View Full Version : General Stoudt speaks...

Joe Seahawk
09-17-2004, 04:50 PM

We have noted several times that the most glaring error in the forged documents is not the fonts, etc., but the suggestion that in August 1973, "Staudt" was pressuring "Hodges" to "sugarcoat" Lt. Bush's evaluation. "Staudt" is Brigadier General Walter "Buck" Staudt, and the reason why the forged memo is obviously inaccurate is that Gen. Staudt retired from the Texas Air National Guard in March 1972.

One omission from the news coverage of the CBS scandal has been the reticence of Gen. Staudt, who, unlike the memos' purported author, Jerry Killian, is alive and well. General Staudt has now given an interview to ABC News, which apparently will air tonight. Here are the General's comments as reported by ABC today:

"He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard. I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them."
"He was highly qualified. He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given."

"No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard. It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

"He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for. He presented himself well. I'd say he was in the upper 10 percent or 5 percent or whatever we ever talked to about going to pilot training. We were pretty particular because when he came back [from training], we had to fly with him." [Ed.: That's a heck of a good point, if you think about it.]

Staudt retired from the Guard in March of that year and said he was never contacted about Bush's performance.

"There was no contact between me and George Bush he certainly never asked for help," Staudt said. "He didn't need any help as far as I knew."

He added that after retiring he was not involved in Air National Guard affairs. "I didn't check in with anybody I had no reason to," he said. "I was busy with my civilian endeavors, and they were busy with their military options. I had no reason to talk to them, and I didn't."

There you have it. If CBS had carried out a competent investigation into the documents' authenticity, they would have contacted General Staudt to get his reaction to the statement about him in the August 1973 memo. Had they done so, they would have learned that he had retired well before that date, and would have had to take into account his denial of the allegation in the memo, and of the whole thrust of their report.

Of course, if Dan Rather already knew that the documents were forged, it would explain why he didn't bother to have someone on that crack CBS staff, with all of the "checks and balances" he tells us about, pick up the phone and call General Staudt.

09-17-2004, 05:29 PM


09-17-2004, 07:49 PM
If you look at how CBS' story has collapsed it is pretty remarkable that there was ever a story to begin with. They're trying to spin it to keep it alive but when you look at what they're left with it ain't much:

There were a total of four experts they had review the docs. Half said they couldn't authenticate them, one said he couldn't authenticate copies under any circumstance and the other isn't done authenticating them (despite what CBS says).

One witness who they claimed had authenticated what Killian said now refutes that claim and says that CBS misled him by saying they had handwritten notes instead of photocopies.

CBS claimed that factual errors in one memo could be ignored because the person in them hadn't refuted the allegations and still had power after he retired (which he now says is untrue).

The source now appears to be a habitual Bush-basher who likened the president to Hitler. The lawyer of the possible source is a Dem activist who is running with the backing of Howard Dean's group.

Another source, the secretary to Killian, says that the documents - while forged - represent the sentiment of Killian (despite Killians wife and son directly refuting her conclusions). CBS forgot to include that she felt Bush was unfit to lead and was "selected rather than elected).

Ben Barnes, the other part of their story, has contorted his story so that it doesn't conflict with earlier statements made under oath, changed key parts of statements that he made earlier about helping Bush (claiming he did it while Lt Governor until finding out that Bush entered the guard BEFORE he was Lt Governor) and has been contradicted by his own daughter who claims that Barnes said he not only didn't help Bush but was appearing as part of the CBS story as the prelude to writing a book.

Throw on top of this all the dozens of real document experts who have called the papers forgeries and I don't really understand what CBS has to stand on anymore.

But I'm glad they're keeping the story alive...

09-17-2004, 08:14 PM
Another nail in the coffin. Their numbers are dropping faster than Kerry's.

09-18-2004, 10:06 AM
Absolutely pathetic...See-BS has responded to Staudt by saying the following:

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28818.htm"><B>In a debate this heated, one can hardly expect Gen. Staudt to endorse the point of view that he exerted undue influence.</B></a>

Now, put aside the fact that See-BS didn't even bother to contact General Staudt BEFORE they aired their story. Now that the guy has responded and informed See-BS that a) there wasn't a long line to get into the Air National Guard because the standards they required - which Bush met - were so high, b) that he didn't exert any influence of the kind See-BS claimed on behalf of Bush, and c) he directly contradicts a key point of one of the memos that See-BS had to contort themselves to support (that Staudt continued to exert control after he retired - something I guess they were assuming so their story didn't completely fall apart in the face of the facts).

See-BS's reaction? They don't change their position after they've heard from the actual person who was supposedly involved. They question his motives and dismiss his account while putting admitted Bush-haters on TV as if they're impartial witnesses and/or experts so that they can make-believe their story is still credible.

Truly disgraceful.


09-18-2004, 03:46 PM
Well, as yodelin' Dan Rather himself said (http://www.shsu.edu/~pin_www/T@S/2000/TexSimilies.html) back during election night in 2000, If a frog had sidepockets, he'd carry a handgun.