The CBS Whitewash (The coverup continues)

The Weekly Standard ^ | January 24, 2005 | Jonathan V. Last

[RWR8189]

LAST SEPTEMBER, CBS NEWS president Andrew Heyward promised a full accounting within "weeks, not months" of his network's attempt to pass off as genuine four fraudulent memos about President Bush's long-ago service in the Texas Air National Guard. Last Monday--nearly four months later--CBS released its report.

Compiled by independent investigators Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi, the 224-page document looked thorough enough, and its executive summary contained some bracing language. The 60 Minutes Wednesday segment shown on September 8, 2004, suffered from "considerable and fundamental deficiencies." Its producers had "failed miserably" to authenticate the purported memos from Col. Jerry Killian that supposedly substantiated the old claim that George W. Bush had received favorable treatment in the TexANG in the 1970s. The network had been guilty of "myopic zeal" in rushing the story onto the air. The Wall Street Journal deemed the report "scathing," and the New York Times called it a "crushing blow" to CBS's credibility.

Only on closer examination do the report's core weaknesses become clear. For while it includes quite a lot of detail, its authors decline to draw conclusions on two essential factual matters: Were the documents CBS relied on copies of authentic 1972 memos? And was the reporting of them motivated by political bias? Without a final judgment on these counts, the report is useless--or worse.

 

WERE THE KILLIAN MEMOS FORGED? The Thornburgh-Boccardi panel makes a great show of its agnosticism on this question. Its members are certain of their uncertainty: "The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents."

This was perhaps the most newsworthy statement in the CBS report. Most people considered it long since established that the documents were fakes. This had been settled by a large cohort of experts, a bevy of testimony from the blogosphere, and most definitively by Dr. Joseph Newcomer.

When the scandal broke last fall, Newcomer, one of the fathers of modern electronic typesetting, found himself intrigued. Not normally interested in politics, he was interested in typography and fonts, and he noticed problems with the CBS memos almost immediately. After investigating, he came to the unequivocal conclusion that the documents were "modern forgeries." What many on the Internet had suspected, Newcomer proved. On Friday, September 10, he sent his lengthy analysis to a number of local and national media outlets, including Time and Newsweek. No one bothered to call him back, so on September 11 he posted his work on a website. A few hours later, it was everywhere.

Newcomer's analysis and conclusions, soon joined by other experts, quickly came to be accepted as definitive. So why did the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel spurn Newcomer and the rest of the body of expert opinion? What caused them to reopen the possibility that the documents might be copies of authentic memos after all?

Appendix 4 of the CBS report details the panel's inquiry into the technical aspects of the memos. It relies heavily on the testimony of Peter Tytell, a forensic document examiner with impressive qualifications, including having once been called a "famous typewriter detective" by CBS's own Andy Rooney.

Like Newcomer, Tytell came to some quick conclusions. He told the panel that even while watching the September 10 CBS Evening News broadcast at home, he'd known "within 5 seconds" that something was wrong with the documents CBS was showcasing as newly discovered memos from 1972. In fact, on September 10--the same day Newcomer sent his essay to members of the media--Tytell had contacted CBS to explain "in detail why he believed the Killian documents were likely fakes."

Eventually, the panel hired Tytell to serve as its document expert. He examined the Xeroxes carefully and came to three conclusions: (1) Previously released Texas Air National Guard documents from the early 1970s had been created on an "Olympia manual typewriter." (2) The four disputed Killian memos "were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter." And (3) "The Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle."

Why was Tytell so sure? The Killian memos had proportional spacing, a superscript "th", and a serif typestyle. Tytell consulted the Haas Atlas--the typesetter's bible--looking for a typewriter model that could have produced these features in 1972, and "did not find a single match with the Killian documents."

Still, it had been suggested that an IBM Selectric could have produced a match. Tytell was thorough on this point. First, he noted that during the early 1970s, "a typical TexANG office was unlikely to have had an IBM Selectric Composer" because "the machines were very expensive, difficult to use and designed primarily for the commercial production of books, newspapers and other printed material." Still, supposing Killian's unit had had one of these machines, what would it have taken to render it capable of creating the Killian memos? Tytell concluded that the TexANG office would have had to weld both a superscript "th" and a "#" key to its IBM Selectric, a process Tytell calls "highly inconvenient."

