'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

[thedrifter]

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20040909d.html


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Bush Guard flight logs released
Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
Friday, September 10, 2004 Posted: 8:35 AM EDT (1235 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush began flying a two-seat training jet more frequently and twice required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter in the weeks just before he quit flying for the Texas Air National Guard in 1972, his pilot logs show.

The logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 trainers in February and March 1972, including eight times in one week and four of those only as a co-pilot. Bush, then a first lieutenant, flew in T-33s only twice in the previous six months and three times in the year ending July 31, 1971.

The records also show Bush required two passes to land an F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot was on April 16.

Meanwhile, questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of Bush's commanders in 1972 and 1973. The memos, which were publicized by CBS News on its "60 Minutes" program, say Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

The network defended the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. (Bush military memos)

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos. Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript -- a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" -- as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

The Defense Department released Bush's pilot logs this week under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press. The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Thursday said he had no information on the reasons behind the multiple-approach landings or the surge in training-jet flights.

"He did his training and was honorably discharged," Duffy said.

Former Air National Guard officials contacted by the AP said there could be reasons for the trainer flights and multiple-approach landings which have nothing to do with Bush's pilot skills.

Bush could have flown T-33s so many times because his unit did not have enough F-102A jets available that week, for example, said retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd a former head of the Air National Guard. Another former Air National Guard chief, retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver, said he saw nothing unusual about Bush making more than one landing attempt.

"It doesn't mean anything to have multiple approaches," Weaver said.

Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service became a focus of Democratic criticism this week amid a flurry of new reports about his activities. Democrats say Bush shirked his National Guard duties, a claim Bush denies.

Republican critics have accused Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, of fabricating the incidents which led to his five medals.

Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, serving more than a year on active Air Force duty while being trained to fly F-102A jets. He was honorably discharged from the Guard in October 1973 and left the Air Force Reserves in May 1974.

The first four months of 1972 are at the beginning of a controversial period in Bush's Guard service. After taking his last flight in April 1972, Bush went for six months without showing up for any training drills. In September 1972 he received permission to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit so he could work on a political campaign there.

That May, Bush also skipped a required yearly medical examination. In response, his commanders grounded Bush on Aug. 1, 1972.

Bush's pilot logs showed regular training in the F-102A until Feb. 9, 1972, when he flew 1.4 hours as the pilot of a T-33. After seven more flights in the F-102A, Bush made eight more T-33 flights between March 9 and March 15, including the four as co-pilot.

He flew an F-102A on March 12 and eight more times in April 1972.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html


Ellie

[thedrifter]

RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CBS NEWS executives on Thursday launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd2.htm


Ellie

[Sparrowhawk]

CBSNEWS has now refused to speak to Killian's son, and several of Killian's fellow officers that dispute the memos;


saying

But they might be Republicans....

[Sparrowhawk]

Daughter of Lt. Col Ben Barnes condemns her father’s CBSNews hit piece.

She has information that he has told her personally that contradicts what her father has told CBS News.





This is the worst bias, news story that has ever been produced by a national news agency.

[thedrifter]

You can say that again Cook

Whatever happened to having facts before putting out a piece


Ellie

[Sparrowhawk]

Blogs v. 60 Minutes

By Jay Currie Published 09/10/2004







The CBS news program Sixty Minutes II ran a story on September 8th bringing to light a set of memos which purported to show that when President Bush was in the National Guard he failed to obey orders. Liberal blogger Josh Marshall framed this revelation thusly:


"But aside from orders that contravene the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions or the US constitution, I don't think an officer or an enlisted man is allowed to disobey an order just because he comes up with some logic by which he decides the order doesn't really make sense. An order is an order, right?"



The memos were supposed to have been written in the early 1970's by a Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. Who is, as it happens, died in 1984.



Here's what CBS says about the documents:



"… 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.'"



According to the CBS report, Lt. Bush tells his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama…. and may not have time to take his physical." According to the report, Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."

60 Minutes says it consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert "who believes the material is authentic."



The CBS story, echoed in the New York Times and the Boston Globe went on to suggest Bush directly disobeyed orders to have an annual physical and, as a result, was grounded.



Pretty damning stuff. Just one problem -- there is mounting evidence collected by the blogosphere that the documents were forgeries. And not very good forgeries at that.



