More AWOL

Verities looks even further into the work by FactCheck.org examining George W. Bush's military record, and discovers that it's even shoddier than appears at first review.

Seems they not only misrepresented the quotes from witnesses who say Bush put in Guard time in Alabama, they gave the wrong name for one of the witnesses:

Again, this is a small detail, but it speaks to Annenberg's shoddy research. The fact that FactCheck.org missed this correction is astonishing. There simply aren't that many published articles that reference Bush's ex-girlfriend talking about his guard duty. In addition, the New York Times and Newsweek got her name right in 2000 articles about this matter; it's almost unimaginable that Annenberg didn't see either of those articles.

Of course, we know by now that they weren't trying very hard.

In the meantime, James Ridgeway at the Village Voice chimes in with this assessment:

Fortunately for us, Michael Moore is crazy like a fox. By calling Bush a "deserter," (video) he got the big-time journalists—horrified David Broder, incredulous Peter Jennings, outraged Robert Novak, nonplussed Tim Russert—to openly raise the deserter issue before millions. It is now a political topic once again. As the journalists damn Moore, the populace is once again wondering, well, maybe Bush is a deserter after all. And the idea of a deserter running this war makes it even more sick than it already is. Consider that this weekend warrior is already responsible for the following toll in Iraq: 513 GIs sent to their death; 8,000 medevacked out of Iraq; 2,919 wounded (missing arms or legs, or blinded, or psycho); and at least 22 GI suicides. God only knows how many Iraqi men, women, and children. And when it was his turn to fight for his country, Bush booked.

Ridgeway also echoes George McGovern:

If the president wasn't a deserter, what was he?

Even ABC's The Note gets into the action:

The president's National Guard service in Alabama as a 2004 campaign issue if Kerry is the nominee? Mr. President, we have three words for you about that, and they aren't "not a problem."

It's also worth noting that Marty Heldt, who deserves full credit for doggedly chasing down all the core information on this story through FOIA requests and detailed research, has some more FOIA work in the chute that may uncover whether or not Bush's files were the subject of tampering in the relatively recent past.

Finally, I have to note that I've been remiss in not directing readers to AWOLBush.com on this issue. It's highly partisan and rather colorful, but it also has the virtue of being, well, right. They do their homework and provide the documentation.