GENERAL SHOOTS DOWN MEMOS (CBS's Pathetic Response)

In a new blow to CBS anchor Dan Rather's credibility, the man who has supposedly exerted pressure to "sugarcoat" President Bush's National Guard record has spoken out — and says the story is dead wrong. "I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," retired Brigadier Gen. Walter Staudt, who headed Bush's unit in the Texas Air National Guard, told ABC News.

The dubious documents that Rather used in a "60 Minutes" report last week that accused Bush of shirking his National Guard duty include a supposed Aug. 18, 1973, memo that claims Staudt was "pushing to sugar coat" Bush's ratings.

More than a dozen document experts — including two hired by CBS — say the memos are computer-generated fakes. Skeptics also note anomalies like the use of Army rather than Air Force terms and the fact that Staudt had retired 18 months before.

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius brushed off Staudt's statements: "In a debate this heated, one can hardly expect Gen. Staudt to endorse the point of view that he exerted undue influence."

Let me put it in FCC terms:

According to the Media Ethics Project which is seeking an FCC ruling against CBS News for promulgating its forgeries:

MEP contends that CBS actions in continuing to maintain the authenticity of the documents in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, violates the established policies of the FCC. The Commission prohibits the broadcasting of falsified, faked, distorted or staged news reports as contrary to the public interest.

CBS stands guilty of all of these violations of responsible news reporting. My concern about you, liberallarry, is that you simply do not acknowledge or even comprehend the reasoning for these FCC standards.

No, it doesn't. We have only the word of those who have already perjured themselves by their complicity in creating and disseminating these forgeries to back your attitude up.

I was arguing about the importance of the content, not its truthfulness.

As to the substantive issues, I posted some links awhile back in which - among others - Jim Hall, historian for the TANG, claims that there were no openings for pilot at the time Bush applied, and that there was a waiting list of 150 for other slots. The Boston Globe - in an article I couldn't access - said the waiting list was 500. Both these article date from 1999-2000. Bush filled out an application for the Guard in which he said he had no special qualifications for pilot and did want want overseas duties and took a test which he barely passed. Yet Staudt fell all over himself for the guy and said Bush was just the type of man the Guard wanted for a pilot. In another article - which I didn't examine closely - a pilot who served with Bush - seemed to be saying that the planes the Guard trained with were absolutely useless for combat in Vietnam. This pilot admits that the National Guard was a refuge for the privileged (but tries to make an exception of pilots) and Powell's recent statement corroborates that. There's my personal experience of the time (which I value highly and is the main reason for my attitudes).

None of this has anything to do with forged documents and most of it pre-dates 911 and the election of Bush to the Presidency.

Any comments?

Btw, how much 'preferential treatment' could GWB have received, anyway?

A lot. Enough to save him from the draft and combat in Vietnam.

How about the hundreds of thousands of others who joined the National Guard during the Vietnam years? Have they all also somehow have compromised themselves?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Are you trying to argue that proves that none received special favors? That's about as mindless as trying to argue that because most students who enter Yale do so through competitive admissions that proves that none receive legacy privilege.

The TANG during those years was known as a refuge for the privileged, so it's reasonable to suspect that many of its members were the beneficiaries of special treatment.

I'd say John Edwards is the recipient of far more preferential treatment wrt military service than GWB could ever could be accused of and I'm sure you'd support Edwards to the hilt, regardless.

I don't know anything about John Edwards' military history, but if he was a Vietnam era college student I would immediately assume a very strong likelihood that he was a draft dodger.

I don't support Kerry-Edwards at all. I think they're lousy candidates with nothing to offer. If I vote Democratic it will be because I'm so disgusted with Bush that I prefer the nothing I don't know to the something I do. I've said so on several threads.

Where's your consistency and credibility, Liberalarry? I don't see it anywhere.

That's because you're blind...and probably dumb as well.

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.