You may think the air of extreme witlessness impossible to mimic, but is the man on the podium the authentic Dubya, a trained stand-in or an animatronic lookalike? Tim Dowling investigates
Thursday March 27, 2003
"George Bush" addresses the troops in Tampa. See how cleverly the wires are disguised.
Photo: Reuters
Yesterday President George Bush made his first public appearance since the start of the war, speaking to service personnel at the MacDill airforce base in Tampa in an obvious bid to reassure Americans and boost the morale of the armed forces. But how do we know this is the real George Bush?
Later in the day a man who looked and sounded like Mr Bush appeared alongside Tony Blair at Camp David, leaving intelligence experts to ponder whether a lookalike had been used, and whether the same lookalike had been deployed on both occasions.
It has long been suspected that Mr Bush employs a string of lookalikes for difficult or dangerous speaking engagements, some of whom may have had their ears specially enlarged for the task.
Most of those who regularly monitor Mr Bush's speech patterns believe that it was the genuine article who spoke at Central Command HQ in Florida yesterday, pointing to a characteristic tendency toward quasi-biblical phrasing - "There will be a day of reckoning for the Iraqi regime, and that day is drawing in near" - and an almost total absence of words of more than three syllables.
Other experts disagree, pointing out that these consistencies originate with speech writers rather then the president himself, and that Bush's main vocal technique - the bewildered pause - is only too easy to imitate.
Several observers noted that the president's eyes seemed too close together; others believed them to be too far apart (when viewed on a 21in TV screen, you shouldn't be able to fit a pound coin between them, according to one rule of thumb). It is telling, they say, that Mr Bush made his first appearance in front of combat service personnel, none of whom are likely to have known him closely during his days with the Texas National Guard.
So if it's not him, who is it? Some experts suspect that this might be a heretofore unknown Bush brother, a family sleeper who has been groomed to step in at times of crisis, or even George Bush Sr on his first outing following a recent toupee fitting and a course of Botox injections.
Yesterday's appearance has also given fresh credence to outlandish claims that Mr Bush's public outings have long been undertaken by an animatronic puppet especially built for Dick Cheney in the mid-1990s.
If this is true, then where is the real George Bush? Has he been killed or kidnapped, or is he just sitting at home talking back to the television?
It has been pointed out by several observers that Tony Blair, who has become close to Mr Bush over the course of many private meetings, would never be fooled by any sort of stand-in. It remains a distinct possibility, however, that Mr Blair has only ever met a particular lookalike, perhaps one who has been specially trained to appear committed to peace and international stability.
For now, Bush-watchers are refusing to say publicly whether or not this is the real president of the United States or a clever, surgically-altered lookalike.
Privately, however, they have carefully observed this confused-looking man, with his stiff, empty gestures and false gravitas.
They have noted his peculiar phrasing, which gives little indication that he understands the content of what he is saying.
They have examined his every doomsday platitude, scrutinised his baffled expression and noted that he seems uncomfortable and completely lost whenever the teleprompter is switched off.
And they have concluded that it must really be him.
Democracy is under threat in the United States; anyone who objects to the conflict in Iraq is not allowed to say so
Gary Younge
Thursday March 27, 2003
The Guardian
It's drive time with WABC's rightwing talkshow host, Curtis Sliwa, and Bill is on the line from the Poconos in Pennsylvania with a tale so funny he can hardly share it for giggling.
He was carrying an American flag and yelling support for the troops in a delayed St Patrick's Day parade over the weekend when he saw one woman carrying a sign saying: "No blood for oil".
"She was wearing black and she was an older lady," says Bill. "And then our sheriff saw her and she didn't have a permit. So they put her in the back of the truck car and hauled her away."
On its own, Bill's story would be aberrant - the tale of an overzealous legal official and an unfortunate woman in smalltown America. Increasingly though it is becoming consistent. The harassment, arrest, detention and frustration of those who are against the war is becoming routine. Relatives of victims who died on September 11, who are opposed to the war, have been prevented from speaking in schools. Last month Stephen Downs was handcuffed and arrested after refusing to take off a Give Peace a Chance T-shirt in a mall in Albany. He was told he would have been found guilty of trespass if the mall had not dropped the case because of the bad publicity.
