A reliable indicator for the left's idleness, exhaustion or desperation is the frequency and amplitude by which President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard is returned to public attention. A sorry excuse for a scandal, the prevailing "AWOL" charge relies almost exclusively on an appearance of impropriety. As Byron York of National Review, who has researched and written authoritatively on the subject, made evident nearly seven months ago, the charge bears poorly against scrutiny. The most concise rebuttal is this:

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements.

Ending National Guard service with nearly four times the duty points required is neither a record to be ashamed of — nor one to be used for political injury. That journalists who virtually ignored the unraveling of John Kerry's decades-strong embellishments of his own service record would direct their offices towards this instead speaks volumes about priorities and profession. Democrats, who ended up singed when they last tried to capitalize on attacking Bush's service — and whose presidential candidate has so far refused to release his own military records — would do well to pass this time.

HE GAVE IT FOR FREE: While the press chases innuendo, former Prisoners of War will hold John Kerry accountable for actions that are factually indisputable.