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.

1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
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.
7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors and whiteout
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
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)
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.
21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"
22 - Subject matter bizarre
23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
24 - kerning was not available
25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military
27 - Not signed or initialed
28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
29 – Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
31-The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
32-Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
33-Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
34-Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
35-Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?
36-Acronym should be ORT, not ORET.
37- Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added!
38-Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.
39 - Lt Col Killian didn't type
40-The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
41-There was no CC list (needed for orders)
42-Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
43-The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")
44-There was no "reciept confirmation box" (required for orders)
45-The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms)
46-CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity.
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.

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.