Max wrote:

I agree. For example, the piece mentioned, not for the first time,
Dubya's seeming ducking of his National Guard obligations. I have
yet to see, in the dozens of accounts I've read about this failure
to participate, how his actions deviated from the usual and accepted
practice of the time. In other words, was "everybody" doing what he did
or did he really
shirk his obligations and was never called out?



I just love that excuse. Johnny does it so why can't I.
The first admonition from me when conducting a verbal reprimand was
to warn the employee that such excuses would not be tolerated.
"First of all, you're not "Johnny"'
"Secondly, I am not required to inform you of whatever disciplinary
measure I may or may not have taken with another employee.
"Third, you may not be aware of all the circumstances surrounding the
performance, or lack of, by another employee."


Good point. But there are two other, complimentary, points:

One: Courts have held that, in spite of written rules, a pattern of behavior
trumps the written rule. To punish someone for an infraction that is
universally ignored will not be sustained.

Two: We still don't know the circumstances. It could be Bush simply shirked
his duty and nobody bothered to sanction him. Or it could be he tried to
participate but the chain of command simply said "Go away. Quit bothering
us. We'll call you if we need you."