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.

Kerry out attack

During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.





times,


So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.

Hill harvest
In passing the 2005 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Congress this week handed itself a pay raise — jacking up its annual salary nearly $4,000 above a current income of $158,000.
It marks the sixth straight year that Congress has accepted an automatic pay raise. Hats off to two-term Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah Democrat, who last week made a procedural attempt to prevent the annual pay increase, but his measure was voted down 235 to 170.
Does anybody care that the congressional paycheck is growing while the country is $422 billion in debt?
"Members of Congress must think that money grows on trees," says Council for Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, who agrees that "one of the many perks of being a member of Congress is that it is the only job in which you can apparently get away with giving yourself a pay raise during a time of increasing red ink."

Flip-flopping
Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani told President Bush this week that he is sorry.
"I owe you an apology," Mr. Giuliani began. "I made a mistake during my [Republican National Convention] speech ... I said that with 64 days to go, John Kerry could change his mind five or six times about what to do in Iraq. Well, he's already changed his mind four or five times and I'm going to be proven wrong again because I think we're looking more like eight or nine times."

Outlasting Moses
"In all my years in the Senate, I have never seen the abusive tactics, shameless attacks, and polarizing and poisonous language they're now using in a desperate effort to cling to their narrow majority in Congress."
— Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, who was first elected to the Senate 42 years ago in 1962, referring to the Republicans

Hairy Kerry
So much for Sen. John Kerry's hair.
Seventy-six percent of respondents to a Grooming Lounge (where political-party heads as well as celebrities such as Bruce Willis and Elliot Gould get coiffed while in Washington) poll say President Bush has better hair than his rival.
And don't think hair isn't important in this era of television campaigns, when elections can come down to whoever looks the part.
Bushier-browed candidates, for example, have lost the popular vote in the past four presidential elections. And 92 percent of those surveyed think Mr. Kerry has the most pronounced "eyebrows of mass destruction" of the two candidates.
"In order to prevent history from repeating itself, we believe Kerry needs to have his eyebrows groomed," says Mike Gilman, co-founder of Grooming Lounge.

Pence pending
A group of more than 90 House conservatives who make up the House Republican Study Committee have named Indiana Rep. Mike Pence their new chairman for the 109th Congress.
"I am deeply humbled to be elected to lead those in Congress I have long admired for their principled and conservative stands," says Mr. Pence, who points out that his very first task is to get re-elected to a third term.

Memo vs word

Here is the memo with the same words typed on microsoft word.
No special settings, just the regular settings.
Any doubt?

Second-Guessing the Founders, Dissing the Electoral College

A Rube Goldberg contraption, the Electoral College was adopted by the Founding Fathers because it beat the alternatives. In a direct election for President, gullible voters might choose a demagogue. Worse yet, a chief executive chosen by Congress would be beholden to that body, checkmating checks and balances. To insulate them from heat and ferment, pressure and intrigue, the U.S. Constitution made the electors a temporary group, chosen in a manner prescribed by each state, confined to that state when they cast their votes. In most elections since 1788, the candidate who prevailed in the Electoral College also won the most popular votes. When he didn’t—in 1876, 1888 and 2000—the Electoral College became the mechanism (almost) everybody loves to hate.



Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, by George C. Edwards III. Yale University Press, 198 pages, $26.




New York Observer


George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, throws the kitchen sink, the stove and some old socks at the Electoral College. Electors, he reminds us, are scarcely the men of information and discernment envisioned by the Founders. With few exceptions, they are party hacks and fat-cat donors. Their names are on the ballot in only eight states. When they do their jobs, electors resemble "marionettes in a Punch and Judy show." In the last 60 years, eight "faithless" electors substituted their judgment for that of the voters; statutes binding them are unenforceable and may be unconstitutional.

The Electoral College, as Henry Cabot Lodge noted, threatens the nation with "political peritonitis." The Tilden-Hayes race of 1876 was "the fraud of the century." Several crises have been narrowly averted. With shifts of only a few thousand votes, the Presidential contests of 1884, 1916, 1948, 1960 and 1976 would have been thrown into the House, with the likes of Strom Thurmond, Harry Byrd and George Wallace holding the levers of power.