As Iraqi civilians and American, British and Iraqi soldiers perish in the Gulf, this war is fast claiming another casualty - democracy in the US. This process is not exclusive to America. Civil liberties have suffered in Britain because of the war in Northern Ireland, and are undergoing further erosion because of the conflict.
But it has a particular resonance here because of the McCarthyite era during the 1950s when those suspected of supporting communism were forced to testify before the Senate to recant their views and divulge names of progressives. Comparisons with McCarthyism are valid but must be qualified. These popular and sporadic displays of intolerance may be gathering pace, but no federal edict has been issued to support them and many who support the war are opposed to them.
Bush has not launched a campaign to derail the Dixie Chicks, the all-American girl band whose CDs were crushed by a mob and whose latest release fell from the top of the charts after one of its singers made an anti-war remark in London. Downs says the officer who arrested him spent an hour-and-a-half trying to persuade his superiors that the case was not worth pursuing. Even Curtis Sliwa told Bill he should "ignore the protesters and get out the flags".
While these popular expressions of intolerance appear sporadic, not all are spontaneous. The rally to smash the Dixie Chicks' CDs and much of the impetus for the boycott of their single came from radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications of Texas, which has close ties with Bush. The company's stations also called for the pro-war rallies that have cropped up in the past week.
And while they have not received the state's imprimatur, Bush's administration has certainly created the climate in which they can thrive.
Under Big Brother monikers like the Patriot Act and Operation Liberty Shield, the state has stepped up the scope of its surveillance and the wiretapping of American citizens and will authorise the indefinite detention of asylum seekers from certain countries. Last year, surveillance requests by the federal government under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - originally intended to hunt down foreign spies - outnumbered all of those under domestic law for the first time in US history.
Under a proposed new bill, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement act, the government could withhold the identity of anyone detained in connection with a terror investigation and their names would be exempt from the Freedom of Information act, according to the centre for public integrity, a Washington-based advocacy group.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the American civil liberties union programme on technology and liberty, told the New York Times that authorities have been demanding records from internet providers and libraries about what books people are taking out and which websites they're looking at.
The result is a symbiotic relationship between the mob and the legislature, whereby official repression provides the framework for public scapegoating with each gaining momentum from the other.
Most vulnerable are those who are most vulnerable anyway - Arab immigrants and non-white Americans. Men from countries regarded as potential sources of terrorism and who do not have a green card, are now required to be registered, fingerprinted and photographed by the immigration service. Many who have committed no crime but simply have their applications for a work permit pending are routinely arrested. "Basically, what this has become is an immigration sweep," said Juliette Kayam, a terrorism expert at Harvard. "The idea that this has anything to do with security, or is something the government can do to stop terrorism, is absurd," she told the Washington Post.
The growing surveillance compounded by discrimination adversely affects black Americans too. "It places those of us of colour under increased scrutiny and we get caught up in the web of racial profiling," says Jean Bond, of the Radical Black Congress.
The fact that all the incidents mentioned above happened to white, American-born natives is an indication of just how deep the rot has set in. Downs is the chief lawyer in the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Such are the targets of the war on terror.
From the outset Bush has insisted that: "Those who are not for us are against us," and so it follows that anyone opposed to his way of dealing with the terrorist threat becomes the enemy, at home or abroad. Terrorism is the new communism. Even before the first body bags have arrived, the war has already reached the home front.
· Gary Younge appears in J'Accuse Uncle Sam on Channel 4 tomorrow.
posted on March 27, 2003 11:14:14 AM newDemocracy is under threat in the United States; anyone who objects to the conflict in Iraq is not allowed to say so.
Only a small minority feel our democracy is under threat. And as to the 'anyone who objects'....that's an out and out lie.
