WHY did Bush mouth to Kerry after the debate "I need to talk to you"?

[Lerkfish]

"i need to talk to you."
I read his lips quite clearly. It was after the debate, sound was off, commentators were commentating, but in the background, the camera caught Bush looking concerned, grabbing Kerry's arm and saying "I need to talk to you, where will you be?".
(this could have been the second debate, but I clearly saw this).

I wondered what that was about at the time...I was concerned it was a national security thing because of Kerry being on that committee, but since then I've wondered...what could they have had to talk about that needed to be that urgent, and not set up through normal channels? Why did Bush pick THAT moment?

I've wondered if there was something to lightning fast capitulation of Kerry, within 24 hours of the election. Was that what Bush needed to talk to him about?

I have no idea, but it makes one wonder.

(I posted this in reply in another thread, but I think its worthy of its own thread)

[Mass]

1. And we have nothing more important to debate about

[Lerkfish]

7. well, apparently we have the time to trash the thread, though.

so, there must be ample time to discuss it as well.

its something I have always wondered about, and it made no sense then, or now.

[Griffy]

48. Actually.. the election fraud is the most important thing!! nt

[dubyaD40web]

2. Maybe a Skull & Bones deal?

[canadianbeaver]

3. I always wanted to know myself why he said that.....

it was part of many things that needed answers to during the debates like what was that bulge?.....among others...

[jojo54]

4. I can just imagine the conversation....

G.W. - "Damn, JK, you made me poop my pants in there! You owe me for dry cleaning my suit!"

[leftofthedial]

5. they had to review their "arrangement"

the little bushturd was worried that his patsy was getting a bit uppity

[Demit]

6. I always wondered that. I thought it was the debate he got the

shit kicked out of him, though. The deer-in-the-headlights one. You could see it plain as day, whichever one it was, and you didn't have to be a crack lipreader either. I had the weird thought flash across my brain that he looked so sick or tired that night, and wanted to ask for some kind of help from Kerry--almost like asylum or something.

What could two candidates for the US Presidency have to talk about in private? Too bad nobody in the press thought this might be something to follow up on.

[Lerkfish]

8. you may be right, I could have the wrong debate, but it DID happen

we did see it.

[KurtNYC]

64. Another account has it this way - end of 3rd debate

Bush: Can I talk to you (later tonight)?
Kerry: ???
Bush: Where you gonna be?
Kerry: ???
Bush: ... We'll find each other.

(Kerry had his back to the camera.)

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2004/10/bushs-health.html

They go on to theorize that Kerry was the only one outside of the Bush inner-circle to actually TOUCH Bush's back and thus be able to feel the infamous back bulge.

Interesting but I'm not sure that I make anything of this incident.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. That could be it

I wouldn't be surprised. He thinks he's king of the country so he thought Kerry would go easy on him probably. I remember that though.

[Nite Owl]

9. I never heard about

this happening. Maybe something about the 'box' on his back maybe? Was it at that debate that Kerry patted him on the back in the beginning?

[Dervill Crow]

10. I didn't see that, but I've wondered about Kerry's quick capitulation.

Since seeing Poppy and the Big Dog joined at the hip, it's looking more and more like the Bushes own the world and purt near everyone in it. Do they have something on all these people?

[earth mom]

24. I agree and wonder the same thing. eom

[omega minimo]

58. Link to thread on site that details Bush history

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3618849&mesg_id=3618849&page=


Check it out
http://www.winterboy.com/dejavuintro.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Grow up, would you?

There is absolutely no chance Kerry and Bush had a deal regarding the election. NONE. You provide ZERO evidence other than what you think you saw them say. Please, provide me with your credentials. When were you trained as a lip reader?

Toss away the tin foil hat and join us in the real world before it's too late.

[Contrary1]

13. I don't believe there was a "deal",

but one wouldn't need be a lip reader to catch what was said.
I not only saw it, but heard it, as well.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. The point is that line, even if said, isn't "evidence of collusion"

So what if they DID talk? Can you provide me with evidence that what they talked about was rigging the election or something equally absurd and nefarious?

[Demit]

17. self-delete, responding to wrong post

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Anything that has to do with BFEE, I assume it is nefarious.

That doesn't mean that Kerry was in collusion -- the talk could be along the lines of "We've gotten information about a terrorist threat against your daughters. It would be a shame if the change in administrations prevented us following up on that."