Mr. Edwards’ greatest objection to the Electoral College is that it violates the principle of political equality. His case is compelling: Since the electoral votes of each state equal the number of Congressmen and Senators from that state, small states have a much larger percentage of the electoral vote than larger states. Nor does every ballot carry the same weight. In 2003, one electoral vote in Wyoming corresponded to 167,081 persons, and to 645,172 folks in California. What happened to the Supreme Court doctrine of "one man, one vote"?

The winner-take-all system in place in every state but Maine and Nebraska (where a few electors are chosen in districts), Mr. Edwards adds, disenfranchises millions of voters and depresses turnout. What incentive was there, really, for a Bush voter in New York or a Gore voter in Texas to come to the polls? In effect, their votes went to the winner.

And yet the Electoral College has defenders. They believe that the Electoral College is a pillar of American federalism, which divides power between the national government and the states. The Electoral College forces Presidential candidates to work with governors and other state-based officials to knit together groups in broad coalitions and to pay attention to state interests. It prevents them from ignoring states with small populations.

Mr. Edwards energetically rebuts these arguments. Even James Madison, he points out, recognized that "the President is to act for the people not for States." At one time, states did have coherent, unified interests; slavery is the prime example. In the 21st century, states are diverse and heterogeneous; their populace does not have a single interest in common. Although they live in the same state, residents of Chicago and Cicero, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Monticello, share little with one another. Farmers, members of the American Federation of Teachers, gays and individuals earning more than $200,000 a year often reach across state lines to ally with those like them. Every once in a while, a special-interest group does deliver a state for its candidate. Should we retain the Electoral College, Mr. Edwards asks, because it allows Cuban-Americans in Florida to dictate the foreign policy of the United States?

The Electoral College, Mr. Edwards maintains, does not ensure that candidates will appeal to specific state interests or devote a disproportionate amount of time to small states. Candidates almost never speak about local or state issues. More importantly, Presidential aspirants spend virtually all of their time in the "battleground" states. In 1996, Bill Clinton made no campaign appearance in 19 states; Bob Dole visited only 21 states, steering clear of 14 of the 17 smallest states. Four years later, 17 of the 28 smallest states saw neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush. New Mexico and Iowa hosted them more frequently than New York, Texas and Ohio put together. Neither federalism, democracy nor good government is served, Mr. Edwards concludes, when so much attention is lavished on states solely because they are "in play."

If, then, the Electoral College is so bad for America, why hasn’t it been abolished? State legislators, members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senators—the very people who must vote to amend the Constitution—are not likely to be moved by Mr. Edwards’ meticulous analysis. They might agree, in private, that states do not have coherent interests. But they know that states do have interests—and that politicians stay in office by looking after them. Yes, all politics is local, so state officials would like a candidate to visit. But far more important to them is the journey of federal appropriations from Washington, D.C. When the pork stops here—that is, in the state capitals—politicians claim credit before sending it to cities and towns. Try telling them that delivering their state to the winner doesn’t get them a bigger slice of federal largesse. Or that federalism will continue to work just as well without an Electoral College.

One final objection, and it is a big enchilada, bedevils abolitionists. Direct election of Presidents does promote political equality. But to avoid the possibility of electing a President who has only a plurality in a crowded field, advocates of direct election provide for a runoff if no candidate gets 40 percent of the vote. The runoff, Mr. Edwards acknowledges, "has some potential to fragment the party system." He argues, strenuously, that runoffs would be rare and would not destabilize the political system. The provision, however, is fraught with danger. Third-, fourth- and fifth-party candidates—let’s call them Ralph, Ross and Lyndon LaRouche—could enter the first round. Without a winner-take-all in each state, voters might be less likely to think they were wasting their votes on them. These reforms might weaken the already fragile two-party system—which, for all its flaws, has served this country well—and put fringe parties in the driver’s seat, à la Israel. It doesn’t seem worth the risk. Maybe, after all, the Founders were right.