All the so-called anti-war 'peace' protesters aren't speaking out? All the Hollywood stars aren't speaking out? The truth is there are hundreds of thousands of American's speaking out....they're just in the minority. But they're voice isn't being repressed/silenced.
What some don't want to understand is that these people are able to and do speak out. Some just don't like that those who support the President are letting them know how we feel about what they're saying. Groups like the Dixie Chicks aren't being boycotted because of anyone the President knows. It's because the word got out and people are showing their displeasure with those type of statements. Their right to do so..
posted on March 27, 2003 11:17:51 AM new
In retrospect, one must conclude the regime in fact has been shaken at the foundation. Considering only a few years ago they labored effectively to secure the most powerful position on earth. Recent time has shown that they have grown ineffectual allowing a few pesky detractors in the U.N. to momentarily sideline their agenda.
posted on March 27, 2003 11:32:05 AM new
So let me understnad this, it is ok for the likes of the dixie chicks to use the first admendment of free speech, but when other people use their first admendment rights to not listen or play dixie chick music... that is an erosion of democracy?
Hardly my friend, that speaks volumes about free speech and democracy, I haven't heard one person say they couldn't say it or for that matter I haven't seen any person say that they shouldn't be allowed to protest, but others have a right to say what they feel is right also.
Your own statement said it all "she didn't have a permit", so the law takes a hit becuase they enforce it? It didn't say Bill was march, but it appears that the lady was...
Democracy is alive and well in this country, just because some people don't feel the need to go out and protest doesn't mean they don't support...
posted on March 27, 2003 01:54:52 PM newYour own statement said it all "she didn't have a permit", so the law takes a hit becuase they enforce it?
And what law would that be? Do you have to have a permit now to disagree? I can betcha Bill individually did not have a personal permit. Yet he was able to freely join the parade, because he agreed yet one old lady carrying a sign was not allowed to carry a sign because she disagreed.
You could guarantee that nothing would have been said or done if the sign said "KILL ALL RAGHEADS NOW!"
When you are treated differently because of your beliefs, that is when the first amendment is under fire. And when goes the First, so go the rest. So you who refuse to defend others rights to disagree, you might as well start handing you guns over to the government now rather than wait for the coming Neo-Conservative crackdown when they are finished using you to secure their position.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 27, 2003 02:21:29 PM new
When you carry that sign does it make you feel better about yourself mlecher?
The real facts are you don't know if Bill had a permit or not... if the parade had a atmosphere of pro troop, then this lady was just causing trouble and could of gotten hurt... we don't know if she was actully fined or not...
I do not have the fears crackpots of this world seem to have... I don't see black helicopters flying overhead... I am not so paranoid that "they" might be watching/listening... I have more important things to worry about... like where is that beer I ordered...
posted on March 27, 2003 02:29:41 PM new
Yup, we've got to watch those little old ladies out there. Dangerous! Why the next thing that you know they'll be throwing tea in harbors and demanding free, open elections.
posted on March 27, 2003 05:05:20 PM new
I am not out demonstrating for either side and yet I can tell you from human nature that if you do act to stop these people from speaking you will cause much worse really serious rebellion.
If you consider that the right to petition the government was given and no further statement made a little thinking will cause you to conclude there is an unstated assumption there that if a body of people do petition the government they will give some consideration to the merits of that petition. Today that is a joke. We have been plainly told it doesn't matter what the public or the foreign allies think at all. So this protesting is pointless.
You need to decide either to shut up and accept your powerlessness or rebel. Consider well that they will not hesitate to kill you.
posted on March 27, 2003 05:59:00 PM new We have been plainly told it doesn't matter what the public or the foreign allies think at all. So this protesting is pointless.
Which public gravid? 70% of the "public" support the war... Yes this protesting is pointless and wasteful... hoping that city governments begin heavy fining of those involved in breaking the law.
posted on March 27, 2003 06:32:21 PM new
Considerable numbers of Americans, as many here have indicated, are now also reading international news sites for more balanced coverage since the Iraqi crisis was created.
