Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - 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 Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

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

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

A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left 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 Dallas Morning 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-Lieutenant 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 Dallas Morning News determined the date of 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, 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."

Staudt was the person Bush initially contacted about Guard service, and he was the group commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston when 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, Killian supposedly wrote "(another officer) gave me a message today from group regarding Bush's (evaluation) and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

The CBS staffer said that the memo appears to recognize that 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 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 Staudt "wasn't on the scene" after retirement, and that CBS' remote-bullying thesis makes no sense.

"He couldn't bully them. He wasn't in the Guard," 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 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.

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

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 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.

South, hope You don't mind me nitpiking some of your points, but I want to make some minor corrections as a current military member (USAF 23 years). I cannot vouch for procedures in 1972, but just want to clear up some things as they are done today.

6--Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.

Correct (Almost) - Official Military signature block is as follows
Name, RANK, DEPARTMENT (IE USAF, TXANG)
Title
Killians signature block would have been
Jerry B. Killian, Lt Col, TXANG Commander

8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.

YEs and no. Usually would be 18 Aug 1972, but could be written 18 August 1972 -- it is Writers prerogative. However You never see 04 MAY 1972, it would be 4 MAY 1972. 04 would only be used on COMPUTERIZED forms where 2 digits are required.

19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News-However, many documents on John Kerry’s website show same)

PO BOX is legit (see posts above), but was for 147 FIG not 111 FIS.

21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"

Exactly. KIllians would have been Lt Col not Lt. Colonel

23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.

Don't know about 1972 but today all Correspondence/letterhead MUST contain the street address of the unit. WOuld be in the format HQ AFLC/CC, 101 Something St., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 26 - Language not generally used by military

I have certainly never used language like that

28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.

Offical orders have a set format, However a Direct order from Supervisor/commander to subordinate can be written in a MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD, with a SUBJECT line of something like "Order to report for Physical"

A Memo with a direct order would however not just be signed by the Commander/supervisor it would also have a ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECIEPT on the bottom of the page SIGNED by the person recieving the order!

36-Acronym should be ORT, not ORET

Doc refers to OETR, correct abbreviation is OER - Officer Evaluation Report. Have never heard of an OETR.

40-The forged documents had no initials from a clerk

Would only have clerk initials if they were officially filed in the persons PIF (Personal Information File). If they were personal Memo's they might not be initialed.

41-There was no CC list (needed for orders)

Correct to the best of my knowledge

42-Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military

Word SUBJECT would be capitalized, the actual subject of the memo would be typed in upper and lower case.

43-The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")

Correct. We get Medical Examinations not Physical Examinations. Actually today they are Periodic Health Assessments _ LOL.

44-There was no "reciept confirmation box" (required for orders)

Correct , as I stated above there would have been an acknowledgement line for Bush to sign.

47-the manual cited in the first forged document on line 2 of the first point #1 of "AFM 35-13" doesn't exist. That line of text reads: "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)IAW AFM 35-13". "IAW" means "In Accordance With" and "AFM 35-13" would mean "Air Force Manual 35-13". There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13.

There is currently no AFM 35-13. I believe there was one back then, I have seen references to it before.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.