We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.  
 
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.  
 
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation.  
 
A scan down the first page of articles shows them to be pretty even handed in their fact checking  
 
Also see: Bush A Military “Deserter?” Calm Down, Michael (Moore)
Uhhh
fb-: Wow. So Bush didn't go AWOL after all. He actually did show up, and single-handedly defeated communism with his daring daytime raids from his jet.  
 
Wow. Fact check indeed.
Re:
T1: So technically he didn't desert. He just went AWOL when he felt like it. So, that's better then?
astranger: Obviously, "deserter" is partisan, whereas "AWOL when he felt like it" is non-partisan and factual. Got it?
Artifice: Nope.  
 
:So, while the news networks have sat on this explosive story for months, it's well documented that George W. Bush never up for National Guard duty for a period of approximately one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973. Despite all the talk about "honor and dignity," Bush seems to have a problem meeting his commitments.  
 
AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.  
Desertion-----absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
 
 
Is he guilty of one or both? You read the facts here and decide.  
 
This is not the story of a search for missing records. We have the pertinent records.  
 
This is not a hunt for credible eyewitnesses and first hand statements. The officers involved have stepped forward. We have their testimony and we have the signed statements of those no longer living.  
 
This is the story of how George Walker Bush walked away from a years duty while in the National Guard.  
 
And, this is the story of how he has thus far gotten away with it.  
 
AWOL Bush
Artifice: Sorry, they have a little more to say than that... They also have signed sworn statements and other evidence, which is certifable. But you can beleive what you will. The horse and the water scenario.
Artifice: I guess the Times has never mad a mistake then? A rediculous assertion. How is it that you would argue but ignore all positions contrary to your own "wishes"?
astranger: I find it hilarious that you feel that quoting a National Guard article which finds the commander in chief of the armed forces innocent on all counts [question: if the article had stated anything else, would the authors have been sent to the brig for insubordination?] and an incomplete citation from a NYT article with no link to be "addressing the issue." That's very weak.  
 
In short, when you appeal to authority, make sure that it's authoritative.  
 
Regarding the substance of the articles, such as they are, I also take issue with the statement that skipping a few months of duty here and there while the nation is engaged in active military conflict and while there is a shortage of people to fight said conflict is "normal" in the National Guard. If that's the case, I can think of a lot of NG members who'd like to skip a couple of months right about now.
hammer of truth: Yeah Hardy addressed this in his journal, and I addressed it here.