Posted: 21 February 2003 By: Elizabeth Croad
Email: [email protected]
The threat of war in Iraq is driving increasing numbers of Americans to British and international news web sites in search of the broader picture.
According to the internet audience management and analysis company, Nielsen NetRatings, traffic to the UK's biggest news sites, BBC News Online and Guardian Unlimited, has increased dramatically over the past year. Many of these new users are from the US.
Jon Dennis, deputy news editor of the Guardian Unlimited web site said: "We have noticed an upsurge in traffic from America, primarily because we are receiving more emails from US visitors thanking us for reporting on worldwide news in a way that is unavailable in the US media."
The American public is apparently turning away from the mostly US-centric American media in search of unbiased reporting and other points of views. Much of the US media's reaction to France and Germany's intransigence on the Iraqi war issue has verged on the xenophobic, even in the so-called 'respectable' press. Some reporting has verged on the hysterical - one US news web site, NewsMax.com, recently captioned a photograph of young German anti-war protesters as "Hitler's children".
Mr Dennis said: "American visitors are telling us they are unable to find the breadth of opinion we have on our web site anywhere else because we report across the political spectrum rather than from just one perspective.
"We're finally having an impact on the American consciousness. We're on the radar."
The BBC News Online web site has also noticed an increase in page views since Christmas 2002, with roughly 50 per cent of their visitors logging-on from outside the UK.
Mike Smartt, editor-in-chief of BBC News Online told dotJournalism: "Page views on the site have risen between 10 and 20 per cent and feedback tells us that visitors come to us for more impartial, even-handed news coverage as American reportage can be rather US-centric."
Many European news networks have also noticed an increase in visitors from the USA. "The number of American users has risen to 60 per cent of all visitors to the World News Network sites since the beginning of January," said Emilio Larlori, marketing manager for the World News Network.
Much of the feedback to European news web sites suggests people are no longer relying solely on the media in their own country for accurate and objective reporting. The internet has now become the home to a diversity of opinion as people choose to make up their own minds on how world situations are taking shape, no longer content with their own localised coverage.
People now seem to be exercising their right to information an a global scale and, according to Mr Larlori, the influx of American visitors to non-American news sites illustrates this. "Visitors from the USA are using our English-language news sites more now than ever, as they are looking for news on the international situation. They want more information and more opinions on what's happening with Iraq."
Alternative news sites such as Urban75.com and YearZero have also seen an increase traffic in recent months. Last weekend's international peace rallies were co-ordinated via the internet at a speed and efficiency that would have been unimaginable during the last Gulf war in 1991.
This time round, in such a diverse news climate, governments will find it increasingly difficult to propagandise.
posted on March 27, 2003 06:59:06 PM new
From the first article
"They have examined his every doomsday platitude, scrutinised his baffled expression and noted that he seems uncomfortable and completely lost whenever the teleprompter is switched off.
"And they have concluded that it must really be him."
The National Council of Churches (NCC), together with a number of peace organizations, recently ran an ad on CNN and Fox in which a bishop of the United Methodist Church, to which President Bush belongs, criticized the Bush administration's relentless war rhetoric. Going to war with Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ," said the bishop.
It may confound people that some mainline Protestant churches continue to resist the president's call to arms. After all, it is couched in theological language: The term "axis of evil" was coined to give the war on terrorism a religious edge; President Bush speaks of giving the people of Iraq not democracy, but freedom, harkening back to both the biblical Exodus and the Civil War. "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war," he assured us after Sept. 11, "and we know that God is not neutral between them." If God is not neutral, and the choices are so straightforward -- almost the literal embodiment of a spiritual battle -- it seems perverse for mainline religious leaders to withhold support for war against Iraq.
NCC leaders were frustrated that the president had rebuffed their requests to meet with him to discuss their views. The president apparently believes that he can talk about theology from the bully pulpit without talking to theologians. Which begs the question: When did the president become theologian in chief?
