Was Bush "AWOL"?
As the presidential campaign season heats up, you are sure to hear some Democrats charge that President Bush was, long ago, "AWOL" from his Texas Air National Guard duties - and imply also that he joined the guard to avoid Vietnam.

Their allegations simply do not hold water.

Last May I wrote several posts about the "Bush was AWOL" charge. Here are the links. Arm yourself with knowledge. You won't convince the hate-Bush crowd, but there are those in the middle who might not know what to believe. Assuring them of the truth may help assure they vote for George W. Bush in November. And just what are the facts?

Bush voluntarily joined a military unit part of which was at that very moment involved in combat in Vietnam. He learned to fly fighter jets. He served honorably and was well-regarded by his fellow pilots. He put in more than his required time of service. And he was honorably discharged.

Those are the facts.

The hate-Bush crowd likes to point to some missing paperwork and an aging colonel's inability to remember one man out of thousands, and claim it proves Bush served dishonorably and was "absent without leave." But paperwork snafus are as common in the military as guns. And the absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense. The "Bush was AWOL" claim is so thin that the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Bush support, debunked and dismissed it.

Here are the links to my key blog posts from last May:
Link 1, May 7, 2003
Link 2, May 8, 2003
Link 3, May 8, 2003
Link 4, May 9, 2003
Link 5, May 12, 2003

UPDATE: This post was inspired by this debate at the History Channel's website, in which the Bush-haters are losing in part because their side claims Bush was not honorably discharged, and then post links to documents that say Bush was, in fact, "honorably discharged."