SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (52257)10/10/2004 2:28:48 PM
From: SiouxPalRespond to of 81568
 
Bush wears an earpiece from Wharf Rat
EXCLUSIVE! Bush's Interpreter Says Bush Uses Earpiece

Sunday October 10, 2004 1:46 AM

[Editor's Note: I received a copy of the e-mail below on Friday, and requested (and received) permission to publish it. I found independent confirmation that Fred Burks worked as an interpreter for George W. Bush comes in an article in the Los Angeles Times in January 2004.]
From: Fred Burks
As a deep insider myself, I have independent confirmation of President Bush using an earpiece to assist him in communicating intelligently with others. I've worked as a contract Indonesian language interpreter with the US State Department for over 18 years. I first started interpreting at the presidential level in 1995 at a White House meeting for President Clinton and President Suharto of Indonesia with their top advisors. You can read a short story of the many small miracles that led me to interpret for presidents at www.gcforall.org/inspirations (scroll down to Issue #1, where it is the second story).
On September 19, 2001, just eight days after 9/11, I was in the White House interpreting for an important 90-minute meeting between President Bush and President Megawati Soekarnoputri of Indonesia. This meeting made national news on all the TV networks, as at the time, the administration wanted to show they were supportive of our Muslim friends. Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world. Over 80% of Indonesia's 220 million people are Muslim.
This was my first time interpreting for Bush. The previous day, I had been given the 22 points Bush would be covering in this meeting in order to familiarize myself with the topics to be discussed. About half of these "talking points" had to do with terrorism, which was to be fully expected given what had just happened. The other points, however, involved many details of Indonesian politics which even I would have had a tough time addressing, let alone Bush, who I assumed had limited knowledge of Indonesia.
During those 90 minutes, President Bush not only covered all the points, he covered them quite well and without any notes! Not once during the entire meeting did he look at any notes or receive cues from anyone present in discussing the Indonesian political situation with depth and intelligence. I was astonished! "How could this be?" I asked myself. It was a huge surprise. I concluded either that Bush was much more intelligent than we had been led to believe, or that somehow someone was feeding answers to him through a hidden earpiece. At the time, I really didn't know which of these was true.
Having worked directly with President Bush twice since then, and having additionally talked with many of my fellow interpreters who have worked directly with him, I am now certain that he could not have had that much knowledge of Indonesia. He doesn't even read the daily newspaper to keep up with what's being reported in the press. I am convinced that he must have been using some sort of earpiece through which someone was telling him what to say.
Having interpreted for media guests touring large TV studios, I've seen how the news anchors all have hidden earphones, and how the news producers are feeding them all sorts of information even as they talk live on TV. "20 seconds to a commercial," "15 seconds of filler here," "wrap it up quick " etc... This is standard practice for live TV shows. The "let me finish" comment made by Bush in the debate was only confirmation of something I already knew.
I will also mention that a number of months ago a colleague of mine was in the room with President Bush and his advisors when Bush threw a full blown temper tantrum filled with foul language and all. He ranted and raved at his advisors for a number of minutes to the shock and dismay of my colleague who was standing unseen in the refreshment corner. When he finally finished blowing off steam, Bush turned towards the refreshment table only to see my colleague standing there. He instantly switched into his "good ol' boy" friendly demeanor and said, "Hey, how ya doin' buddy?"
Politics is not a pretty business. I have many stories from my experiences interpreting at international conferences and secret meetings attended only our leaders and their interpreters. I have seen a number of our world's leaders (not just Americans) acting like high school boys playing power games. But for now, I just wanted to confirm my own strong belief that President Bush is often fed what he is supposed to say at important events. Though he can truly be a friendly guy, I have not found him to be particularly bright or competent. To be fair, I must admit that I tend to be of a more liberal persuasion, but I thought you all would appreciate knowing some of what goes on behind the scenes. You take care and have a great day!
With best wishes, Fred
PS Though I am still on contract with the State Department, I greatly reduced my work with them two years ago. I saw how important it was for me to devote my time to getting the word out through the websites I manage, and through email lists like this. I have done only three weeks' worth of paid work this year. Thankfully, I am able to draw on money I had set aside for retirement to support me in focusing full time on this important work. I want to invite you to look carefully at what you can do in your life to help build a better world in these important times. You might start by sharing this email with your friends and colleagues.
Explore these empowering websites coordinated by Fred:
www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
www.WantToKnow.info - Revealing major cover-ups & working together for a better world
www.gcforall.org - Building a Global Community for All
www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
Together, we are building a better world based on love and cooperation

community.democrats.com



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (52257)10/10/2004 3:01:40 PM
From: SkywatcherRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
For What Did We Die, Mr. Bush?
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 08 October 2004

War is a wondrous thing. Against mere logic, it justifies itself. We must stay the
course, the battered Mr. Bush keeps repeating. Or those who fell in battle will have
died in vain.

