As Matthew Yglesias reported, the conservative amen corner was apoplectic about Obama's assertion that undermanned U.S. units in Afghanistan were scavenging weapons from the Taliban:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

Following up with the Obama campaign, ABC's Jake Tapper spoke with the Army captain in question and confirmed Obama's retelling in most aspects. The West Point graduate said his unit was short of ammunition during training and lacking armored Humvees both before and after deployment to Afghanistan. His platoon in fact was down 15 men, at least 10 of whom had been sent to Iraq:

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

Of course, this one anecdote only serves to highlight the dangerous overstretch of an American almost fully committed in Iraq. The warning signs were there in 2003, even as President Bush dispatched troops to the Middle East in the run-up to the March invasion. By January 2006, multiple studies described the "enormous strain" on the American military and portrayed the U.S. Army as "stretched to breaking point." Facing a growing manpower crisis, the Pentagon by October 2007 was offering retention of bonuses of up to $35,000 retain specialists from its rapidly shrinking officer corps and $150,000 for elite Navy Seals.

Over just the past month, new studies revealed that the U.S. armed forces are not only unprepared to face the next regional conflict, they are woefully inadequate to response to an attack on the America homeland. In February, Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security released the results of a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. officers. 88% said the demands of the Iraq war had "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin." Three weeks earlier, an independent panel concluded "the Pentagon is not prepared to respond to a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack within the United States." With the unending burdens on National Guard and Reserve units already deployed, retired Marine Corps major general Arnold Punaro concluded, "We looked at their plans. They're totally unacceptable."

So while the right rains a hellstorm of criticism on Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator has been largely vindicated in sounding the alarm about the overtaxed American military.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for George W. Bush.

Back in 2000, then candidates Bush decimated Vice President Gore over his much-hyped claimed that the Clinton administration had gutted the U.S. armed forces. Speaking at the Citadel in the fall of 1999, Bush lambasted President Clinton:

"Not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP. Yet rarely has our military been so freely used."

But it was at the 2000 Republican National Convention where Bush crystallized his compelling, if ultimately false, charge:

"We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'"

As Joshua Micah Marshall documented four days later, Governor Bush's claims were - and he knew them to be - patently false. Those two divisions had their status temporarily downgraded for the obvious reason that they were already on duty in the Balkans:

Bush took all this a step further when he told the convention audience that two divisions were currently "not ready for duty." As a factual matter, the statement is false, as the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, was at pains to point out the following day...

...But the reason those two divisions had their readiness downgraded was not because they were unfit for duty or lacked equipment. It was because portions of each division were on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and Kosovo. The military's definition of readiness has to do with a particular division's ability to go into combat immediately in the hypothetical case of two major theater conflicts breaking out simultaneously. The commanders doubted their ability to quickly extricate their troops from their positions in the Balkans.

Confronted by CNN, Bush refused to own up to his fraud and pointed a suspicious finger at the military itself:

"If the Army, in fact, changes its tune from that report...then they need to let the country know. I am amazed that they would put out a statement right after our convention. I'm curious why it took them this long to say they were combat-ready after a report last November said they weren't."

But by then, it was too late for Al Gore. The media swallowed hole these and other exaggerations and lies from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush may have knowingly had his facts wrong, but the Republican myth of the decimated Clinton/Gore military survived intact through election day.

As it turns out, Barack Obama had his story mostly right. His larger narrative of a dangerous overburdened American military is unquestionably correct. But while conservatives will question his experience to be Commander-in-Chief, history shows it was George W. Bush who was not ready for duty.