The pan-blues' Echoplex is all out of whack!

Is there an echo in here in here in here? We're only on page 5 page 5 page 5. I'll have to attack this page of "Bulletgate" in chunks chunks chunks:

Foremost among the irregularities in this election was the alleged shooting, on the eve of the March 20 election, of the incumbent Chen Shui-bian and his Vice Presidential running mate Annette Lu. This incident, in which neither "victim" was more than grazed, happened in such improbable circumstances, under so many breaches of security procedure, that even the noted forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee, of the O. J. Simpson case fame, has written off the possibility that it could have been a political assassination attempt.

We're still subjected to this deafening repetition of things about an "alleged shooting" and the placement of quotation marks around the word "victim" in a not-so-concealed attempt to say that the shooting, er, "alleged shooting" was "staged." This technique is borrowed directly from China's state-run media which, whenever Chen Shui-bian is in the news, puts words such as "election" and "president" in quotation marks.

This is simply further proof that both the pan-blues and the Chinese government are real-live Queens of Denial.

Another example of pan-blue denial is their insincere use of the phrase "even Henry Lee." "Even Henry Lee"?! Remember: He was the guy "recommended by the KMT" (to add a bit of reverb to the pan-blues' echoes)! This is the only thing I've noticed Lee saying without real evidence to back it up. Does a "political assassination" have to be well-planned or successful to meet the definition? As I stated in the post immediately below this one, I would tend to think that until the shooter or shooters is/are caught, we simply cannot determine if this was or wasn't a "political assassination."

Even if we give Dr. Lee the benefit of the doubt on this point, he had already said that the president was shot, and that his wound wasn't self-inflicted.

Even if we declare ourselves insane and propose the crackpot theory that a Chen supporter took a crappy handgun and shot the president and V-P in order to get sympathy votes -- and somehow did it with pinpoint accuracy while they stood on a moving vehicle (How's that for "improbable circumstances"?) -- it doesn't amount to a "staged" shooting or a "fraudulent" election.

Moving on to the next paragraph:

To this day no suspect has been identified, and there have been no witnesses, though the alleged shooting took place in broad daylight, before thousands(including over 1,400 security personnel) and live television cameras. More revealing, perhaps, was the fact that the Presidential Office decided to decorate General Chen Tsai-fu, the President's Chief Aide-de-Camp who sat in the front seat of the jeep at the time of the shooting, and to give a commendation to General Shen Tsai-tien, the deputy chief on May 19, the eve of the President's inauguration.

All along the route of the President's motorcade, fireworks were being set off in traditional Taiwan campaign fashion, creating clouds of smoke and noise which exceeds in decibels the pan-blues' echoes within "Bulletgate." As the president and vice-president drove by, where do you think most of the spectators were looking? If you answered "at the president," you'd probably be correct!

The statements in the above paragraph are lies painted in broad strokes. There may have been "over 1,400 security personnel" on duty that day, but I doubt that a majority of them were at the scene of the shooting.

Here's a video grab from the scene of the shooting of someone who's "wanted for questioning." It's probably the best image investigators have to work with. Take a look and see if you could identify the guy.

"[N]o witnesses," though? According to Tainan Prosecutor Wang San-jung, quoted in a Taipei Times article from July 23, 2004, "investigators have interviewed everybody in the video, except the person in the grey shirt [whose] explanation and testimony are needed, because eight witnesses have testified against him." [Emphasis mine] While this information wasn't revealed until after "Bulletgate" was published, its publishers drew their own conclusions without evidence, planted the seeds of suspicion in their supporters' minds, and fertilized them with the assistance of pan-blue media bullshit.

Lastly, I don't exactly know what is so "revealing" about Chen giving commendations to people who were right in the line of fire with him. Why don't the pan-blues just come out and say whatever it is on their minds? Could they be being so vague on purpose? Planting more seeds of suspicion without providing any evidence?

Next:

The incumbent party milked the shooting to maximum effect, and swung the election to a melodramatic, heart-stopping 0.2% margin the next day in favor of Chen.
[Emphasis mine]

Haha! Milk this!

As we have already seen in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of my shootdown of "Bulletgate," it is the pan-blues that have "milked" this incident for their own benefit.

But finally we've gotten a minute glimpse of "truth." We're being told -- albeit accidentally -- that "Bulletgate" is about a bullet that couldn't kill the president, but which stopped the hearts of the pan-blues!

Or maybe it was simply the "truth" of the matter that stopped their hearts.

NEXT UP: Segment Fraud!