have to speak in public and might not have the mental accuity to cope with everything that is 'thrown' at you.

Alternative explanations discussed on conspiracy type web sites are that he has suffered a minor stroke at some point - citing the apparent drooping of the left side of his mouth (It looks to me though that the drooping was already there in 2000, bu tnot in '94) - or that he is suffering from pre-senile dementia . Certainly if you look at his performance in 1994 he appears far more confident than in any recent footage and speaks far more eloquently.

So who know's what's going on. What I do know is that if I were judging Bush by those performances alone, I would have serious doubts about his mental state and thus ability to govern.

 

This then leads to the whole 'Mystery Bulge' thing. The press have brushed it off but the speculation on the net has been rife, some of it is just junk conpiracy theories, but there is some intelligent discussion going on. The bulge could be there for legitimate reasons, a radio receiver might be in place so that security can quickly notify him of a threat, some kind of bullet proof vest, or perhaps a medical device. So to me this would have been a non-issue, except for the fact that Bush denies that any such device was in place and that the bulge was simply a crease in his shirt - which it clearly is not upon close examination of the footage. There is also a wire clearly visible behind his tie for several frames of the 2nd (I think it was) debate. It could well be legitimate, but why the denial which then allows conspiracies to fester on the net?

I then can't help thinking that the bulge story ties in with his possible deminished mental state - is someone assisting him through an earpiece? Some have discounted the whole theory stating that radio receivers are far smaller than the bulge, which is true, except that if he really were receiving an audio feed it would almost certainly be an encrypted digital signal via a spread spectrum rf carrier - why? because otherwise anyone could listen in and prove the feed's existence, also a spread spectrum carrier is hard or impossible to pick up on with a standard radio scanner or frequency analyzer, and they are far harder signals to 'jam'. Receiving such a signal and converting it to audio cannot be done within a miniturised earpiece, a second device would be required to receive and decode the signal and then relay it to the earpiece, probably via a very low power inductance loop similar to those used in cinemas, a low power loop would prevent pickup by nearby microphones. To power all of that for 90 minutes would require a reasonable quantity of batteries. So all of this speculation ties in with the bulge and the wire that is visible running up his right shoulder (to an inductance loop as close to his ear as possible):

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

If we follow this theory through the bulge would be the receiver/relayer, the wire up the right shoulder is to an inductance loop, perhaps in his collar, and it also looks to me that there is a wire travelling down his back, which would correspond to the wire seen behind his tie. This wire that we can see is actually quite prominent by way of its thickness, say 5mm. Such thickness would only normally be used to convey power - from a battery pack somewhere on his person, to the receiver on his back. Also note that the tie wire disappears into the left hand side of Bush's jacket - the same side as the wire seen down his lower back.

It's all pure speculation on my(and web conspirators) part of course. If I had to put money on it then I think that I would say that he is indeed recieving an audio feed. It may well be part of his security, but since he's not telling there is always the possibility that it's not.