So, what’s up with this?
Will Bush sign the waiver? Is the oral waiver binding or not? Is this really “unlawful” withholding?
What do they think they’ll find on the microfilm that hasn’t been released?
Is the media starting to turn on Bush in general, or does someone know something about what’s in those records?
Will it hurt Bush or backlash on the Dems/Kerry?
Does anyone (still) care?
Not knowing much anything about the particulars of this case, it seems a textbook example of how an institution, almost any institution excepting the major political donors, gets the attention of the government. You sue some branch of the government and put out a press release. That gets it put in front of the lawyers and put on an agenda.
While AP hopes to get the Pres to sign a release, it’s an even better story if he REFUSES to sign it. Either way, they get a good story, and maybe the public learns a new fact or two in the process.
When McCain and other veterans turned politicians have released their records, they just signed waivers that it was okay fo rthe public to see their records. Bush on the other hand just realeased specific documents.
As a break from tradition, and in deed, a more time consuming process, the release of only certain documents grabbed the Press’ attention a bit back. the obvious question is, “Why did the WH do it this way instead of the reguar way?”
Other questions, of course, immediately follow such as, “Is there something being hidden?”
If you’re a member of the working Press, you have to bite at such bait.
You’re damn right. It’s one of the few times the press can really put the screws to a politician. If Bush looks like he’s hiding something it’s bad for him…but if he is hiding something it might be worse.
One of those instances where, unless it’s the type of thing that would get one impeached, it’s better to come clean prior to election and try to ride it out.
I tacked a link to the lawsuit story onto the end of the earlier thread The Case against Bush (national guard) yesterday. A new thread might be a better way to handle it, but then this link to the old thread is useful.
As others have already said, if Bush has nothing to hide, he’s handling the matter very foolishly.
Since you are all clamoring for my opinion on this…
He’s hiding something, but not much. The biggest claims the Bushiviks ever made was that GeeDubya handed in a credible, if lackadaisical, service record. Try as they will, honorable discharge is just that. Nor have I any doubts as to his motivation: I actually believe he wanted to be a pilot, but because he thought it would be cool, and because “jet fighter pilot” is a great thing to say to a breathy soprano “So, what do you do?”. After a while, it became irksome, so he consulted his Rules that Don’t Apply to Rich Folks book. Either that, or he wandered off base for a beer and forgot how to get back.
That’s probably all there is, and for my money, it ain’t that much. “Desertion” is a wild exaggeration of “slacker”. And if he just said so, that’s that, and I’d shrug it off, I got bigger fish to fry when it comes to GeeDubya Bush.
So I figure that’s probably all he’s hiding. But he’s hiding it, so he’s making it into a Big Hairy Ass deal. So if he can tie it up and delay it for six months, he wins. If not, he loses, but not all that much. We all pretty much knew his war record was, at best, uninspiring.
But if they turn up something really, really juicy, something that wouldn’t have turned up if he’d just 'fessed up and shined it on…well, then, haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Old Yeller.
But both are equally servicable as synonyms of “wussy.”
Has Kerry now released all of his service records? I seem to recall that he was witholding some as well. If so, then if the AP wins the suit, it should set a precedent and we can expect a similar lawsuit to get all of Kerry’s records, right?
The expression “Bring it on” leaps to mind.
Yeah, me too. But consider the fan base.
IIRC, the article that I read that let me know what the usual procedure for pols to release their military service records mentioned that Kerry had done it the usual way and just signed a wiaver that let other folks do the footwork of acquiring his records. Whatever there is in Kerry’s files is available for whoever wants to see it. IIRC, of course.
Oh, yeah.
Has anyone ever mentioned tha Kerry served in Viet Nam?
True. It’s a little known fact.
Was that after Jane Fonda introduced him to Charlie Manson?
I agree there are plenty of bigger fish to fry. But first you’ve got to catch those fish, no?
Meanwhile, think of this as a hush puppy for the howling doggies. Complacency and moral high ground is sooo 4 years ago.
You may have intended this as a partisan rebuttal, but you’ve hit on the main (non-partisan) question - legal precedent.
Does this lawsuit have any merit - on the basis of an assertion by a politician during a tv interview??? (think of the possibilities)
BTW, Kerry has not signed a waiver to date, but he has uploaded quite a few docs here.
I have no idea if anything was left out, but I haven’t heard any allegations other than a call for his complete medical records - supposedly to ascertain the extent of his injuries resulting in his 3 purple hearts. If you are so inclined, you can sign the online petition sponsored by “Hanoi-John.com” calling for full disclosure here. Better hurry, though - it closes on June 25th.
Then I must’ve recollected incorrectly.
Guess there is a first time for everything after all.