The president used the words of a hymn, "There's Power in the Blood," to strengthen the religious rhetoric of his State of the Union speech. He spoke of the "power, wonder-working power," of "the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." The original words of the hymn refer to the "wonder-working power" of "the precious blood of the lamb" -- Jesus Christ. The unspoken but apparently deliberate parallel between Americans and Jesus is disturbing, to say the least . The implication is that Americans are generous -- like Jesus. And that we are innocent victims -- like the lamb of God. In his February speech to religious broadcasters, Bush again expounded upon America's virtues and implied purity, concluding, "We are a compassionate country, and we are generous toward our fellow citizens. And we are a courageous country, ready when necessary to defend the peace." In both speeches, he used American virtues to segue into the reason that we must confront the "evil" before us.
The hymn continues, "Would you over evil a victory win?" The road to that victory is paved with American good intentions, the president suggests. These American virtues will almost supernaturally imbue our military ventures with righteousness -- and with victory.
Many parishioners at my small, inside-the-Beltway church, by contrast, do not view themselves or the nation in such a saintly light. American righteousness is by no means a sure thing to them. Nor do they view the larger geopolitical and spiritual issues as so starkly black and white. "When [Americans] invoke God to be a policeman, I find it inappropriate," said Bill Dodge. A victory over Saddam Hussein is not necessarily proof of our unvarnished virtue, either on the world stage, or before God, many of them say. It doesn't even look like a victory against terrorism. And Bush's increasingly religious justification for war with Iraq is disturbing, even frightening, to many. "It bothers me that he wraps himself in a cloak of Christianity," said Lois Elieff. "It's not my idea of Christianity." To them, Bush's use of religious language sounds shallow and far more self-justifying than that of other recent political leaders -- including Bush's father.
The most striking characteristic of the younger Bush's use of religion is its relentless triumphalism. American triumphalism is nothing new, of course. Many of the earliest Christian settlers were religious zealots who viewed America as the New Zion, the Promised Land. Today's Americans, whether overtly religious or not, are their spiritual heirs. In my experience, secular Americans are as likely as religious Americans to believe that we are the rightful beneficiaries of some kind of manifest destiny.
But some on the religious right have built a theology around this hope. Many of them believe that America will be at its best if its government submits to their understanding of God's work on Earth. What they have longed for is a Davidic ruler -- a political leader like the Bible's David, who will unite their secular vision of the nation with their spiritual aspirations. All indications are that they believe they have found their David in Bush -- and that the president believes it, too.
Bush's religious supporters are his greatest cheerleaders. Rather than his spiritual guides, they are his faithful disciples. He is the leader of the America they think God has ordained. Contrary to popular opinion, the religion that this group espouses is Triumphalism, not Christianity. Theirs is a zealous form of nationalism, baptized with Christian language. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, foresaw the rise of a similar view in his country, which he labeled "joyous secularism." Joyous secularists, said Bonhoeffer, are Christians who view the role of government as helping God to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. He viewed this as human arrogance and a denial of God's sovereignty; but joyous secularism has an appeal that crosses religious boundaries, and now has added force in the United States because it has found its political messiah.
posted on March 27, 2003 07:29:43 PM new
gravid - if you do act to stop these people from speaking you will cause much worse really serious rebellion. Who do you see as acting to stop people from speaking out? I don't see it. What I see is people speaking out, and others speaking out in disagreement. But I sure don't see anyone on either side being silenced.
Computer access to alternate and world wide news coverage is fantastic - especially to avoid biased coverage on issues such as the French and German position on the war.
I think that I've finally figured you out! Is this why you protest so much about Bush, etc.
You are elderly and live in Florida. While voting in the last presidential election, you forgot to bring you bifocals and voted for Bush instead of Gore. You are angry about your hanging chad and thought you should have been able to vote again. You don't like Republicians.
