It comes as no surprise that the left leaning Washington Post is still beating the drums that President Bush was a deserter. Like others in the liberal media, they want Bush to prove a negative. That is, he is presumed guilty until he can prove he's innocent. He is presumed to have never even been to Alabama, until he can find someone to prove he was there. However, in trying to make this specious argument, the Post admits that the records he released show that he was there.

But the hundreds of pages of documents did little to answer questions about Bush's military history. Why, for example, is there no definitive documentation -- except a single dental exam -- that places Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in 1972-73 and shows how he performed his temporary duty in the Alabama Guard?

Is definitive proof falling on deaf ears at the Post, or do they really not know what the word definitive means?