A lot of bloggers are designers and computer geeks. People who pay attention to things like proportional spacing, kerning, superscript text and the other features of modern word processing. Guess what? A letter by letter comparison of one of the purported memos with a version typed in Microsoft Word by Charles Johnson at the blog Little Green Footballs reveals:



"The spacing is not just similar -- it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the "th" in "187th" is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially "age" the document. (Update: I printed the document and the "th" matches perfectly in the printed version. It's a difference between screen and printer fonts.)"



To hammer his point home Johnson superimposes the purported memo with his Microsoft Word, typed today version. Literally 1:1, not even fuzzy, not a letter out of place.



For really detailed analysis, Powerline readers get right to the kerning:



"The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typesetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.



"To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments."



The Weekly Standard published a story with comments from a number of typography experts all of which suggest the memos are a hoax. Radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt interviews a document examination expert and, unsurprisingly, on point after point the expert is convinced the memos are forgeries.



Most importantly, because it breaks out of the blogosphere, the Associated Press is now on the story, albeit from a different angle:



"Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to 'sugar coat' Bush's performance review.



"'It just wouldn't happen,' he said. 'The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that.'"



One day. That was all it took for the ranks of citizen journalists to swarm and then thoroughly discredit a story which ran in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and on a network news magazine.



From the Kerry perspective a scandal involving forged documents is a disaster. Kerry had yesterday to get in front of the story and he missed that boat. Instead of being able to stay on message and trying to beat down the post convention pulse which has sent Bush several points ahead in various opinion polls, Kerry is likely to face questions about who was responsible for the forgeries. While it would be astonishing if anyone inside the Kerry organization had a hand in them, it is a question that will be asked. Moreover, the spectacle of Kerry announcing that his campaign organization and the Democratic Party had nothing to do with issuing those documents will occupy several critical news cycles and focus attention on character -- exactly where Kerry does not want to be.



From the perspective of the establishment media, this, too, is a disaster. CBS will have to explain: where did the documents come from? What were the bona fides of the source? Who was the source? Which expert looked at the documents? How closely?



Those are the starter questions. The more basic question is how could a rabble of bloggers, in one day, provide hard core proof of forgery when major news organizations took those documents at face value? Most fundamental of all, why did the New York Times, the Boston Globe and CBS allow themselves to be used for such a transparent attempt to slander President Bush? Out in the blogosphere there are a swarm of people rooting for the answers.



Jay Currie is a Galiano writer whose writing and blog is at www.reviewing.blogspot.com.

[thedrifter]

Rather Replaced ** BREAKING **

[Sparrowhawk]

ON TV

LIBERAL SCUM.......

[MillRatUSMC]

Do we now have double standards?
And they just keep on spinning.
Can wait till this so called election is over and done with.
The "truth" is what you want to hear anything else has a need to be studied under a microscope.
Both of these so called candidates have much to cover in their respected past.
One only happens to be a sitting President.
I'm in the process of reading "Battle Ready" by Tom Clancy and co-authored by General Anthony "Tony" Zinni USMC.

Humpty Dumpty
sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty

had a great fall.

All the king’s horses,

And all the king’s men,

Couldn't’t put Humpty

together again.
In this case "Humpty Dumpty" turns out to be Iraq.
For lack of a well thought plan on rebuilding Iraq, by default it fell on the military.
So say General Anthony Zinni USMC.
Is he wrong.
Why don't we talk about this and the economy, not about things in the past of both these men...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

PS They're making Ralph Nader look as the way to go.
Or does he have things in his past.

[USMC-FO]

Mill Rat..well put...this election is consumed by hate and division: Those that hate Bush and those that hate Kerry. Most folks will vote this year against one rather than for one. Truth and unity as a nation are sadly lost.

Regardless of who finally ends up in the white house we're all going to have "four more years" of division, finger pointing and disunity. There is very little "pulling togeather" aka "Gung Ho" left today and we're all the worse for it.

Semper Fi !

[thedrifter]

September 10, 2004


A Bald (Type) Face Flip-Flop?
Gregory A. Borse

In the wake of the CBS "60 Minutes" revelation of documents purported by Dan Rather to verify that George W. Bush did not uphold his obligations to the Texas National Guard in the early '70's, ABCNews.com has posted a story questioning the authenticity of those very same documents.
Nevermind for a moment that the release of additional documents by the White House verifies that George W. Bush scored in excess of the number of "points" required of an honorable discharge for the six years of service to which he had committed in the National Guard, in fewer than those six years. And that those were enough to allow his commanding officer to release him from duty to work on a political campaign in Alabama in lieu of active service in Texas. Never mind that George W. Bush, following work on said campaign, returned to the Guard and performed additional duty before being so honorably discharged from service.
Citing what it calls "one of the country's top authorities on document authentification," Bill Flynn, the ABCNews.com story lists the following evidence in questioning the veracity of the CBS report:

"* The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.

