There's a comment on one of Klinkner's posts to the effect that critics of Bush's service during Vietnam "denigrate the national guard." I have to admit that I don't particularly care about any of this stuff, but simply as a factual matter, here's why I think this is a load of partisan crap.
If someone served in the National Guard ten years ago, or twenty years ago, I'd say that there was no question that he was a patriot and deserves to be congratulated for his service to the nation. But there's something ahistorical about failing to recognize that service in the Guard at the time that Bush signed up was something else entirely. Very few Guard units were called up to serve in Vietnam, which means that it was an almost certain pass out of doing combat service. This is very different from the situation today, where signing up for Guard service involves a relatively serious chance of facing a risk to life and limb. So I can't believe that any serious person believes that Bush signed up for the Guard for any reason other than avoiding getting sent to Vietnam. This was a less dishonorable option than, say, going to Canada or faking a disability. But it was significantly less honorable than enlisting, as Kerry did.
That said, I don't think that ANY of this should make even .000001% of anyone's decision on who to vote for. Bush's avoidance of Vietnam, and Kerry's enlistment, are completely irrelevant to their ability to be an effective commander-in-chief. It's all spin, and for the record, I think Kerry's mention of his service at every possible opportunity is obnoxious, as well as (it now turns out) politically unwise.