And there you have it... the memo controversy is laid to rest. Never mind that the point of the memos---that Bush didn't fulfill his TANG obligations---hasn't been addressed.

I really don't understand why our frank, straight-shooting president won't simply explain the gaps in his service record. If he did that, the controversy would end tomorrow.

And I'm on the subject of the memos, I'm tired of hearing people who claim they don't care about what happened 30 years ago, but instead see Vietnam as a proxy by which to judge the presidential fitness of a candidate. As a character proxy, Vietnam doesn't exactly do wonders for President Bush.

I don't need a memo, forged or otherwise, to tell me that Bush had some strings pulled to get in the TANG. Of course he did. A lot of different people found a lot of different ways to obtain deferments, or otherwise avoid active combat. Hey, that's human nature.

We can argue about what John Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam, but the fact is he volunteered to go. We can argue about his Purple Hearts all day, but the bottom-line is that he has been shot at. That's more than a lot of people can say, and it's more than Kerry had to do.

You want to talk about Vietnam and character? OK. On one hand, we have a guy who volunteered and served. On the other hand, we have a guy who not only avoided active combat, and possibly shirked his obligation to the TANG, but can't even be bothered to explain himself without hiding behind a facade of Clintonian language.

I want a commander-in-chief who is willing to make personal sacrifices. I want a commander-in-chief who is willing to reexamine his choices when things don't go as planned. I want a command-in-chief who has the courage to explain himself when he makes bad choices. I want a commander-in-chief who understands the moral complexity and ambigutity of war.

Andy, good to hear from you again. It would seem you have missed another posting of mine if you think that the point of the memos hasn't been addressed. Please note that the title of that post is not directed at you, unless you happen to use the pseudonym "Whalen" when commenting at a certain other blog we both read.

Anyway, Bush has answered these tired and frivolous charges over the course of many years and at least 4 elections, so I can understand why he is willing to let it stand at "I am proud of my service and received and honorable discharge" - which is backed up by military records. The same type of records used by Kerry supporters to debunk those challenging Kerry's medals.

I am curious as to whether you have had a chance to peruse the information you requested regarding evidence of successes in the war on terror? I hope to soon add Syria agreeing to pull out of Lebanon and to guard its border with Iraq to prevent the flow of terrorists to the list of sucesses, but I shouldn't jinx it.

I am also curious by what standard it is that Bush's service is an impeachment of his character? There was certainly less risky duty to be had than learning to flying F102 fighter jets. If someone was pulling strings for him, why didn't he get a cushy desk job? Fact is, nobody had to pull strings - there was no waiting list for those qualified to enter the pilot training program. Which makes sense, since it takes years of training to become a pilot - if someone is qualified, why not accept them? After you read the link in the first paragraph I would be happy to discuss with you further what evidence you have the Bush shirked his duty. Is it more than the Dan Rather standard - "Well, everyone knows its true, so who needs evidence?"

You can claim that Kerry volunteered for Vietnam - but don't you know it to be a half truth - what do you make of his attempt to get a deferment to study in Europe? And then volunteering for swiftboat duty at a time when they were not used in combat? I am also curious how you would characterize Clinton's service to his country during Vietnam, since it seems likely that you supported him, or would support him against Bush in this race?

I will grant you that Kerry has mastered your desired trait of ambiguity. Personally, I want a President who understands what kind of fight we are in. One who thinks that liberty and justice in other parts of the world will lead to a safer America. One that has the courage to stick with it when things are going bad abroad and he is being attacked by stuck in the 60's Vietnam Quagmirists. One that isn't influenced by the likes of Michael Moore. One that is a big enough man that he can not only laugh at himself, but be gracious to his opponents, as Bush did when he called Kerry's service noble more courageous than his own. I want a man that appreciates our allies, not one that sends his sister out to undermine one of our staunchest (Australia), all the while cowtowing to one that has flat out said it will never help us (France).