Second-Guessing the Founders, Dissing the Electoral College

A Rube Goldberg contraption, the Electoral College was adopted by the Founding Fathers because it beat the alternatives. In a direct election for President, gullible voters might choose a demagogue. Worse yet, a chief executive chosen by Congress would be beholden to that body, checkmating checks and balances. To insulate them from heat and ferment, pressure and intrigue, the U.S. Constitution made the electors a temporary group, chosen in a manner prescribed by each state, confined to that state when they cast their votes. In most elections since 1788, the candidate who prevailed in the Electoral College also won the most popular votes. When he didn’t—in 1876, 1888 and 2000—the Electoral College became the mechanism (almost) everybody loves to hate.



Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, by George C. Edwards III. Yale University Press, 198 pages, $26.




New York Observer


George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, throws the kitchen sink, the stove and some old socks at the Electoral College. Electors, he reminds us, are scarcely the men of information and discernment envisioned by the Founders. With few exceptions, they are party hacks and fat-cat donors. Their names are on the ballot in only eight states. When they do their jobs, electors resemble "marionettes in a Punch and Judy show." In the last 60 years, eight "faithless" electors substituted their judgment for that of the voters; statutes binding them are unenforceable and may be unconstitutional.

The Electoral College, as Henry Cabot Lodge noted, threatens the nation with "political peritonitis." The Tilden-Hayes race of 1876 was "the fraud of the century." Several crises have been narrowly averted. With shifts of only a few thousand votes, the Presidential contests of 1884, 1916, 1948, 1960 and 1976 would have been thrown into the House, with the likes of Strom Thurmond, Harry Byrd and George Wallace holding the levers of power.

Mr. Edwards’ greatest objection to the Electoral College is that it violates the principle of political equality. His case is compelling: Since the electoral votes of each state equal the number of Congressmen and Senators from that state, small states have a much larger percentage of the electoral vote than larger states. Nor does every ballot carry the same weight. In 2003, one electoral vote in Wyoming corresponded to 167,081 persons, and to 645,172 folks in California. What happened to the Supreme Court doctrine of "one man, one vote"?

The winner-take-all system in place in every state but Maine and Nebraska (where a few electors are chosen in districts), Mr. Edwards adds, disenfranchises millions of voters and depresses turnout. What incentive was there, really, for a Bush voter in New York or a Gore voter in Texas to come to the polls? In effect, their votes went to the winner.

And yet the Electoral College has defenders. They believe that the Electoral College is a pillar of American federalism, which divides power between the national government and the states. The Electoral College forces Presidential candidates to work with governors and other state-based officials to knit together groups in broad coalitions and to pay attention to state interests. It prevents them from ignoring states with small populations.

Mr. Edwards energetically rebuts these arguments. Even James Madison, he points out, recognized that "the President is to act for the people not for States." At one time, states did have coherent, unified interests; slavery is the prime example. In the 21st century, states are diverse and heterogeneous; their populace does not have a single interest in common. Although they live in the same state, residents of Chicago and Cicero, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Monticello, share little with one another. Farmers, members of the American Federation of Teachers, gays and individuals earning more than $200,000 a year often reach across state lines to ally with those like them. Every once in a while, a special-interest group does deliver a state for its candidate. Should we retain the Electoral College, Mr. Edwards asks, because it allows Cuban-Americans in Florida to dictate the foreign policy of the United States?

The Electoral College, Mr. Edwards maintains, does not ensure that candidates will appeal to specific state interests or devote a disproportionate amount of time to small states. Candidates almost never speak about local or state issues. More importantly, Presidential aspirants spend virtually all of their time in the "battleground" states. In 1996, Bill Clinton made no campaign appearance in 19 states; Bob Dole visited only 21 states, steering clear of 14 of the 17 smallest states. Four years later, 17 of the 28 smallest states saw neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush. New Mexico and Iowa hosted them more frequently than New York, Texas and Ohio put together. Neither federalism, democracy nor good government is served, Mr. Edwards concludes, when so much attention is lavished on states solely because they are "in play."

If, then, the Electoral College is so bad for America, why hasn’t it been abolished? State legislators, members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senators—the very people who must vote to amend the Constitution—are not likely to be moved by Mr. Edwards’ meticulous analysis. They might agree, in private, that states do not have coherent interests. But they know that states do have interests—and that politicians stay in office by looking after them. Yes, all politics is local, so state officials would like a candidate to visit. But far more important to them is the journey of federal appropriations from Washington, D.C. When the pork stops here—that is, in the state capitals—politicians claim credit before sending it to cities and towns. Try telling them that delivering their state to the winner doesn’t get them a bigger slice of federal largesse. Or that federalism will continue to work just as well without an Electoral College.