OR
In the 1970's, you were a middle aged radical who joined with the other radicals of that time protesting anything that didn't meet your liking. You are now trying to revisit and regain your youth. Instead of doing all this protesting, try this.
Loose weight, dye your hair, get contacts, get a face lift and buy a convertible. Please don't spend your golden years out in a mob situation where things could get ugly. Somebody might push you, and you might fall and break a hip. How in the heck can you play shuffle board when you have a broken hip?
posted on March 27, 2003 10:09:57 PM new
Guess again, Yeager
Last time you called me meathead and now you've added many years to my age, calling me an old lady in danger of hip fracture. HaHaHa!
BTW...Do you travel in a convertible with a comb-over hair style to hide your sunburned bald head?
posted on March 28, 2003 01:22:20 AM new
No Helen,
I don't have a convertible. I sold my last one about 12 years ago. My wife and I needed the money, our son was only about 2 years old at the time. We had other cars so that one had to go. Prior to that, I had two other convertibles. I love 'em. If you buy one, let me know so we can go riding together. OK?!
On the hip issue. No, I don't have a convertible, but I do have an artificial hip. I've had one for about 10 years now.
On the bald head issue, I've tried the spray product for the balding spot on my head and it works great. I just love it! I found it on an informercial about 5 years ago, and bought 10 cases so I wouldn't run out! You really can't tell that I bald. I was thinking of cornering the market with this product on ebay.
posted on March 28, 2003 07:42:49 AM new
Sorry you won't be able to play shuffle board with me, yeager, but years from now, when I begin to relive my childhood, I'll go for a ride with you if and only if you can still see over the steering wheel. LOL!
Now, after that little interruption, I'll restate the original problem.
An old woman was hauled away from a St Patrick's Day parade because she was carrying a "No blood for oil" sign. Because of the message on her sign, she was singled out by the sheriff who determined that she did not have a permit. This aggressive attention to protest throughout America is resulting in unfair treatment of those citizens who are opposed to war.
Even on this board, as one of the few anti-war posters, I have taken much abuse. <grin> I've been accused of being anti-American, unpatriotic and even questioned about possible affiliation with the Communist party. The truth is that I want what I see is best for my country and for the world. That does not include gaining political control over other countries. I don't want this country to be regarded as a threat to peace in much of the world.
Anti-war marches are being infiltrated by paid rabble rousers to dishonor the peace movement and name calling, intimidation and arrests are used across the country to suppress any opposition to the war. I understand the frustration that a good number of people in this country are experiencing when they simply try to exercise their freedom to speak.
I'll go riding with you in your golder years when you get your new convertible only under the following conditions.
1. You don't dye your hair blue.
2. You don't drive down the street with your left blinker on, or with your purse on the roof of the car.
BTW, I saw this senior citizen at the grocery store a couple of months ago. As I was walking out of the store, he was going in. He looked at me and paused for a brief moment. I was half way to my car out in the parking lot and turned around when I finally figured out who this person was. I hadn't seen him in about 4 years. It was my Uncle John, age 89 who still drives.
On the little old lady issue and the parade. The organizers of this parade very likely had to get a permit to hold this event. Most cities reguire them. If the officer felt she was breaking the law, then she was breaking the law. The law doesn't allow for exclusions based on age.
I have a police scanner, and once in a while you'll hear them call in an arrest warrarnt check on a person who is in their eighties. They check everyone for warrants, from 18 to 80.
posted on March 29, 2003 06:15:37 AM newAnti-war marches are being infiltrated by paid rabble rousers to dishonor the peace movement and name calling, intimidation and arrests are used across the country to suppress any opposition to the war.
posted on March 29, 2003 10:33:30 AM new
You will notice in most cases one gets no response to a question.
Some here just want to make a statement, but are unwilling to explain how they arrive at that opinion. Their right, of course, but doing so does little to support their statements.
posted on March 29, 2003 10:49:17 AM new
Looks like Gary Younge's article was correct in its conclusions. I thought that this forum would be a good test case.
Their right, of course, but doing so does little to support their statements.