Additional point which hasn't been made that supports Staudt comments. In 1968, when Ben Barnes supposedly pulled strings to get George W, Bush into the Texas National Guard, Bush Senior was a one-term Republican congressman in a still one-party state... heavily Democratic. How heavily Democratic? Republicans held no state-wide offices and only a handful of positions in the state legislature. No judgeships and no mayors of any large city in Texas. Nada! I believe Bush Senior was the lone Republican in the Texas congressional delegation and was targeted the Texas Democratic party for defeat in the '68 elections. In 1964, Bush senior had had the effrontery to run for the U.S. Senate seat of liberal icon Ralph Yarborough and had been attacked by the Texas Democrats as a northern elite carpet bagger. Of course in the Goldwater debacle, Bush lost handily. Is it remotely credible that Ben Barnes, at the time the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and one of the most powerful Democrats in the state would have been inclined to pull strings on Bush's behalf. How convenient that the "Texas oilman" who sought Bush's special treatment is now dead and can't validate Ben Barnes assertions. Look up Ben Barnes' scandal ridden past (the Sharpstown Bank swindle) which made nim a political pariah in Texas for the last 20 years and you can jusge for yourself how credible the sleazeball is. Even his own daughter doesn't trust him and has called him a liar.

The only problem with Staudt's statement is that the Kool-Aid drinkers will say he's lying now to cover up his previous bad acts, i.e. pressuring Killian and others to say good things about Bush. Staudt does point the way to more paper trail, though, if the tests and evaluations related to Bush's enty into the ANG can be tracked down and authenticated (note to Dan Rather, "authentication" is a GOOD thing).

Rather is shameless. He'll never admit to being wrong. Stick those little th's into his name whenever you have the misfortune to mention him, and be done with it.

Juat for the record Bill, This was first report over at FreeRepublic around 10:40 a.m.
/Dan is Dead

Grrrrr.... I guess I should have read your enitre post before that last comment. You did credit freerepublic...
/I need a beer

Bruce raises some very good points. Texas politics has long been ruled by corruption (remember Landslide Lyndon and Duval County.) It boggles the mind that CBS would take the word of a crook (Sharpstown) and a Kerry lackey especially when his story runs 180 degrees to the way things happened in that day.

I know a lot of people are sitting around and saying "who cares about any of this? It wsa 30 years ago!"

To me it's not about that. It's about the press itself.

Ben Barnes was the only politician I know of who was so crooked the democratic party of Texas wanted nothing do with him. The same outfit that produced LBJ couldn't stomach Ben Barnes.

Bruce,

You may be right about George HW not being a very prominent politician at the time 43 went into TANG. But wasn't his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, a rather prominent politician? Prescott was a Senator from 1952 to 1963. While Prescott was not holding office at the time 43 entered TANG, the fact that 43's grandfather was a former Senator and his father was a current Congressman could have put 43 into some kind of favorable position, no?

Prescott Bush was a Senator from CONNECTICUT............nothing to do with TEXAS politics!

You have an grammatical error in your article. You left the "no" out of this sentence as it should be "no meat left in the sandwich":

"As I demonstrated yesterday, if you take all references to and discussion of the memos out of the original 60 Minutes report, there's meat left in the sandwich, just a series of unsubstantiated charges by two known anti-Bush partisans.

Re the post, "You may be right about George HW not being a very prominent politician at the time 43 went into TANG. But wasn't his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, a rather prominent politician?"

Sure, if I were a leading Democrat politico in a Democrat state like Texas was at the time, I'd be falling all over myself to do a favor for the grandson of an out-of-office Republican senator from bloody Connecticut.

Buckley on NRO says in The Influence Behind W. about influence Bush may have used to get into the Guard, Who cares “Anybody who believes that influence isn't a factor in life was never asked to write a letter to a Congressman asking him kindly to endorse the application of Joey from next door to enter West Point. That's how much of life works. Influence is not to be confused with corruption. Influence can get you to the head of the line to get your driver's license; corruption is when you fail the test, but get the license anyway.” I agree. The story is not about Bush, it’s about the attempt of CBS to discredit the president of the United States and impact the election. I agree.

Spoken like a boomer Texan, Bruce Patrick. This crew has been in my direct line of vision all my life. Back in late 60s Houston a high school pal in Houston's dad was a mentor of Barnes. I now live near Johnson City, LBJ's hometown. Democrat insiders in the late 60s didn't do favors for Republicans. The Barnes story--without any further motive deconstruction--might be less dubious if entry into the TANG pilot program had been so highly competitive that influence was needed to gain entry. And that fact cluster, superimposed over the politics then pertaining, argues against the CBS story.

Why is anyone even talking about influence for W. now? Bill just sealed it when he pointed out that the position W applied for **had no waiting list**! Nobody was bumped. Case closed.

Is it odd or have I missed something, namely, that CBS in all of its years long investigation into this never interviewed the commanding general? Holy malarkey!

That about does it for me. An interesting factoid that the F102 training may have been more dangerous than an average tour in Vietnam is probably worth a final exposition and note. (Just to turn the knife).

Geez this is fun! I definitely won't vote for Rather for president. Does anyone REALLY care what the two principle candidates did 30 years ago?? Can we get back to something besides playing Sherlock Holmes? This is starting to sound like adolescents on the school yard.

I'm a Brit, living in London, and have watched the Dan Rather forgery story with fascination.

But until now, like Dan Rather himself, I had assumed that George Bush's conduct in the National Guard was indeed not to his credit. But now I'm starting to believe that this might have been entirely made-up nonsense.

Two things I am learning about your President are that (a) he loves to win, and that (b) one of his favourite methods for winning is to sucker his opponents into a battleground where they think they'll win ... and then kill them.