* The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typrwriters.

* The memos inclued "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

* The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas--the bible of fonts--does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

* The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, is not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers."

In addition, the widow of the signer of the documents in question--Lt. Col. Jerry Killian--has disputed their veracity. Now known as Marjorie Connell (having re-married since the death of her former husband in 1984), Killian's widow is quoted as saying: "The wording of these documents is very suspect to me . . . [I] can't believe these are his words." Killian's son, Gary Killian, who, ABC notes, served in the National Guard with his father, has been quoted as saying that it was not in his father's "nature" to "keep private files like this" and has confirmed that CBS did not get the material for its story from any of Killian's family members. CBS has so far declined to name the source of the documents but stands by their authenticity, publishing that its own (unnamed) expert confirmed to their satisfaction that the documents were authentic.

Though many may be inclined to chalk this latest dust-up to politics-as-usual in a post Gore v. Bush 2000 Presidential Election dispute, the fact that ABC would openly question, at least on the internet, another major (democratic friendly) network news outlet report--and one by the venerable "60 Minutes" no less--perhaps signals something of a change in the course of presidential politics of late.

Between the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" gained traction in criticizing John Kerry for his idiosyncratic description of his own heroics in Vietnam and announced, quite strongly, their opposition to what they saw as distortions of the truth and the record. Kerry's candidacy has taken quite a hit as a result. Polls now show that the combination of the questioning by fellow veterans of the Vietnam War of Kerry's behavior during and after his service, along with the Republican National Conventions' successful focusing upon the Bush Administration's policies regarding the War on Terror, Iraq, and its record on domestic and economic issues, have constituted a serious blow to the challenger's campaign.

It should come as no surprise that in answer to same a network would air such questionable material in an attempt to divert the public's attention from the weaknesses of the challenger's candidacy.

Yet, the challenge by ABC of CBS should come as some surprise. It seems to mean that at least ABC is beginning to recognize that going along with such spurious and questionable reports is a potential undermining of its own credibility--which signals that the network recognizes something that the rest of us already know: that presidential politics are not only about those who run, but also about those who vote.

The polls--including Time Magazine, Newsweek, Washington Post/ABC--all show that since the Republican National Convention Bush leads among registered voters by between 9 and 13 points. Among likely voters, this margin is probably somewhat greater in Bushes favor.

Such margins should tell the networks something about what their real role is in politics: to report the news, not attempt to craft it. It is lamentable that CBS may be the victim of a hoax--but to call it a "hoax" is to ignore the fact that the perpetuation of such a false-hood is also akin to a kind of crime.

John Kerry ought most strenuously to object to such tactics regarding his opponant's records. Not least because of their dubious foundation--but also because such questioning begs for further scrutiny of Kerry's own record during the Vietnam years.

ABC News seems to be coming to understand that the American public, in this election, cares about who will secure us against further attack, who can continue what is amounting to a robust growth in our economy, and who can best insure the continued prosperity of our people and the peace between nations of the world.

This election, like nearly every election that has gone before it, is not about who will do worse, it is about who will do best. Each side, and the media, ought to concentrate upon the records--Bush's as president, Kerry's as Senator--and then let the voters decide.

There is no better indication of how these candidates will govern than what his record says about how he has conducted himself in the face of the realities of his moment. Each candidate offers a record of such moments.

Let us judge them accordingly.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/fre..._20040910.html

Ellie

[Sparrowhawk]

It seems that the Kerry Campaign had these documents in their hands for months... they must have known them to be fake and Kerry authorized them to be released at this time on 60 minutes.

Unacceptable... he must beleive the American people are stupid... that we won't question and many don't.

With today's technology, the truth doed surface, but we seem not prepared for the truth, we much better believe a lie its more comfortable that way, less confrontational.

Today, I don't understand the hatred directed at the president. No one can give me a straight answer why they hate the president so much.

It's as if the demons of hell have blinded the minds of so many people that they don't want to see the truth, and when they see the evidence of the truth, they dismiss it because it easlier to look at the darkside of things perhaps because of their own evilness or they just move on to something else.