Also, I could see where one would get tired of Vietnam being used as a proxy issue to judge character and fitness for being President - especially if one were a supporter of Bush. Seems to me his fitness for office could be more accurately judged by his 4 years in that office.

It must be extremely frustrating for one tired of this kind of politics to be a Kerry supporter, since he has talked about Vietnam so much that he has become a caricature. I would think seeing his campaign collaborate with a major media outlet and know nutjob to smear a sitting President less than 50 days before an election would be the last straw for people frustrated by this sort of thing.

Is one to take the sound of crickets chirping to indicate that Andy has viewed the evidence vindicating Bush's service to be satisfactory and that the evidence of successes in the war on terror has made him see the wisdom of the Bush Doctrine?

Two points for your "correspondent":

First, his reference to George Bush's "gaps in service" is a non-sequiter. After flight training, which involved upwards of two years on essentially active duty, the only requirement for "service" was the yearly accumulation of 50 service points.

There is no "you must show up every other weekend" type of arrangement involved here. The left keeps finding new ways to imply otherwise (deserter, AWOL etc.) but however they want to phrase it, the truth is that they're just wrong.

If you completed your requirements by showing up every day for a month and then didn't come around again for a year, there was no problem. It would be nice if the left would even TRY to get their heans around this concept, but they simply can't seem to do it.

Or, rather, they simply don't want to.

Secondly, could we please stop conceding the "of course Bush got preferential treatment and people pulled strings to get him into the guard blah, blah, blah" line?

The fact is that, apart from the testimony of this Barnes guy, the major Kerry fundraiser whose own daughter says he is lying about the whole thing (and who, at any rate, told Rather thay he pulled strings for Bush while serving as Texas Lt Governor, but in fact did not assume that job until several months AFTER Bush entered service) there is no evoidence of this whatever.

It is simply an ASSUMPTION. The press, most of whom was not even around back then, refers to this as a "coveted National Guard spot" and others refer to the "long waiting lists" which Bush clearly leapfrogged.

But in fact, an examination done in 1999 by a Dallas newspaper proved that, in fact, Bush signed up to fill one of many empty slots.

For while it is true that, Nationally, one of the favored methods of avoiding the draft was to get into the Guard, these "coveted" spots were for positions like "clerk-typist" which required only a three month active duty trainng period.

On the contrary, becoming an F102 pilot, as Bush did, required an intial two-year active duty traing committment, and these spots went begging.

Furthermore, at the time Bush enlisted in the 111th, the unit was ACTIVELY SERVING IN VIETNAM.

Johnson later brought them home, as he did most Guard units, as a political sop, but neither Bush nor anybody else knew this would happen.

In any case, the unit Bush joined, at the time he joined it, had an authorized roster of over 900 men, but had over 100 vacancies. Nobody had to pull any strings to get him in.

Indeed, even as late as 1970 the the unit had under 50% of the "Lt. Grade" positions (ie. Bush's job) filled. They would have been glad to take, say, Bill CLinton or anybody else who had an interest.

Now as the war wound down the Air Force had a glut of pilots. Many were being assigned to desk duty. Guard officers were routinely granted early outs if they had an acceptance in hand from a graduate school. (My own brother was a Naval Reserve officer on active duty on the FOrrestal around the same time. He got accepted to law school and they let him go 10 months early. The war was over and they just didn't need the manpower)

So this whole thing about Bush getting one of these "coveted" spots is, essentially, a myth, and I'd like to see it get challenged once in a while instead of "Bush got favors because he was well-connected" being the default starting position for the whole discussion.

Thanks, Bill - I was hoping someone with some first hand knowledge would way in on this. I was 3 or 4 years old at the time, so all I have had to go by is the FactCheck.org article I found and linked to and the article by Byron York. You reinforce many of the points they made. Too bad the Legacy Media is too damn lazy to research this and get some facts straight, but what can we expect when they can't even be bothered to fact check their DNC coordinated smear jobs?