And even allowing for these mounting improbabilities, the typestyle from such a modified Selectric Composer still would not have matched exactly the type in the Killian memos. The two typestyles are "very close," Tytell concluded, but there are "noticeable differences." Tytell told the panel that he did "not believe that any manual or electric typewriter of the early 1970s could have produced the typeface used in the Killian documents." As the panel sums up his findings,

 

the documents appear to have been produced in Times New Roman typestyle. . . . Times New Roman was only available on typesetting and other non-tabletop machines until the desktop publishing revolution in the 1980s. Therefore [Tytell] concluded that Times New Roman could not have been available on a typewriter in the early 1970s and the Killian documents must have been produced on a computer.

 

Which brings us back to Joseph Newcomer. After all his careful study, Peter Tytell reached exactly the same conclusion as Newcomer. And, like Newcomer, Tytell offered a forthright judgment. The panel reports, "Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer."

So, again, how did Thornburgh and Boccardi manage to walk away from their own expert's unambiguous verdict? The answer is hidden in footnote 16 on page 7 of Appendix 4:

 

Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era.

 

If they were concerned about gaps in Tytell's knowledge, did the panel consult other experts? No. Instead, Thornburgh and Boccardi solicited the opinion of this single expert; then, when he reached an unwanted conclusion, they turned their backs on it.

 

WAS THERE A POLITICAL AGENDA BEHIND THE SEGMENT? The CBS report addresses this question head-on, too, and again fails to reach a solid conclusion. In a six-page section entitled "Whether There Was a Political Agenda Driving the September 8 Segment," the report acknowledges that some sectors of the media imputed bias to CBS. To explore this charge, the panel simply asked two of the principals--correspondent Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes--directly whether or not their motivation had been political: "Both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment."

It seems unlikely that either Rather or Mapes would perceive their own political bias--and even more unlikely that they would cop to it if they did. Yet Thornburgh and Boccardi accept their denials and pronounce, "The Panel will not level allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof." Which is curious, since the panel then proceeds to pile up a high mound of proof that at least some CBS journalists were indeed motivated by political bias.

To wit: The report tells us that Mapes and Rather had pursued the story for five years; that they relied on a number of anti-Bush sources; that they tried to use a "gratuitous" and "inflammatory" interview with one Colonel David Hackworth; and that Mapes attempted to put Bill Burkett, the source of the Killian Xeroxes, into contact with the Kerry campaign.

Thornburgh and Boccardi reject the length of time spent on the story as "persuasive evidence of a political agenda." Moreover, they do "not believe that evidence exists to demonstrate" that the political leanings of the anti-Bush sources influenced the story. And they "cannot conclude that this proposed use of Colonel Hackworth was part of any political agenda."

But there is more. The report tells us that back in 1999, early in their pursuit of the story, Mapes sent an internal email to CBS senior and executive producers including Rather, in which she opined--with no evidence--that "in his military career, Bush was truly born on third base." During the summer of 2004, "Mapes and her team were not focused on any particular event or topic . . . but instead . . . were trying to identify a viable story line regarding the President's military service."

It was at this point that Mapes linked up with a Texas journalist named Michael Smith. Smith had been dangling in front of her the prospect of anti-Bush evidence (a "tasty brisket," in his words), but wanted to be hired on for the expedition. He was, and became an associate producer for 60 Minutes Wednesday. Smith led Mapes to Paul Lukasiak and Linda Starr, Texas activists who ran anti-Bush websites, who in turn sent her to the now infamous Bill Burkett. (This was not the first time CBS had crossed Burkett's path. For an earlier story on Bush and the national guard on the CBS Evening News in February 2004, John Roberts had interviewed Burkett and found him to be "unreliable.")

Burkett played hard to get, so Smith got creative. Why not offer Burkett an inducement? He wrote an email to Mary Mapes:

 

Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine. . . . What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election. . . . What I am asking is in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized advance payment, and get it turned around quickly. Then they will respond with some possible scenarios of what they could do. When we get to Burkett's house I will have at least some scenarios to show Burkett about what could happen if he played ball with the documents. [Ellipses in the original.]

