~Here's the most interesting bit: (Harry Shearer calls this 'burying the lead')
Petrelis' claim that no other media organization has requested Bush's files was substantiated by the FBI FOIA office in October 2004, when RAW STORY first ran a piece on Petrelis' effort. Debbie Beatty, who works in the Historical and Executive Review Unit at the FBI and spoke for the FOIA office, stated that to her knowledge, no other media organization has requested Bush’s file.
“How it could it be that during the most important election of the past half century, the supposed liberal media could devote resources, ink and airtime to the FBI files of only one of the two major contenders for the White House, and totally ignore what the agency may have on the other candidate?” he penned.
“To their shame, no mainstream news outlet, liberal or conservative, bothered to investigate what the FBI has in its archives on Bush or efforts to obtain his file,” he added.
story w/links
~Considering how Kerry's anti-war FBI-archived past was mulched and composted during the campaign, a comparison between Bush and Kerry's FBI files was a made-to-order lead. The story would've 'wrote itself'. Could've ran installments.
It's not so much that the FBI is hiding any scandalous revelations about Bush's past in their files, that they would make public, ("The food was terrible and such small portions.") it's incredible that a blogger was the first to ask.
Maybe journalists lose credibility, lose sources, get tossed-off Christmas card lists if they FOIA (sic) the FBI? Maybe requesting FBI files is the surest way to get the FBI to re-open their (non-existent individual) files on you? Maybe journalists know that FOIA requests are a waste of (their) time; the FBI black outs (redacts) the 'naughty bits' in the FOI files of certain people and certain key organizations never appear at all?