another friday night 'record release party'

[zimv20]

CNN is carrying this story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/bush.guard.records.ap/index.html)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A packet of Texas Air National Guard records newly released Friday showed that the commanding officer of President Bush's basic training unit took a special interest in him as a trainee and wrote to his father to praise his son.

Bush's father, then a congressman from Texas, said in reply to the commander, "That a major general in the Air Force would take interest in a brand new Air Force trainee made a big impression on me."

Bush went on to say that his son "will be a gung ho member" of the Air Force and that Air Force instructors had "helped awaken the very best instincts in my son."


In addition to the letter from Bush's father, the latest documents contain news releases that the Texas Air National Guard sent to Houston newspapers in 1970 about young Bush, then a second lieutenant and new pilot.

"George Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed," the news release said. "Oh, he gets high, all right, but not from narcotics."


the article asserts this...

The White House has said repeatedly that all of Bush's Guard records have been disclosed, only to be embarrassed when new documents have turned up.

...though i've yet to hear any media outlet mention this, ever, nor render the "embarrassing" judgement. has anyone seen such an admission?

[pseudobrit]

"Oh, he gets high, all right, but not from narcotics."


Whoops.

[IJ Reilly]

...though i've yet to hear any media outlet mention this, ever, nor render the "embarrassing" judgement. has anyone seen such an admission?

From the White House, you mean? No, but would you seriously expect them to admit they'd fudged on the meaning of "all documents?"

FWIW, the LA Times made a similar observation about the inconsistencies in the administration's statements in a story that ran in today's edition, though it was kind of buried in the story.

[zimv20]

From the White House, you mean? No, but would you seriously expect them to admit they'd fudged on the meaning of "all documents?"

FWIW, the LA Times made a similar observation about the inconsistencies in the administration's statements in a story that ran in today's edition, though it was kind of buried in the story.
not from the WH, but from media outlets other than the AP mention and your LA Times mention. i'd like to see one of Peter Jennings' crew, for example, report a document release then remind viewers how, several times, the WH has said all docs have been released.

i've not seen that happen.

[IJ Reilly]

Well if they did, that would be an example of "media bias," of course.

[pseudobrit]

No, but would you seriously expect them to admit they'd fudged on the meaning of "all documents?"

Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "all" is. :rolleyes:

The only thing I heard on a media outlet was the WH claim that the new release "proves the WH is releasing all the relevant documents and doing all they can to try to dig them up."

The programme failed to observe that the WH has repeatedly claimed that all such documents were already released.

Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "release" is?

I suspect the Rove plan is to keep feeding us trivial, marginal and inconsequential documents, one or two at a time, trying to ensure these documents contain no damning evidence (as did the successfully discredited but accurate batch released last week), until interest wanes and the media sniffer dogs go on to the next scandal.

[IJ Reilly]

Or the meaning of ing or ed. This is how the LA Times phrased it:

In this election year, the White House has repeatedly released new documents despite its insistence earlier that all available material had been made public.

[pseudobrit]

"When we said all documents were released, we meant all documents were being released as we stumbled upon them. Honest. Look! A Goodyear blimp!! <footsteps running away>"

[trebblekicked]

"When we said all documents were released, we meant all documents were being released as we stumbled upon them. Honest. Look! A Goodyear blimp!! <footsteps running away>"

just wanted to add <door slams><tires squealing>

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well if they did, that would be an example of "media bias," of course.

You mention a point that i wonder about.

How much of the "reserve" from the media is due to their feelings that the public at large sees them as being biased towards the liberals.

[mischief]

Whoops.

Well.... If you want to get technical....

Cocaine isn't a Narcotic... It's a stimulant. So if we're to extrapolate from this that Dubyaw never did NARCOTICS we can list everything under Stimulants and Psychotropics as potential substances of choice for the young leutenant.

so it would list something like:

Cocaine
Dexedrine ("crank", not "speed" which refers to Methamphetamine)
PCP
Acid


Hmm.... not a list of things I'd want in a potential commander in chief. In fact all but one of these is on the list of substances that will disqualify applicants to Millitary service from access to Classified projects and duties on Submarines or involving Nuclear weapons. So, in effect we have a CiC that's in direct violation of Millitary Psych background regs with his finger on "the button".

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hmm.... not a list of things I'd want in a potential commander in chief. In fact all but one of these is on the list of substances that will disqualify applicants to Millitary service from access to Classified projects and duties on Submarines or involving Nuclear weapons. So, in effect we have a CiC that's in direct violation of Millitary Psych background regs with his finger on "the button".

This is the strongest argument that I have heard. Living in the DC area i know of many people that have been denied jobs based on past drug use or other factors (being Gay as one - a former lover was profiled in the Puzzle Palace).

I think that things will only get worse as time marches on. Of the 20 somethings today that goes to raves and the sort; how many will see political office in the future?