They've been running a protection racket against the entire country for four years. I wouldn't put anything past them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. That's fine.

I'm just fighting against the baseless defamation of John Kerry. This is no better than the Swift Boats bullshit, in my opinion.

[Lerkfish]

43. But that's inconsistent...you accept his baseless speculation

even though he was fabricating words Bush might have said, but all i've done is look at what WAS said and speculate.
But me you accuse of libel, but this guy it's just fine with you.

you definitely have a problem with consistency, here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Yeah. If you haven't noticed, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

You know, a support group FOR Democrats run BY Democrats. You're right, he probably shouldn't be drawing such conclusions about Bush either, but this being DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, slandering John Kerry baselessly is going to be taken a lot more harshly.

You want to bash Democrats without a damn good reason? Do it on that other site.

[Lerkfish]

52. I AM a democrat, and YOUR baseless accusations are against the rules.

reported again.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Report all you want!

I didn't accuse you of anything beyond making baseless accusations against John Kerry. I'm not the one who stated George Bush might be the reason Kerry conceded the election. You were.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. When that happened

I remember reading on another board that it could've been Bush wanting to know where Kerry was going on his campaign for some reason.

[Demit]

15. I saw it too, pal. A lot of people here did, & remarked on it the next day

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Well good for you! Now prove it means something.

Oh? What's that? You can't prove it means Kerry and Bush were in collusion? And what's that? You have NO evidence at all?

Right. Come find me when you've got evidence.

[Demit]

19. The OP wasn't offering any speculation re collusion

and was only wondering what it could have meant, as am I. You are putting words into people's mouths and being unnecessarily pugnacious about it too. Go stampede somebody else.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Did you not read the post??!? Are you kidding me?!?!

Quote: I've wondered if there was something to lightning fast capitulation of Kerry, within 24 hours of the election. Was that what Bush needed to talk to him about?

I have no idea, but it makes one wonder.

Please, tell me EXACTLY how you interpret that such that it doesn't say Kerry was in collusion with Bush. I'd love a detailed analysis that doesn't come to that conclusion.

I'll stampede wherever I find LIBELOUS BULLSHIT, and that's EXACTLY what this post is. I am putting no words into anyone's mouth.

[Demit]

23. "I've wondered if" and "it makes one wonder" are not asserting anything.

And you are putting words into MY mouth by responding to my post, when I merely said that I too saw Bush ask Kerry the question, this way:

"Oh? What's that? You can't prove it means Kerry and Bush were in collusion? And what's that? You have NO evidence at all?"

There was nothing libelous about the original post, and all your insults and faulty conclusions and capitalized words won't make it so.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. What a joke.

I haven't got time for this ridiculousness. Mere posturing doesn't change the meaning of his words.

[Lerkfish]

36. I understand.

your time is valuable. You should move on to other threads that are more worthy of your input.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. Don't worry - I responded to you directly.

[Lerkfish]

31. wow.

well, I think you need to calm down.

To me, there were SEVERAL bizarre things around the time of the election that have never been, to me anyways, adequately explained.

-- the aforementioned "we need to talk", which struck me as odd, but even now no one has an adequate explanation for.
-- the bizarre mid-election night "press conference" that was TAPED, of the bush family, saying really nothing in particular.
-- the Kerry capitulation and the subsequent relunctance to fight the election irregularities, despite receiving donations and amassing lawyers for that very purpose before the election. And I think we can all agree there were severe election regularities that favored Bush.
-- The conveniently timed Osama vote for Kerry, but really vote for Bush video. For that matter, what about that bizarre video the week before that looked like Rove dressed like a terrorist? when that got no traction, it simply fell off the radar, I've heard NOBODY discuss it since.
-- why, if republican operatives knew which precincts to man in order to delay or frustrate voters, did not the democrats make the same assessments about the same locations and attempt to delay or frustrate the republican operatives, or at least call attention to them?
-- Why were there several, in my mind, damaging news reports about Bushco leading up the election that immediately evaporated from the media after the election, as if they never happened (like the looted ammo dumps)?


These are a lot of unanswered or unaddressed bizarre things that bother me. Not all of them involve Kerry. I only started this thread, hoping someone had a satisfactory answer, or a better theory.

If you have a better theory for any of these, then please participate in the thread. Thanks.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. You draw a lot of conclusions under the guise of "I wonder about..."

You can retreat by feigning innocence all you'd like. There are more than enough Skull and Bones references in the rest of this thread that prove I'm not the only one who sees through your posturing. I just happen to disagree with it.