 

Mapes responded: "That looks good, hypothetically speaking of course."

This talk of securing an advance for a source and "changing the momentum" of the election is not normal journalistic practice. It is damning stuff. To counter it, Thornburgh and Boccardi offer only Mapes's and Rather's denials. Was it bias? "Absolutely, unequivocally untrue," thunders Rather. It was "proximity, not politics," demurs Mapes.

Thornburgh and Boccardi sum up: "The Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content."

 

THE REPORT IS CURIOUS in its shifting standards of proof. While Thornburgh and Boccardi require metaphysical certainty in some areas, in others they eagerly jump to conclusions. Thus, despite all the complexities, the panel was able to find a single explanation for what went wrong at CBS. As Dick Thornburgh explained on the January 10 NewsHour, "If you're looking for a villain in this story, we have one. It's haste." How they were able to conclude that haste alone accounted for the deficiencies of the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment is unclear. The report contains a dash of hearsay, but little factual evidence on this score.

It is also curious that while the panel could discover no political agenda at CBS, it readily found one elsewhere. Explaining how the authenticity of the documents first came to be questioned, Thornburgh and Boccardi--again without citing evidence--trace this to "some people on the Internet, at first primarily supporters of President Bush with their own conservative political agenda."

Still another curiosity is that the Thornburgh-Boccardi report makes little effort to reinvestigate the particulars of the segment in question. Where, for instance, did the documents come from? We are told that Bill Burkett, who gave them to Mapes, first claimed to have received them from someone in the TexANG, then later informed CBS that a woman named Lucy Ramirez had arranged for the documents to be handed to him at a livestock show in Houston. We are also told that Burkett declined to cooperate with the panel. And that's that.

But what about Lucy Ramirez? Who is she? What was her role? Does she even exist? Here is the report's final mention of her: "[CBS News, after the story aired] sent personnel into the field to attempt to find Ramirez and thus possibly to confirm the new account. This effort proved unsuccessful." Exit Lucy Ramirez.

 

IN SOME QUARTERS, the report's findings have been welcomed. CBS News, for instance, is now using it as a talisman to ward off charges of political bias. Taking note of Thornburgh and Boccardi's omnibus exoneration ("The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias"), Les Moonves, the head of CBS, said he was "gratified that the Panel, after extensive analysis and consideration, has found that, while CBS News made numerous errors of judgment and execution in this story, these mistakes were not motivated by any political agenda."

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes have found comfort in the report as well. For his part, Rather has said that he takes it "seriously" and will "keep its lessons well in mind." Maybe. Testifying before Thornburgh and Boccardi, "Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." Rather is sticking to his guns, in other words, and Thornburgh and Boccardi have now given him cover he previously lacked.

And then there is Mapes, the lone figure to be formally fired. (Rather is stepping down as anchor, but will remain a correspondent for 60 Minutes Wednesday; three other CBS employees were asked to submit their resignations.) The former star producer accuses CBS of "scapegoating" her, and says that her dismissal is the result of "corporate and political considerations."

Like Rather, Mapes finds vindication in the panel's refusal to judge the memos forgeries. "It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false," she says in her defense. "Indeed, in the end, all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly," she says, noting that her superiors, not she, determined when the story would air. "I am heartened," she says, "to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none."

Mapes is supported in each of these particulars by the panel's report. With Thornburgh and Boccardi on her side, perhaps she's right--that her firing is unjust and she's been made a scapegoat.

The only other possible conclusion is that CBS's promised full accounting is a whitewash.

 

Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.

[Waco]

The media routinely FLAUNTS it's bias and political agenda! All but these genius's can see it every day. What as-holes.

[mcenedo]

How do you proove documents are forged? It seems the only definitive proof would be to have the purportive author deny them. If the author is dead, I guess it can't be "prooved".

The fact that it is impossible to replicate the documents with the technology that existed at that time is, apparently, meaningless.

The investigation into political bias begins and ends with the statements of the criminals involved.

Quite the "investigation".

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

And yet,


LIBERAL Los Angeles Times Media Critic DAVID SHAW still tells us that:


RATHER's work 'Shoddy, Slipshod.' not LIBERAL..?

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227809/posts

.

[beckett]

The more this report is examined, the crumbier it looks. Tony Blankley pretty much nailed it in a column the other day. Thornburgh acted as CBS's attorney, not as its investigator.

[Howlin]

Now what did we read earlier in the week about Thornburgh's law firm?

I have to say I am REALLY disappointed in Thornburgh; I really thought he'd get the job done.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

[Mo1]

From what I can tell of that report .. it went up to the line but wouldn't actually cross it

But it was also a CBS paid investigation and not a federal one

The bias part is not of issue .. we all know they are bias

what is of issue are Forged Military documents that were used to change an outcome of a Presidential Election

Which I believe are two different FEDERAL crimes

[oldbrowser]

This talk of securing an advance for a source and "changing the momentum" of the election is not normal journalistic practice. It is damning stuff.

I think this memo was the smoking gun and should be grounds for a grand jury indictment.

[FreeKeys]

The report tells us that Mapes and Rather had pursued the story for five years...
...Dick Thornburgh explained on the January 10 NewsHour, "If you're looking for a villain in this story, we have one. It's haste."

Do I really have to comment?

[FreeKeys]

"The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias"

"Look Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news.  All the networks tilt left." -- CBS News President ANDREW HEYWARD, to six-time Emmy award winner Bernard Goldberg, quoted HERE and HERE.

[timydnuc]

Better yet. The facts disclose that they WERE forged. Yes, that is a crime. SeeBS is covering their tracks and spinning this thing so that there will not be criminal charges against them. I wish that this could be persued to it's conclusion, but I know it won't.

When justice doesn't work for all of us, justice is no longer blind. Take the blindfold off of the lady, she can see elite vs. the common man, and the comman man can "eat cake". Take away justice for all and you take away liberty for all and the last one out of our Republic can turn out the lights.

[FreeKeys]

It is also curious that while the panel could discover no political agenda at CBS, it readily found one elsewhere. Explaining how the authenticity of the documents first came to be questioned, Thornburgh and Boccardi--again without citing evidence--trace this to "some people on the Internet, at first primarily supporters of President Bush with their own conservative political agenda."

See "The WHO Funded It? Fallacy" HERE .

[Lancey Howard]

If they were concerned about gaps in Tytell's knowledge, did the panel consult other experts? No. Instead, Thornburgh and Boccardi solicited the opinion of this single expert; then, when he reached an unwanted conclusion, they turned their backs on it.

The report itself is as corrupt as CBS. What a disgrace.

[Lancey Howard]

The only other possible conclusion is that CBS's promised full accounting is a whitewash.

Yep. That's exactly what it is.

[PGalt]

BTTT!

[Lancey Howard]

This is the best summary of the whitewash that I have read.

[Lancey Howard]

The panel was likely directed to whitewash the scandal precisely BECAUSE if they had reached the same crystal clear conclusion as everybody else - - that political bias was the reason that CBS used forged military documents to try to fix a national election - - then there would be no way for CBS to avoid a criminal investigation.

The report was, in fact, carefully crafted to SHIELD the network. In too-clever-by-half fashion, all aspects of the report which did not deal with the forgeries and the political agenda were beefed up to make the report look "hard-hitting" and "devastating", etc. Concurrent with the release of the report, CBS then lowered the boom on some hapless underlings (while giving a pass to Rather and Heyward) in order to further show the world how "serious" they were.

No wonder Heyward's "weeks, not months" turned into four months - - there was a mountain of careful parsing and legal work involved in crafting a suitable whitewash.

[FreeKeys]

"Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic."

!

