Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANG Colonel Denies Bush Got Preferential Treatment (Col. Staudt-CBS Memos are fakes) [must read]
ABC News ^ | 9/17/04

Posted on 09/17/2004 12:56:21 PM PDT by Cableguy

The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush.

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cbs; danrather; denial; ltbush; napalminthemorning; staudt; tang; walterstaudt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-211 next last
To: Frumious Bandersnatch

Dear Frumious Bandersnatch,

I thought that in the Navy, now, they referred to Rear Admiral "Upper Half" (two stars) and "Lower Half" (one star).

As to the Army, the general in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was a Brigadier General, I thought.


sitetest


41 posted on 09/17/2004 1:17:25 PM PDT by sitetest (Spitball Kerry for Collaborator-in-Chief!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mlbford2

The reply by Dan Rather was "It's not a matter of whether these documents are real, it's a matter of whether Bush fulfilled his obligations in the ANG. Mr. Bush. Answer the questions."

(major sarcasm)


42 posted on 09/17/2004 1:17:27 PM PDT by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
">These are real military orders from 1970.

These are Moveon.org fakes on drugs.

Any questions?

43 posted on 09/17/2004 1:17:45 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

Gee wiz. Why wasn't Staudt interviewed or quoted by 60 minutes in the first broadcast?


44 posted on 09/17/2004 1:17:54 PM PDT by RobRoy (You only "know" what you experience. Everything else is mere belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

So - maybe we'll be seeing a "Wrestlemania" segment pitting the 86 year old secretary against the retired officer ???? Maybe Dan Rather will referee ? Maybe Al Gore will sit in the front row, watching, eating an entire box of Krispy Kremes?


45 posted on 09/17/2004 1:19:22 PM PDT by bioprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
What frequently happens is that rank can be awarded, and the bars pinned on) but the permanent rank (the "date of rank" in the records for pay purposes!) is fixed.

For example, I received notice of promotion April 15, for a date of rank of May 31, and a pay grade change (from time in service of my commission date of May 6.)

So, when my CO received the message of my promotion, he "frocked" me to LT Allowing me to put the LT bars instead of Ltjg bars). I signed my name that way rector instrument inspections, and my records show that.

My pay changed 6 May due to longevity, and my official rank changed 31 May, plus another pay change due to the official promotion on 31 May.

It's confusing, don't worry about it.

Legit, just a weird military how-to-do-things-to-confuse-liberals SOP.
46 posted on 09/17/2004 1:19:34 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Staudt wasn't interviewed the first time because CBS knew what he was going to say: George magazine said he already denied in their Oct 2000 story about this same thing.
47 posted on 09/17/2004 1:20:55 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
I can't believe this. I mean what's stunning is Dan Rather and CBS failed to follow Basic Journalism 101: call up the source and verify the story, namely - did President Bush get preferential treatment in the TANG? This is something they teach every one who aspires to become a reporter their first year in journalism school --- get your facts straight before you run with the story. CBS didn't follow this rule and now their rival pulled the ground right from underneath them. Dan Rather's histoire not because he made a mistake but because he failed to correct it when it became obvious it was not true. Americans are forgiving of people who 'fess up but have a low regard for arrogance and deceit. And what's hurting CBS is also hurting Kerry bigtime.
48 posted on 09/17/2004 1:21:56 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
How in the heck can cBS report a story and not interview the person the forged memo talks about? What a bunch of bull! It just goes to show that these people who get into journalism aren't very smart and they assume the rest of us are as stupid as they are.
49 posted on 09/17/2004 1:22:11 PM PDT by JustRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

You mean C-BS worked on this story for five years and never thought to interview this guy?


50 posted on 09/17/2004 1:22:47 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
BG's can retire as a BG. Happens all the time.

Regarding Guard BG's, maybe they have some sort of formula that determines your retired rank, such as number of years/points and other such stuff. Or maybe the guy was frocked to the BG rank and never officially promoted. Don't know, but BG's are not like Commodores in that regard.

Cheers
51 posted on 09/17/2004 1:22:47 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
I love the guy, Staudt said of Bush. I'm so tired of this negative crap about him that I'd like to volunteer to build a barn and take you press guys out behind it and kick your asses

Bush's partial history - Independent Media TV <-- March 14, 2004

52 posted on 09/17/2004 1:24:09 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
When he interviewed for the job, Bush was eager to join the pilot program, which Staudt said often was a hard sell. "I asked him, 'Why do you want to be a fighter pilot?' " Staudt recalled. "He said, 'Because my daddy was one.' He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for."

That about sums it up. There could have been no better answer. TANG was fortunate to have had the likes of GWB in their proud ranks.

53 posted on 09/17/2004 1:24:42 PM PDT by lonevoice (Vast Right Wing Pajama Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Gee wiz. Why wasn't Staudt interviewed or quoted by 60 minutes in the first broadcast?

C=bs had to have know Gen Staudt position was because he has spoken before and has always consistently stated the same thing. I know for a fact he spoke out in 2000, He has always said that the TANG in 1968 was always in short supply of good fighter pilot candidates. He has always stated that there was no wait for highly qualified candidates.

This just doesn't help the MSM so it never gets any air time, but Gen Staudt has stated this same thing time after time after time.

54 posted on 09/17/2004 1:25:01 PM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BoBToMatoE

Your spelling Rather sucks and besides, Dan doesn't knead another death kneel: all the media is sucking his a*s, Kerrying his favors, blowing his horn, and trumpeting his "defense" .....


55 posted on 09/17/2004 1:25:14 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins

"A general can retire as a colonel. It's some kind of weird formula they have in the Pentagon about rank versus retired rank.

The article says he is Colonel Staudt but that he was brigadier general of the unit. Anyone know how this works?"

I think I can explain. National Guard officers received their commission from the governor of their state first. Then later they receive what is called Federal Recognition of the commission and rank as a USAR officer.

In 1982 I was recruited by the OK Army National Guard to receive a direct commission as a Second Lieutenant of the Chemical Corps (WMD specialist). I was initially commissioned by the governor of the state. Then about 6 month later the federal government granted me "federal" recognition by recognizing my rank and giving me a USAR commission.

Probably, Staudt was picked by the Governor of Texas to be a Brigadier General when he was only recognized by the feds as a colonial of the USAR. By the way, the Governor of a state's guard usually picks general officers. Whatever, I would guess that either the federal government never federally recognized Staudt's rank, or he retired before they could.



56 posted on 09/17/2004 1:25:22 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"Staudt wasn't interviewed the first time because CBS knew what he was going to say: George magazine said he already denied in their Oct 2000 story about this same thing."

More evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people. CBS and Dan Rather should be formally charged and brought to trial.

57 posted on 09/17/2004 1:25:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Could also be that ABC News just doesn't know what they are talking about. I bet on that scenario.


58 posted on 09/17/2004 1:26:05 PM PDT by MindyW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

Pssssst! Dan. The fat lady is walking up to the microphone.


59 posted on 09/17/2004 1:26:50 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

What's left in this story for dannyboy to break with? Its a forgone conclusion no mention of this on SEE-BEE-ESS tonite.


60 posted on 09/17/2004 1:27:24 PM PDT by CT CONSERVATIVE (NOT FAIR-That's Dan's Story to Break!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson