I would still need much more proof that something was wrong, before I would worry about this. Yes, I agree that serving in the armed forces is a solemn responsibility, and that once someone gives their word to do something, that whether or not they keep their word is important.

But the concept of AWOL-ness has flexibility to it, which is why I bring up the school-cutting analogy. It could mean disappearing without notice from serious required duty, or it could mean getting caught in a paperwork SNAFU. I served six years in the USAF myself, and I think I was probably AWOL at one point or another, because of communications mixups. So I'd talk to my supervisor, we'd figure out what went wrong, and life went on. Even if true, AWOL doesn't necessarily mean prison-time.

Like Bush said, he got an honorable discharge from the military. If there would have been a serious problem back then, he would not have received an honorable discharge.

And again, this was thirty years ago, and he's been through multiple investigations since then, including running for governor, and when he ran against Gore. If there would have been a serious problem, it would have come up in that process.

Just because someone is accused of something, doesn't mean that it should be taken seriously. Especially in an election year, when all kinds of unfounded and hyperbolic accusations are made on a routine basis. And trying to drag up something this vague, that happened decades ago, before the man was even in office, and *especially* without proof, still just strikes me as silly.

RE: Spokesman Defends Bush's Military Service