Sorry, SeeBS, even the "story" the phony documents are supposed to be about is phony  ____________________________

Find an overview of the FACTS about GWB's Texas Air National Guard Service at http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

A summary of the salient points are at  http://boortz.com/nuze/200409/09152004.html#guard

STAUDT FINALLY SURFACES: DUBYA DID NOT GET SPECIAL TREATMENT AND "SUGAR COATING" WAS NEVER REQUESTED BY ANYBODY.  See both
http://snipurl.com/95ad  and  http://snipurl.com/9bny

Ed Morrisey, the guy who swore W into the TANG weighs in here:  http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/173996   (the paper's front page is at  http://www.thedailytimes.com/  )

Find this:  "The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's [F-102 pilots] and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go.  But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go,” Morrisey recalls. ... Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy. ... "He flew in active air defense missions, training missions.    Day, night, regardless of inclement weather," Morrisey says. ... Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard. ... Morrisey says he considers himself to be more of a Libertarian than Republican or Democrat.  Nonetheless, Morrisey says he is voting for George Bush come election day. -- in BOTH printable version AND video clip at   http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2346701

See what Dubya's Wing Men (NOT boaters or yachtsmen, now, but FELLOW FIGHTER PILOTS) had to say (they were not in the SAME supersonic fighter plane with him, but they DID SERVE WITH HIM AND FLEW ALONGSIDE HIM) here: http://snipurl.com/6qkp

A Commentary by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) is at:  http://jb-williams.com/guest-kerry.htm

Major General Hodges says GWB didn't get preferential treatment, didn't need any, and besides, he's mad at CBS for misleading him here:  http://snipurl.com/a3y2

4 Eyewitnesses who saw GWB serving in Alabama are quoted and sourced HERE: http://snipurl.com/a3y3

See Exactly WHERE George W. Bush's TANG service fits in The REALLY Big Picture here:  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3919

And don't forget, IT WAS GWB who signed the Standard Form 180 asking that ALL his military records be released and JFK who DID NOT.  Physical exams were irrelevant to someone like GWB who'd already taken physicals and flown for 3 years and no more flying was required (on top of that, the F-102 had started to be phased out anyway); they were never considered worth writing him up for except in the FAKE memos, the source of which SeeBS refuses to identify.  The attitude of SeeBS and everyone who sided with them seems to be that it's OK to plant evidence if you think -- or at least hope -- someone's guilty.

"In Texas in the late sixties and early seventies, it was so Democratic that no Republican had enough pull to have a parking ticket fixed [let alone get someone into the National Guard]." -- Robert, Lubbock, TX -- email to Fox NewsWatch, 9-18-04

Besides, Daddy Bush (GHWB) was only a junior Republican U.S. Congressman at the time and had absolutely NO influence in the LBJ/Barnes-dominated state government in Austin.   THE reason they took W was because the Texas Air National Guard didn't have enough applicants to be pilots at the time, while almost all the other services did.

Bush served HONORABLY, with multiple links HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1230803/posts

"The [Texas Air National Guard] records released Tuesday also include orders for an August 1971 training mission in Canada, where Bush impressed his commanders. An evaluation written nine months later said Bush's 'skills as an interceptor pilot enabled him to complete all his ADC (Air Defense Command) intercept missions during the Canadian deployment with ease'." -- The Wichita Eagle, 10-5-04

Kerry's questions are answered here:  http://snipurl.com/a71g

This whole SeeBS fiasco was based on such an irrelevant non-story from the git-go that one can only presume there was a complete breakdown, or even lack, of standards and possibly, even malice aforethought, especially if you review the timeline of the SeeBS fiasco here:
http://snipurl.com/a3y6

Golly, it would have been nice to say, well, they both were irresponsible kids who got away with really, really bad stuff, but hell, it's all water over the dam, etc.  EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT TURNS OUT IF W GOT INTO ANY MISCHIEF, IT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT THEY'VE TRIED TO FRAME HIM FOR.  The NYTimes' and Flim Flam Dan Rather's claims that yes, the memos are fake, but what they say is true -- amounts to saying it's OK to fabricate and plant evidence if you think -- or at least hope --  someone's guilty.

