QandO

Yeah, but both sides will whine about it. That's what they do.

Posted by: Norman at April 20, 2004 02:47 PM

Jon,
Where did you get that illustration? That's a hoot!

Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at April 20, 2004 03:26 PM

Eh? Bush released his records... that's a dead issue. Now the Dems hav to explain why Kerry shouldn't release his, even when Wes Clark did. Win-win for the Bushies.

Posted by: HH at April 20, 2004 03:51 PM

Oh, but whine I shall. You see, Bush RELEASED his records. It doesn't matter if we liked the idea or not. Preceedent (if you will) has been set. If Kerry doesn't, it's bullshit of a high order.

What's good for the goose, etc etc.

To "not whine" about this is tantamount to giving Kerry a free pass. And that I shall not do.

Posted by: shark at April 20, 2004 04:32 PM

Roy: Heck, I have the link saved at my work computer, but not here. I'll try to add a link to it tomorrow.

HH and Shark: so, you're saying that, when the Republicans said Bush shouldn't be forced to show his records, they weren't arguing out of principle? And if they were, why should they not make the same principled argument now?

Look, it's all well and good to point out that "fair's fair"....but that's not the argument the Republicans were making before. If they and the Democrats just switch positions on this, then both are being hypocritical.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 20, 2004 05:13 PM

Jon, the problem with your reasoning is that the Democrats won't be called on their hypocracy. You know as well as I do that there won't be a single member of the mainstream media who will call Kerry a hypocrite for not opening his records.

I never argued that Bush shouldn't be forced to divulge his records, but I did make the point that what was already known proved his side. I don't know enough about Kerry's case right now, but if there isn't enough information right now to prove his side, then I'd say he should definitely release his records.

Posted by: Steverino at April 20, 2004 06:05 PM

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-04-11-1.html

Posted by: mal at April 20, 2004 06:46 PM

How about Kerry does not have to release his records, but has to issue an apology for making the Bush/Awol an issue? Would that be principled and fair?

Posted by: Frank Castle at April 20, 2004 08:47 PM

"Shark: so, you're saying that, when the Republicans said Bush shouldn't be forced to show his records, they weren't arguing out of principle? And if they were, why should they not make the same principled argument now?"

Oh no. I'm not saying if the argument was "principled" on either side because we all know it wasn't.

BUT...

I'm just content to play the game and hold the Dems to the same standard they want others held to. If Bush HADN'T released his records, I would actually say Kerry was justified in not releasing them. But Bush did. So now Kerry should.

I'm very honest here....the only principle involved is never letting the opposition get even an inch of gain. Both sides play it, I'm willing to have the double edged sword cut both ways.

Posted by: shark at April 20, 2004 10:28 PM

Well, that's a principle. Now, anyway.
So, on what principle were Republicans arguing against the Bush release when he was not releasing his documents?

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 21, 2004 05:44 AM

"So, on what principle were Republicans arguing against the Bush release when he was not releasing his documents?"

Probably the same one that Kerry and Mrs. Heinz-Kerry are using about not releasing THEIR documents ;)

Posted by: shark at April 21, 2004 09:08 AM

As someone who is neither a democrat nor a republican, let me just say that I don't think that either President Bush or Senator Kerry was or is being forced to release their records. I recall no subpeonas, no breaking-down-the-doors-and-storming-the-file-cabinets. Kerry's supporters made a bunch of silly claims based on little evidence, it sounded like a good story so the media ran with it, and Bush eventually had to prove himself innocent. Likewise, Bush's supporters are making some claims based on scant evidence, it sounds like a good story so the bloggers are running with it, and Kerry may have to release his records to prove himself innocent.

Here's the bit I have problems with (and I quote): "The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material."

Do you see nothing wrong with the man making a claim to get a bunch of reporters off his back and then going back on his word? I do, and that's why this makes me unhappy.

Posted by: Nony Mouse at April 21, 2004 05:53 PM

Yeah, I do have a problem with that. On the other hand, Bush did essentially the same thing, when he claimed they'd already released all his documents in 2000. Then they piddled around for a week or so until they finally released his documents.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 21, 2004 06:49 PM