tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post110831487269790472..comments2023-12-28T01:28:36.790-08:00Comments on Murky Thoughts: The Bulge-gate correspondence: A New York Times insider e-mails answers about why the story was spiked, describes decision as a judgment callMThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1110824776316496112005-03-14T10:26:00.000-08:002005-03-14T10:26:00.000-08:00http://pictures.auctionarms.com/4173184334/174b02a...http://pictures.auctionarms.com/4173184334/174b02a9cd64c97604dae457cde27b1a.jpg<BR/>is a link to an image of a vest with a bulge in about the right place.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1110746466747968062005-03-13T12:41:00.000-08:002005-03-13T12:41:00.000-08:00http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/02/bulge-is-co...http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/02/bulge-is-comin-back.html<BR/><BR/>is the "here" link above, which doesn't seem to work for me.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1110746370535241822005-03-13T12:39:00.000-08:002005-03-13T12:39:00.000-08:00More Murky Thoughts on this, quoted from my commen...More Murky Thoughts on this, quoted from my comment <A HRE="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/02/bulge-is-comin-back.html">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>It's obvious the White House lied about the bulge, but there's a simple and innocent explanation among those that have been floated, which none of you conspiracy fans seem to want to consider. This explanation is that it was a bullet-proof vest and that the White House denies it for the very reason that I have read expressed cryptically in at least one news article, which is that the Secret Service does not discuss their precautions for safeguarding the president. It only takes a moment's thought to realize this makes perfect sense: The president would wear such a vest foremost to protect against premeditated attempts to assassinate the president with a gun. Were the fact of the vest to become common knowledge, many would-be gunners might be expected to include in their preparations the purchase of specially tipped bullets that penetrate Kevlar or other vests. I wouldn't be surprised, furthermore, if many otherwise reluctant would-be assassins would feel emboldened by the news of a vest, because the use of a vest implies the Secret Service believes a clean shot is possible. So if I were in Bob Keller's position as Times editor and could reasonably and quietly euthanize this bulge story, I believe I'd be sorely tempted to do so. With regard to "reasonably," despite the FAIR article slant, there are indeed journalists quite willing to argue that the story was only borderline newsworthy at best. So let's go at this bulge thing Okkam style:<BR/>Q: What besides clothing is the most obvious thing for a president to wear at a scheduled public appearance beneath his or her jacket?<BR/>A: A bullet-proof vest.<BR/>Q: What's most obvious reason for the White House to deny a vest?<BR/>A: Because to acknowledge a vest would be largely to defeat the very purpose of a vest, which is to prevent penetration by those bullets that the would be assassin chooses to acquire and brings with him or her.<BR/>Q: What's the most obvious reason that the Times would choose not to draw attention to this lie?<BR/>A: Because (a) the Times generally aspires to serve the public interest and sees the assassination of presidents as contrary to that interest and (b) there wasn't much of a story there.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1108393163397605022005-02-14T06:59:00.000-08:002005-02-14T06:59:00.000-08:00Thanks for pointing out the omitted part. I just p...Thanks for pointing out the omitted part. I just pasted it in. Yeah, it's real and not imagined. I'd just rather not name names.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1108391975974062472005-02-14T06:39:00.001-08:002005-02-14T06:39:00.001-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1108392057920544512005-02-14T06:40:00.000-08:002005-02-14T06:40:00.000-08:00sorry for the multiple comments, blogger said some...sorry for the multiple comments, blogger said something like "timed out" and I reposted the comment. Feel free to delete one.Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331841.post-1108391968431607952005-02-14T06:39:00.000-08:002005-02-14T06:39:00.000-08:00Very interesting… is this real correspondence, or ...Very interesting… is this real correspondence, or are you doing a kind of imaginary Q and A with an imaginary New York Times insider? That was a little confusing.<br /><br />Anyway, I think the New York Times guy (or voice, as the case may be) is wrong to say "we didn't have the goods", because they didn't need to have ALL the goods to publish the story. People were claiming this was just a wrinkle in a suit; the image is persuasive that it wasn't just a wrinkle in a suit. They didn't have to also say what it actually was. As for Bush then hypothetically just re-denying it, so what? Like you, I think that it couldn't have been hard to come up with a 2nd outfit to evaluate Nelson's methods and verify he wasn't just pulling his enhanced image out of thin air; that, too, would have strengthened the story.<br /><br /><br />(PS: you appear to leave out the NYT guy's comments at one point. You reply to a "1. Forget the "newspaper of record" crap. .." comment (and a second comment) that I didn't see upstream of your reply.)Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.com