One final objection, and it is a big enchilada, bedevils abolitionists. Direct election of Presidents does promote political equality. But to avoid the possibility of electing a President who has only a plurality in a crowded field, advocates of direct election provide for a runoff if no candidate gets 40 percent of the vote. The runoff, Mr. Edwards acknowledges, "has some potential to fragment the party system." He argues, strenuously, that runoffs would be rare and would not destabilize the political system. The provision, however, is fraught with danger. Third-, fourth- and fifth-party candidates—let’s call them Ralph, Ross and Lyndon LaRouche—could enter the first round. Without a winner-take-all in each state, voters might be less likely to think they were wasting their votes on them. These reforms might weaken the already fragile two-party system—which, for all its flaws, has served this country well—and put fringe parties in the driver’s seat, à la Israel. It doesn’t seem worth the risk. Maybe, after all, the Founders were right.

A revolution in news

"The major advances in civilization are processes which all but
wreck the societies in which they occur."

That observation by the British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead came to mind this past week as I watched Dan Rather struggle violently like a proud old marlin
caught on a hook by the young Internet fishermen. Twisting and turning, the great fish only drives the hook deeper in. Plunging and rising, it only exhausts itself while the exuberant Internet fishermen carefully manage the line and grab for the powerful hand hook with which they will end the great fish's sea-life.






Washington Times





I like a good fish dinner, but I've never cared much for fishing, as I hate to see a noble creature in its death agony. Yet that is what we are observing. This week it is Dan Rather and CBS News, through their failed effort to prove the legitimacy of their forged Bush National Guard documents, who are being revealed as hapless, helpless victims of an anarchic, swarming, overwhelming Internet blog technology. Soon, other great news institutions inevitably will be revealed for their inadequate capacity to fully report the news.
As in all revolutions, first, the old order must be destroyed, then we will learn both the strengths and the shortcomings of the new order. We got a glimpse of the Internet blogger's strength this past week.
For three-quarters of a century until last week, when CBS News had entered a fight it had been an unfair mismatch for its adversary. The credibility, research capacity and gatekeeping monopoly of CBS would overwhelm its victim. But last week it was breathtaking to see, moment by moment, the Internet blogger's advantage.
CBS did what it always has done: It produced and broadcast a highly polished segment in which the argument was magisterially framed to its advantage, with the facts favorable to CBS cherry-picked for presentation while annoying contrary facts were ignored. Carefully edited prime-time-quality interviews of their supposedly authoritative expert witnesses were laid in. The whole package was opened, narrated and concluded with dignified contempt for their victim by their star asset, Uber-anchor Dan Rather. Enough said. Full stop. Next matter. Long live the King.
Then the bloggers went to work. From the four corners of humanity experts started deconstructing the "truth" that CBS had presented. Who knew that there are experts who specialize just in the history of IBM selectric typing balls,
or the kerning capacity of computer printing (the carrying of the tail in the letter "y" under the space of the preceding letter, as in the word "my." Typewriters can't do it; computers can.)
As each of these experts added their information to one blog, other bloggers would monitor it, pass it on, add a new fact, reorganize the analysis, synthesize new information. If new information proved wrong, it was corrected by yet another expert in the blogosphere. Mistakes were cheerfully admitted and instantly corrected. People who had filled out such forms thirty years ago added their analysis. Both technical and historic information constantly came in — ever-increasing the fullness of understanding on the topic. It was like watching time-lapse photography of a cell dividing and growing. It was as if the very mechanism for establishing truth was a living, pulsating force.
CBS had one handwriting expert against the Internet blog's legions of subspecialists. It was pathetic. CBS couldn't possibly employ enough producers to identify each and every new specialist they needed, track them down, contact them and get their testimony — at 11 p.m. or 2 a.m. The bloggers couldn't find them either. The blogger's advantage is that the experts find the bloggers. There are just millions of smart people all over the world sitting at their computers, ready to join the quest. The bloggers themselves often add powerful analytical capacity to the process. It is like a reporter having a team of high-powered lawyers helping construct the strongest possible line of reasoning to their reports — paragraph by paragraph.
The Internet bloggers picked CBS's story as clean as a school of piranhas would pick clean some poor water buffalo that wandered into their river.
The bloggers have had this capacity for a few years now. We had a pre-taste of it in the Trent Lott affair. But what has made the bloggers now a strategic component of national politics is that their readership now includes many senior reporters, editors and producers in the old media.
There are enough self-respecting old media journalists who simply cannot see the cornucopia of valid information on the Internet and then ignore it in their reporting.
So, instead of the bloggers only reaching their few million readers, they are reaching the larger mass public through the old media. The old media is becoming complicit in its own demise, just as some French aristocrats supported the revolution against their own ancient regime.
Count me a supporter of the revolution. But revolutions are messy affairs, where much of value is lost as well as gained.

