Thoughts to come later, no doubt, on all this new Bush National Guard business. There's a few items that don't look good. Even worse than usual in regards to this matter this time around.
I'll mention off the top, that Bush's own service, avoidance thereof, commands disobeyed etc. are relevant issues at this time, given that he has built his campaign on being a "War President" and has chosen to use our armed forces in a questionable (being generous here) war of choice. Add to that the far-too-many National Guardsmen that have been deployed overseas and far beyond their expected tours of duty.
The White House seems to be on late-night deep deep damage control (see AMERICAblog's notes here and here) on this one tonight. Even going so far as to try and get out front on a few of these items as well as some of the upcoming dish from Kitty Kelly's new Bush book (rumored to include accusations that he did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and was involved in an abortion a few decades ago amongst other fresh scandals).
More on it all later, but just one question for now; If the continued defense of Dubya's now seriously questionable Guard service --- as his spokesman Dan Bartlett spun tonight on 60 Minutes and so many others have when defending Bush on this matter --- is that "he was honorably discharged by the Guard" and hence that proves all the other allegations are without merit, then why isn't the same thing equally true in regards to Kerry's service? He was given three purple hearts by the Army! Doesn't that prove that any allegations that Kerry didn't deserve those awards are therefore without merit?
In other words, if that defense works for Bush, why do the Bush thugs overlook such conveniences and benefits-of-the-doubt when it comes to Kerry's service?
The answer to that is likely quite obvious. Moral bankruptcy is an ugly business. Anything to win.