As the Big Dog would say, "don't stop thinking about tomorrow" - or rather, Tuesday. However ...

... the "Bush Bulge" story has been followed tirelessly by Cryptome.org, a spooky site with all manners of secretive stuff. I think it's mostly in the public interest, though the manufacturing pattern of RDX really worries me.

Anyway, he points to this picture, directly from the White House (check the URL) and from 2002. Bush is on his Crawford ranch and clearly has a very similar bulge under his t-shirt.

What?

Let's assume that Bush, despite the presence of the press, didn't need an IFD in his ear. Let's assume that on his ranch, Bush doesn't regularly wear Kevlar. So what the frick is it?

My earlier guess was some sort of handle so that the Secret Service could yank him out of the way if need be. *Buzz* An old Navy buddy now ... ummm, let's call it in the know, not only said no, but that it would be stupid to put a handle in an inaccessible place like under a shirt and coat. Good points.

Back brace? It's too high for the ones I know, though Bush has never had any recorded back problems. For all his faults, Bush is reasonably fit, not overweight, and people with back problems don't tend to be big on running.

Posture device? Bush certainly has a tendency to slump and slouch, but a simple shoulder pull brace is much less bulky than what this shows. Add in that he still slouches and if it is a posture device, it sucks.

In the end, I'm stumped. Occam's razor doesn't work here, leaving us with the Doylian "No matter the improbability, the only available solution must be correct." I'm not ready to say nor do I think we will ever be able to say with certainty what that thing is/was. I'm just sad that we have a President that won't answer.

****

Someone read through the archives and read my suggestion for Kerry, the one where he'd say "my first act as President would be to pardon George W. Bush for his crimes and move on to fixing the country." This reader, purportedly a lawyer, said Kerry would not only risk being too negative but that he'd be committing slander. Besides the "defense is the truth" argument, I thought that public figures had to prove a very high standard. Any help?