Ex-Guardsman: "I Contacted Kerry Campaign."

AUSTIN, Texas -

A retired Texas National Guard official

mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about

President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along

information to a former senator working with John Kerry's

campaign.




By KELLEY SHANNON, Associated Press Writer,



Also Saturday, a White House official said Bush has reviewed disputed documents that purport to show he refused orders to take a physical examination in 1972 and did not recall having seen them previously.


The long-running story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service took an unusual twist when CBS broadcast a report on what it said were the newly discovered records. The authenticity of the documents has come into doubt.


In his first public comment on the CBS documents controversy, the president told The Union Leader of Manchester, N.H., "There are a lot of questions about the documents, and they need to be answered."


The retired Guard official, Bill Burkett, said in an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats that after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland about information that would counter criticism of Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the e-mail Saturday.


"I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. (Cleland) said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with," Burkett wrote.


Burkett, who lives just outside of Abilene, wrote that no one at the Kerry campaign called him back.


The e-mail was distributed to a Yahoo list of Texas Democrats. The site, which had about 570 members Saturday, is not affiliated with the state party.


Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke suggested collaboration between Burkett and the Kerry campaign. "The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear," he said.


In the telephone interview published Saturday, Bush replied "I don't know" to a question whether the White House had evidence that either the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party were involved in releasing the disputed papers.


"The Kerry campaign had absolutely nothing to do with these documents, no ifs, ands or buts," spokesman David Wade said. "Jim Dyke inhabits the fantasy world of spin where George Bush (news - web sites) pretends we haven't lost millions of jobs and everything in Iraq (news - web sites) is coming up roses. He'd be better served getting answers from the president, not hurling baseless attacks."


Burkett, who identifies himself as a Democrat, did not return several phone messages left by The Associated Press over the past week. There was no answer at his telephone number Saturday.


Burkett's lawyer, David Van Os, a Democratic candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, issued a statement this week saying Burkett "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush."


Burkett, who retired from the National Guard in 1999, has been cited in media reports as a source for the CBS News "60 Minutes" story about documents allegedly written by one of Bush's former commanders that indicated the future president ignored an order to take a physical.


The authenticity of the documents has been called into question by some experts and relatives of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who supposedly wrote them when he supervised Bush in 1972 and 1973. One of the memos indicated that Killian had been pressured to sugarcoat Bush's performance.


CBS has stood by its reporting, but said the network would redouble its efforts to determine the authenticity of the documents.


Leading operatives for the Texas Democratic Party did not receive Burkett's August e-mail, said Kelly Fero, one of the state party's strategists.


"The Democrats who run the party and are sort of the main strategists in Texas never saw it," Fero said. "We have lots of groups of Democrats who communicate among themselves constantly by e-mail."

Burkett, 55, told the AP in a lengthy telephone interview in February that he now is a supporter of Democrats, although at the time he said he didn't necessarily back Kerry.

He said he overheard a conversation in 1997 between then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, and then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard in which the two men spoke of getting rid of any military records that would "embarrass the governor."

Burkett said he saw documents from Bush's file discarded in a trash can a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin. Burkett described them as performance and pay documents. Allbaugh and James denied the allegations.

Burkett retired from the National Guard after more than 28 years of service because of medical reasons. He was involved in a lawsuit against the Guard over his medical benefits, which he lost on appeal.

___