bush's discharge: honorable, or sticky and yellow?

the latest repubbb defense against awol going awol is the circular logic of "how dare they demean president bush's honorable discharge?"

in their spin, sorry, we mean, in their view, if the man was discharged honorably, then he must have fulfilled his duties, so why the hell don't us nasty lefty's just shut the hell up?

of course, that's circular logic, rather like saying, he must be a good father, because, after all, he's got two daughters.

nobody on our side of the aisle denies that he was discharged honorably, just as nobody denies that he was leap-frogged over the heads of hundreds of men waiting to get into the texas air national guard in the first place.

we don't doubt for a minute that he got places the rest of us mere mortals could never hope to go, such as, into a cush tang position without waiting, or even out of it without working.

what we are asking is simply this:  did he fulfill his obligations to the united states of america to earn that honorable discharge?

and the question is easily answered, by looking at his honorable discharge papers (found via awolbush.com).

notice under remarks, that the major signing the discharge wrote about gwb:  "officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5 years, 4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation."

case closed.

now, about that missing texas drivers license...

cross-posted on the american street and  our own fulfilled obligations blog.