Replies

"Staudt must have put pressure on Killian in 1972 -- the year he retired."

yes, your point is well taken. The date the forger accused Staudt was about the pressure of "sugarcoating the evaluation". The evaluation would only have needed sugarcoating if it were the one for 72-73, which was due after May 73.

That was the one which was non-rated due to non-observation. I.E. it was NOT sugarcoated, pressure or non pressure.

SO if he did not pressure for sugarcoating in 73, and there was no sugarcoating in 73, then the allegations re his pressure from the memos fall into ashes . . .

What would said pressure have even been about in 72? ? They aren't even alleging what it was.

I'm sure her testimony can be examined, etc. But IMO, the questions about Bush's NG service have been answered by the standing O at the NG convention. HE SERVED HONORABLY. If the National Guard is happy, and chants 4 more years, who else should be questioning his qualifications for serving as President on the basis of his 'Lying' about his NG service.

How far down this hole do we intend to go? How many little old ladies in tennis shoes and assorted others will we spend time analyzing, when it means nothing, anyway.

IOW if she were MORE credible than the memos, she would have come up at once, instead.