There's a point I'd like to make here which I think has been overlooked. Many of my associates on the left keep asking: "Why doesn't Bush come forward and answer the question?" The question being, variously, whether he got his position under undue influence, or whether the content of the memos is true.

Another corrolary is "Why did Scott McClellan (et al) act as though they might be true?"

Please try to understand this: First, Bush is acting like a person who does not know of any undue influence which may have been exerted. Look at the content of Barnes (now discredited) story: It was basicly that Barnes, with no contact nor request from anyone in the Bush family, "pulled strings".

How would W have known if such a thing occurred?

I got into college, as far as I know, fair and square. If someone were to have come forward and claimed there was someone rooting for me behind the scenes, how could I refute it? I wouln't even have been aware of it! I'd probably be as eager as the next person to find out, and a bit disappointed if I found I'd been admitted on something other than my merits.

This is just common sense, folks.

The second question is why Scott McClellan didn't deny the memo's authenticity? Again, if Killian had written some memos about him, Bush would in all likelihood not have known about them. They would have been part of Killian's information -- not Bush's -- and would not have been part of the material and records released when a 180 is signed.

Yet among the left this was a huge argument for the authenticity of the memo: Bush didn't deny it!

Well of course not, you ninny. He had no way of knowning if it was true or false, no more than you would be automatically privy to things said behind your back.

Finally, there's the question of whether Bush was given a direct order to get a physical. First, the timing suggested in the memos is absurd: They postulate that Bush would have been somehow specially "ordered" to get a physical over 2.5 months before the due date. In a situation where there was a glut of pilots. Highly unlikely.

Finally, Bush has nothing to gain by addressing the question. If he said he was never given such an order, there's no reason his enemies would believe him on this point more than any other. And if it turns out such an order was formulated, or discussed without his knowledge, but never issued to him, it could look bad for him. Further, we know he let his certification lapse, so he may not want to focus more attention on that (minor, IMO) mistake -- it's a classic violation of how to deal with rumors during a campaign.

Now, there are undoubtedly some out there who are hopping up and down with glee at this last point: "He let his certification lapse! You admit it!"

Well, I'm not sure of it, but I'm sure willing to stipulate.

But my point is: So what? Are you able to throw that stone? I'm sure not. I've let quite a number of things lapse in my life. Much less those which an institution didn't need nor encourage anyway.

Look: Get it through your head: Bush was an alcoholic later in his life. He broke the law by drinking and driving. At one point in his life, he was a poor father and family man and, by all accounts, headed for divorce. People knew all that, understood that was an adversity he'd overcome, and put him into office.

Compared to that, a charge of having missing a doctor's appointment, and loss of a certified skill he was unable to use anyway, is pretty small beans.

Now shall we discuss the legal ramifications of perjured testimony before the senate? Or Kerry's other criminal acts?

Ah, suddenly, we're not such legal particularists! :-)