Flat out - you "wondered" about a direct link between Bush telling Kerry "we need to talk" and Kerry quickly (in your opinion) conceding the election. You can add in any number of rhetorical musings, but you've asked the question in such a way that you expect only one answer. From that point, it turns into a statement and not an innocent question. And your statement is that you suspect John Kerry and George Bush were in collusion for some nefarious purpose during the 2004 election.

There are lots of bizarre things that bother me too, but when you list them together you make a direct implication that the bizarre events are related. If this is not your intent, then you need to make that perfectly clear.

Further, maybe no one is discussing the things you find bizarre because you are only amongst a handful of people that see anything beyond the events as they are. And the reason for that is the same reason I'm pissed here - because there is no evidence. If you've got it, present it. Otherwise, either dig it up or move on.

[Lerkfish]

41. um, this was my thread.

If you are feeling so pissed, may I humly suggest it is YOU that should move on.
You've done nothing in this thread but detract against me personally, this last post is the closest you've come to actually participating.

I'm obviously not going to have any evidence of a private meeting between Bush and Kerry, if such a meeting ever occurred. I don't even know that for sure. However, I do not think speculating on things "beyond the events as they are" is that far out of the norm of other threads I see here on a regular basis.

I see a lot of threads speculating about all sorts of connections -- between the Saudis and Bush family, between the media and the administration, between zell miller and karl rove, between the swift boat liars and the republican party. Sometimes the connections eventually arrive at direct evidence, but often they do not.

you are indeed putting words in my mouth -- I've never mentioned skulls at all. May I humbly suggest you need to calm down and harrass some other thread for a while. having all your vitriol in one thread might be a bit much for people to take.

please, do move on.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. So just answer me one question

What was your point in this post? What did you expect to accomplish?

[Lerkfish]

45. NOW you ask me?

after post after vilifying post, NOW you have the temerity to ask me what I expect to accomplish? I thought you had already tried and executed me.

now you're just flamebaiting. you have been reported.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Oh please. This thread should've been locked long ago.

I ask you because your only point in posting this drivel is to villify John Kerry for no reason, and I will not stand for it!

[Lerkfish]

50. You are the only reason this thread would be locked.

look back over the thread, and one can easily see you have intended to get the thread locked, unfortunately.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Right.

:eyes:

[Demit]

60. Up with this he will not put!

We know by now that there is a subgroup of people on this board who are cop, judge and jury when it comes to even a breath of anything that might be construed as criticism of Kerry. And construe they do.

You got yourself all up in your high dudgeon for nothing. You should try to find something more constructive to do with your time, than always be at the ready for enemies who aren't there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Really? So of what constructive purpose is this post?

Please, tell me what purpose this has other than to damage John Kerry's reputation.

And I'm no Kerry cop. I'm not even a huge fan of his. I just can't stand the circular firing squad BS that has been plaguing DU.

On edit: If this is supposedly a "discussion", why are the posts that speculate about Skull and Bones being the mitigating factor even responded to? Why is MY post the one that is getting the attention? Is it because you agree with them?

[Griffy]

51. LOL.. NOTHING is impossible in the real world!

I dont think they had a deal either.. but I dont know what happened to the Kerry campaign after the election.. he won but rolled over. I know from talking to people here in DC that know him that it was based on the info he had at the moment.. fine.. what about a month later.. what about NOW.. Kerry did some great things.. and I am hoping and waited that he will take up this cause.. why is Conyers more invovled publiclly than Kerry?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. It's easier for Conyers to be more involved.

Conyers doesn't look like a crybaby that can't accept defeat as Kerry assuredly would if he were the one making the moves. That's what happened to Gore, remember? Plus, Kerry seems to want to run again, which would explain why he's just trying to look forward instead of backwards. The longer Kerry dwells publicly on 2004, the less people think about him seriously in 2008, or at least that's probably his thinking.

Oh, and toss in the fact that Conyers won with 84% this past election. He's got no chance of losing his job by making comments.

[Griffy]

63. Kerry didnt want to risk his seat... thats a good theory..

Kerry and Gore should team up, its the silent topic, no one will touch it.. and so the fraud gets bolder and the system falls deeper into fraud! Bush probably said.. "remeber Paul Wellstone..."

why would you apologize for Kerry.. in my mind,he can still be a great man.. and have made a mistake!

and you must be KIDDING about 2008.. there is NO WAY he will get on the ticket if he ignores '04. If he exposes the fraud and fixes the voting system, Ill vote for him.. TWICE!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. I did not say Kerry was going to risk his seat.