As far as the documents go, their fraudulence is demonstrated here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog   and here: http://snipurl.com/9cvj
See what a REAL Texas Air National Guard document from the '70s looks like HERE: http://www.geocities.com/bush_not_awol/document40.html

The latest attempt to prove the phony memos are "real" (this time by Utah Professor David Hailey), is shown to be yet ANOTHER fraud here:  http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003851.php

The Texas forgery code provides that publication of two or more fake government documents is a felony.  Follow the updates on CBS's tampering with the evidence in this crime HERE:  http://snipurl.com/9eqw   Further, there may have been a criminal conspiracy to use forged documents in an attempt to influence a Presidential election, a federal crime.

-- all from  http://freedomkeys.com/w-tangfacts.htm 

[FreeKeys]

http://snipurl.com/c1iu is the page where ABC moved its report on STAUDT denying special treatment for W.

[FreeKeys]

Friday, September 24, 2004 

Col. Ed Morrisey Jr., Air National Guard (retired), answers questions Thursday at the Blount County Library about President Bush's entry into the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. - 09-24-2004 
Iva Butler /The Daily Times 

Man who swore Bush into Air Guard speaks out

2004-09-24
by Lance Coleman
of The Daily Times Staff

Ed Morrisey Jr. has his opinion about rumors President Bush received preferential treatment when he was allowed into the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s.

The Blount Countian also has firsthand knowledge.

The 75-year-old Jackson Hills resident is a retired colonel with Texas Air National Guard. He swore Lt. George W. Bush into the service in May 1968.

On Thursday, Morrisey said the argument that Bush got off easy by being in the National Guard doesn't take into consideration the context of the 1960s.

``Bush and the others were flying several flights day or night over the Gulf of Mexico to identify the unknown,'' he said. ``The Cold War was a nervous time. You never knew. There were other things going on equally important to the country, and the Air National Guard had a primary role in it.''

Morrisey said the commander he worked for at the unit in Texas was sent there to rebuild the image of the unit. There were only two to four pilot training slots given to them per year, he said. Individuals questioned by an evaluation board and then chosen by the commander had to be the best.

``Bush was selected and he turned out just fine,'' he said.

According to Morrisey, after Bush began working as a fighter pilot, he became regarded as one of the best pilots there. Unit commander Col. Maurice Udell considered Bush to be one of his top five pilots, Morrisey said.

``The kid did good,'' he said.

Each pilot had to perform alert duty where they patrolled for unidentified aircraft during the threat of the Cold War, Morrisey said.

``Bush Jr. did good for us,'' Morrisey said. ``He pulled alert and he did it all.''

Morrisey said that while Bush didn't get preferential treatment, not everyone was allowed into the National Guard.

``We wanted the best we could get. We never knowingly took an unworthy individual in the units I belonged to,'' he said. ``You're only as good your worst individual.''

This isn't the first time a reporter called Morrisey asking whether or not Bush received preferential treatment. Shortly after Republicans nominated Bush for president in 2000, a reporter from Texas called Morrisey.

``That floored me. The only people that got preferential treatment was when Jimmy Carter pardoned those guys that went to Canada,'' he said of individuals who fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the war in Vietnam.

Speaking of the controversy surrounding Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam era, Morrisey said: ``I think it's tragic. I think real people can filter through this. At least I hope so.''

Morrisey said he agreed with Bush's work as president and supported the administration's aggressive stance toward fighting terrorism and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

``We've got to eliminate terrorists,'' he said. ``Let's get them where they're living instead of them getting my grandkids and great-grandkids here.''

Morrisey worked as the executive officer of the 147th Fighter Group from February of 1967 to July of 1968. From Texas he came to Alcoa where he was the first commandant of the Noncommissioned Officer Academy at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base. He also was ``dedicated to the development'' of the Air National Guard Leadership School and the Officer Preparatory Academy to commission Air Guard officers.

He was commandant for all three schools and became the first commander of the I.G. Brown Professional Military Education Center.

Morrisey has been involved in the community, including being a former member of the Blount Chamber of Commerce, president of the Maryville Kiwanis Club, Blount County Boys Club board member and on the ALCOA Scholarship Selection Committee. 

---

-- from  http://www4.thedailytimes.com/  9-24-2004

[FreeKeys]

The VOLUMINOUS files fisking the SeeBS documents at LGF have been moved here: http://snipurl.com/c1k0