No retreat. Line in the sand. More must kill and die in Iraq to give meaning to the
deaths of the poor GIs who perished there before them.

No matter that Mr. Bush and Vice-President Cheney sent American troops to save us from
non-existent nukes and other weapons of mass destruction. Or to avenge 9/11, in which Saddam
Hussein played no part. Or to bring the Iraqis "democracy" with hand-picked collaborators, rigged
caucuses, postponed elections, and - at least so far - a stubborn refusal to allow the non-secular
Shiite Muslim majority to govern.

No matter that Bush and Cheney were so keen to invade that they acted in bad faith with both the
United Nations and U.S. Congress. Or knowingly lied to the American people. Or failed so miserably
to prepare for the long guerrilla war that now saps so much blood and money.

Let none of their colossal lies and errors distract us. American soldiers died to fulfill the mission,
whatever it was, and only victory can give meaning to their sacrifice. Nearly 1100 by now, they stand
as a phantom chorus demanding that American troops carry on killing and dying in Iraq until they
achieve whatever Mr. Bush sent them there to do.

Or would our dead soldiers say something different if only they could speak for themselves?

Use your imagination. Listen to their voices in the stillness. Watch the drama play out in the theater
of your mind.

"What was the mission?" asks the chorus of the dead. "Why, Mr. Bush, did you send us to die?"

"Oil," interject the would-be realists in the wings, both left and right. "No blood for oil!" chant those
of a Marxistical bent. "We're running out," counter their imperious foes. "We have to secure Iraqi oil
reserves. It's in the national interest, you know."

The chorus looks confused. "Was oil why you sent us to die, Mr. Bush?"

He, too, looks confused. A one-time oilman who lost his shirt in the biz, he turns to his veep, who
did not. Cheney smiles. He and his neo-conservative friends had long ago spelled out their thinking
through the Project for a New American Century.

The goal, he explains, is not only to secure the oil for ourselves, or rather our corporations. It is also
to keep potential competitors like Europe, Russia, China, or Japan from gaining control of the oil and
challenging America's undisputed world dominance.

"But what about the Jews?" a voice calls out from the back of the theater. "Mr. Bush, didn't you
send the troops to Iraq to protect Israeli interests?"

Again, the commander-in-chief loses his way. He knows his neo-con advisors are good Zionists, but
so is he. So are most of his evangelical Christian supporters. Unless the Israelites hold Palestine,
Christ will not return to fulfill the Prophecy and usher in the blessed Rapture that will mark the End
Time.

"Is that why you sent us to Iraq?" the chorus chimes in. "To bring the Messiah to rule the earth?"

"Hardly a democratic solution," a cynic responds. "And how does it help Israel for the meshuganeh
Mr. Bush to go to Iraq and encourage thousands more suicide bombers to roam the world? All that,
and a Biblical Armageddon in which most of the world's Jews are condemned to perish? Thank you, all
the same, but no."

The chorus snaps to attention, welcoming a new specter onto center stage. A highly decorated,
thirty-three-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, the legendary Major General Smedley Butler had
seen it all in the down and dirty, as he famously described back in the 1930s.

"War is just a racket," his wraith repeats. A racket in which he himself had played a major role.

"I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914," he says.
"I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I
helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The
record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown
Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in
1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped
see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

Grand strategies, it seems, have their corporate bottom line. Are the dead soldiers beginning to
understand their mission? Will they soon ask embarrassing questions about Halliburton and Bechtel,
the weapons makers and Big Oil?

The chorus stirs. They have died, but for this? And now Mr. Bush cruelly uses their sacrifice to
prolong the charade.

Their anger builds. "Stop!" they shout at last. "You have taken our lives for corporate greed, Mr.
Bush. Do not steal our souls to sell your effing war!"

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve
Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He
now lives and works in France, where he writes for t r u t h o u t.