Attendance deficit disorder

I'm not a military person. It's one of those jobs, like a physicist or a ventriloquist, that I could never perform well, no matter how much time I devoted to it. But I do have immense respect for the military -- for its service to our country.\nI mention this because last week's big story concerned President Bush's military service. The political pressure cooker has been revved up on high: "How did he get there, where did he serve, how often did he report, did he fill obligations?" What everyone is looking for is something, anything, that will account for the many gaps in the President's service in the National Guard. \nOne could successfully argue (and I would agree) that this story emerged as a matter of convenience. This story has dogged Bush during all of his runs for elected office but only now has it caught traction.\nWhy? Because as the first presidential election since 9/11 approaches, we're heading back to the days of president-as-warrior. When he ran against Al Gore in 2000, military service didn't factor in because the nation wasn't at war. Now we are.\nAnd it's gaining traction now also because it looks as if the President's November challenger will be Sen. John Kerry, who volunteered for Vietnam and returned home with a chestful of medals after his tours of duty.\nBush entered into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968, with 12 days left on his student deferment. I don't begrudge the president for his choice. I also don't blame Bush if he used personal connections to avoid going to war (the record clearly shows signs of favoritism, make of that what you will). I can hardly imagine myself doing anything different if my circumstances were the same. I like not being shot at.\nThe media, though, is looking for definitive documentation in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972. And there isn't any. The few witness accounts placing Bush there are inconsistent. Upon his return to Texas until his October 1973 honorable discharge, attendance was sporadic.\nOn Friday, the White House went on the defensive, reversing previous positions and releasing hundreds of pages of documents, with everything from paystubs to medical records, that are said to comprise Bush's entire military record.\nDoes any of this matter? Well, yes and no. A military record isn't the full measure of a candidate. The media likes to go on feeding-frenzies and stick their noses into what candidates did thirty years ago. Just as they want to know every detail about the gaps in Bush's military service, they will go for the jugular on the anti-war activities that Kerry helped organize and participate in after he returned home.\nBut the quality of the individual, his character, how he will face challenges and his values that will determine whether he's qualified to be the president have to come from somewhere. For many people, it's politically viable to point to military service as an asset. But they can't rely on it alone to deliver them. Just ask President John McCain.\nWhat Kerry did after the war and what Bush did during the war doesn't particularly interest me and shouldn't interest you as much as the media wants you to believe. The important issue is what they're going to do from Inaugural Day 2005 forward. Here's hoping military service will be a line on a resume, not the basis of a campaign, because there should be more of a concern about the current issues we face than the thirty-year-old war in Vietnam.