I did say Kerry didn't want to risk his potential 2008 Presidential candidacy though. :hi:

I'm not apologizing for him. In fact, I clearly stated in my post that I was only speculating as to his rationale. I didn't say it was a smart thing at all. (On edit, here's my quote: or at least that's probably his thinking.)

And no, I won't be voting for him in 2008 either. I didn't vote for him in the 2004 primaries. I didn't support his VP pick in Edwards. I didn't like the campaign he ran. But I'm not going to bash him endlessly as some people here would. And I'm CERTAINLY not going to put up with people claiming he's in the pockets of the Bush family or acting out of some betrothal to the Skull and Bones society. I may not be his biggest political supporter, but he is STILL damn good man and a very good Democrat.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Sure, Kerry's complicit in Bush**'s crimes.

You know, the Radical RW giggle and rub their pasty white thighs every time a Progessive passes along goofy, speculative shit like this.

NGU.

[d_b]

22. I'll tell you why..

Seriously though? I have no idea.

[bunkerbuster1]

25. Wasn't the official explanation

that Bush wanted to know where Kerry planned to be on election night?

It really does sound like the kind of small talk that people make; it could've been one of those things that Bush had talked to his strategists about in a meeting, and they didn't have an answer, so he figured he'd get it from Kerry.

I never read anything all that sinister into it at the time.

[Lerkfish]

34. but why?

you're right, there could be a completely innocent reason for it. I never caught the official explanation,

but, if that was the official explanation, it still seems an odd time to make the query, and it seems odd to need to know where he'd be on election night, when their staffs already would know that, and could be established on a much lower level.

unless they're saying the president himself has to keep track of his itinery and track down all the people he needs to see or talk to...which seems bizarre to me.

[Adelante]

26. It's not worthy of discussion, never mind its own thread nt

[politicasista]

40. Amen sista

:thumbsup:

[Lerkfish]

42. That's a fair conclusion.

I understand your time is valuable. Spending it elsewhere would be a service not only to you, but to anyone else who sincerely wishes to participate in this thread.

thanks.

[blm]

27. "I swear Karl and I have nothing to do with the Swift vets....."

It's all just a coincidence that they are attached to just about everyone we know. And we would never even think of honoring them after the election or award them at our annual GOP state dinners."

Really....would George W. Bush lie?

[second edition]

28. KERRY DID NOT THROW THE ELECTION TO BUSH!

I can't believe anyone would actually consider this seriously. John Kerry ran for the presidency to become President, so that he could move this country forward. I'm sure he didn't invest so much time, effort, $$$ and himself into this election, just to allow Bush to win. 60,000 more votes and he would be president.

[Griffy]

59. Umm.. got news for you.. Kerry WON the election...

So the question we are working on here is why did Kerry do what he did after the election and why is he to this day mostly silent! I have great repect for the man and I hope he will join us someday in calling for fair elections!

theres a election reform forum if you need to see data on Kerry's win in the election...

.. and WELCOME TO DU :)

the truth takes time to accept, we will be here to help...

[Lerkfish]

61. agreed. I also think Kerry won the election.

I think there was a great deal of election fraud, engineered into the voting machines.

[Sparkly]

29. I doubt that's what he said.

If he wanted to talk to him, he wouldn't have had to say it at the debate.

[Lerkfish]

32. The "why" is in question, but I saw him say it with my own eyes.

and so have others.
You're free to doubt, if you didn't see it, but I know what I saw. I just don't know WHY I saw it. And still, many months later, I still don't know why. I would have thought it would have been explained by this point.

[undeterred]

30. Bush wanted to know who was feeding Kerry answers since they were

obviously a lot smarter than whoever was feeding him answers! :kick:

[Lerkfish]

33. LOL! best theory yet!

that would explain it. :)

[undeterred]

49. I can actually imagine Bush asking something like that

just as I can imagine him walking up to another student after a tests were handed back in college or business school and asking where he could get some help for the next test.

He hasn't come up against many people or things in his life that couldn't be bought.

[Sparkle]

39. I wish I knew what * wanted to talk to Kerry about.

It may have been a skull and bones thing.:shrug:

[nickgutierrez]

66. I'm locking this.

This is flamebait.