Cook

---

Authenticity of memo to 'sugar coat' Bush record is further questioned




12:11 AM CDT on Saturday, September 11, 2004


By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News



AUSTIN – The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Col. Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Mr. Bush's service was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

That added to mounting questions about the authenticity of documents that seem to suggest Mr. Bush sought special favors and did not fulfill his service.

Col. Staudt, who lives in New Braunfels, did not return calls seeking comment. His discharge paper was among a packet of documents obtained by The News from official sources during 1999 research into Mr. Bush's Guard record.

A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Col. Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Col. Staudt powerless over remaining officials.

The authenticity of the memo and three others included in Wednesday's 60 Minutes report came in for heavy criticism Friday, prompting an unusual on-air defense of the original work. Experts on typography said they appeared to have been computer-drafted on equipment not available in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

And the family of the officer who supposedly wrote them, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984, said it wasn't his nature to keep detailed personal notes.

In its network news broadcast Friday, CBS said the documents were supported by both unnamed witnesses and others, including document examiners.

Earlier, CBS anchor Dan Rather told The News that he had heard nothing to make him question the legitimacy of the memos. He attributed the backlash to partisan politics and competitive journalism.

"This story is true. The questions we raised about then-Lt. Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate," he said, expressing confidence the memos are authentic. "Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill."

The interview concluded before The News determined the date of Col. Staudt's departure, so that issue was not included. But a CBS staffer with extensive knowledge of the story said later that the departure doesn't derail the story.

"From what we've learned, Staudt remained very active after he retired," the staffer said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "He was a very bullying type, and that could have continued."

In the 60 Minutes report, Mr. Rather said of the memo's contents: "Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to 'sugar coat' an evaluation of Lt. Bush."

Col. Staudt was the person Mr. Bush initially contacted about Guard service, and he was the group commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston when Mr. Bush arrived there to fly an F-102 jet. He later transferred to Austin, where he served as the chief of staff for the Air National Guard.

In the disputed memo, Mr. Killian supposedly wrote "[another officer] gave me a message today from group regarding Bush's [evaluation] and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

It continues: "Austin is not happy either."

The CBS staffer said that the memo appears to recognize that Col. Staudt has retired, since it differentiates between his displeasure and that of Austin, where he served his final Guard stint.

But another Texas Air National Guard official who served in that period said the memo appears to wrongly associate Col. Staudt with his group command in Houston, and – based on that mistake – the memo distinguishes his views from that of the Austin Guard headquarters.

Retired Col. Earl Lively, who was director of Air National Guard operations for the state headquarters during 1972 and 1973 said Col. Staudt "wasn't on the scene" after he left, and that CBS' remote-bullying thesis makes no sense.

"He couldn't bully them. He wasn't in the Guard," Col. Lively said. "He couldn't affect their promotions. Once you're gone from the Guard, you don't have any authority."

The report about the memos originally appeared to stir anew longstanding questions about Mr. Bush's Guard service, including whether he defied a direct order to take a physical exam, and whether his suspension from flying was partly for failure to meet military performance standards.

Col. Staudt had social dealings with Houston oilman Sidney Adger, a Bush family friend who former House Speaker Ben Barnes said approached him about getting Mr. Bush into the Guard. Mr. Adger's two sons served under Col. Staudt.

The campaign of Mr. Bush's Democratic rival, John Kerry, stood mostly mum, saying Mr. Bush should answer all questions about his service. Earlier this year, though, Kerry aides raised the exact points the memo seemed to address.

Mr. Bush has not commented publicly about the CBS report, and aides say his honorable discharge proves he fulfilled his obligations.

But the White House, which contends that all known records of Mr. Bush's service have been released, also took the unusual step of distributing the CBS memos to reporters the night of the broadcast.

"We don't know whether the [CBS] documents were fabricated or are authentic," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday.

E-mail pslover@dallasnews.com

[yellowwing]

Why do elections bring out the worst in journalism? They are rushing around so fast they don't thoroughly check facts, just so they won't get scooped. Idiots.

Tide doesn't run negative ads on Downy. McDonald's doesn't run ads on how crappy Hardee's is. Ford doesn't say, "If you buy a Chevy you'll kill your family." BS.

Gung Ho! Thanks for the reminder USMC-FO

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by yellowwing
... McDonald's doesn't run ads on how crappy Hardee's is

Gosh darn yellowwing, Crappy Hardee's is for olds people... LOL