I get the feeling that Bush now doing this to the Sadaamites in Iraq. Let them (and their cheerleaders in the West in general and among the Democrats in particular) think that they're winning and that Bush is losing, let them choose what they think is the perfect battleground, and then crucify them. Operation Crucifixion is just now getting underway, if I understand present circumstances in Iraq rightly. Interesting timing, eh?

What this latest ABC story suggests to me is that maybe Bush is also doing something very similar to the Kerry Campaign re Bush's service in the National Guard. He has suckered the Democrats into a frenzied focus on Bush the skiving daddy's boy and fake warrior, only now to hit them with the story, at just the right moment, that this was actually one of Bush's more honourable early episodes.

I hereby place a bet on your forthcoming President election: f**cking Bush landslide. Thermonuclear. If Kerry thinks it's bad now, let him see how it all looks in another month. 25 point poll difference. Meltdown chez the Kerry campaign. Bush looking so smug the Democrats will be jumping off ledges.

As I say, I'm only a watcher from a distance and this comment could itself all be made-up nonsense, and the worst sort of wishful thinking. But ... well, we'll see. Just some late night thoughts.

Forgive me, I am not a regular reader of this blog, and if it and its regular commenters have explained/demolished all this at length already, then my deep apologies for the repetition.

I can't help but see the whole CBS debacle as cosmic justice. Rather masqueraded as a "journalist" for decades while in reality he was always a partisan hack using his position to advance the liberal agenda. He'll be remembered as a buffoon.

I can't help but see the whole CBS debacle as cosmic justice. Rather masqueraded as an objective journalist for decades while in reality he was always a partisan hack using his position to advance the liberal agenda. He'll be remembered now only as a buffoon.

This might be off topic but I checked out the U.S.A.F. Museum website and found out some interesting information about the F-102A that President Bush flew. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap54.htm

Stipulate for a moment that Bush Sr.'s position in some way might have influenced W's acceptance into the guard, even if Bush Sr didn't explicitly do anything.

The alleged influence wasn't used to get a deferment, it was used to let him try out to be a FIGHTER PILOT!

Jeez, the same people who are objecting to this are the ones who didn't see anything wrong with petitioning a draft board to get Clinton deferred from the draft so he could maintain "political viability" while avoiding the loathsome military.

Why doesn't someone introduce some perspective here?

Just my point. If George Bush had no cojones, why would he have wanted to become a fighter pilot? Their were many other safer possibilities.

Bravo ABC for doing CBS's job. Staudt was named in the fake papers, and CBS didn't even bother to call him.

If I may dissent in part, I hardly think Barnes's statements prove that Bush didn't use influence to get into the NG and don't prove that he didn't try to sugar coat Bush's performance review. I don't personally believe Staut is lying, but it is fair to note that he would have a strong incentive to do so if he were. Overall, he isn't any more or less credible than Killian's pool secretary.

Which is the real point. Without the Killiam memos, this is nothing more than a "he said, she said" story, and one where those who believe that "Bush got favorable treatment/ was AWOL" just HAPPEN to all be Kerry voters and those who claim that "Bush deserved to get into the NG/ was NOT AWOL" are all Bush supporters. In other words, there is NO STORY to report. But CBS ran it anyway -- and after refusing to admit to its role in attempting to perpretrate a fraud -- the one part of the story that every non-KoolAid drinking citizen in this country knows to be true. That's why the Complete Bull Sh-- Network -- and not Bush -- is the real story here.

Let me understand this now!
Kerry wants us to judge him on his four months as a lieutenant in Vietnam, but there is no mention of his twenty years as a senator.
Kerry wants us to judge Bush on fake charges 30 years ago, but none on his actions as President for the last four years.
I think Kerry needs to go back to school and learn some math and history

Rather than continuing with this line of discussion, I have tried to introduce other factors. There doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing how brave George Bush and his fellow pilots were in flying antiquated planes. Not only President Bush, but all of his friends. Has anyone here spoken with these brave Americans? How do they feel about John Kerry's and Dan Rather's views of them?

Rove is a genius.

Mr. Karpinski,

An afterthought: Why did we have such valuable resources as highly trained pilots flying around Texas when they were needed overseas?

Additionally, I seem to have misplaced my list of names of his contemporaries in the TANG--you know, the flight crew, his fellow pilots, etc. Would you happen to have a copy to share?

"Additionally, I seem to have misplaced my list of names of his contemporaries in the TANG--you know, the flight crew, his fellow pilots, etc. Would you happen to have a copy to share?"

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that Bush never flew? Haven't you seen the b&w pictures of him in his flight suit, standing next to his plane, in the cockpit of his plane? There's one at the top of the page if you want to make sure.

I've seen at least a couple of his fellow pilots talk about him on different news stations, one was featured rather prominently on Fox news a few days ago. Can't recall the names though.

SemiPundit is a regular troll. Don't try to argue with him; it's pointless.

More proof that Dan has hit the Daily Double. Reminds me of my intramural basketball team. Our motto: We may be short, but we’re slow!

The thing which strikes me most about this whole affair is the attempt, by CBS and all of its fellow travelers, to equate probable - "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof" - with possible - "being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization".

And for those not up on the exact meaning of equate, it is "to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable".

Troll or not, sometimes replying to them just helps illuminate the argument a bit more.

SemiPundit:

You have heard of the Soviet Union, right? You know, those guys who had an advanced military and against whom we were fighting a proxy war in Indochina? Those guys who had the capability of actually launching a far-ranging military attack? You know, nukes and airplanes and big, scary ships and loud guns and all that?

He was in the National Guard. He was guarding the nation during a time of war.

What the fark is so hard to understand?

SemiPundit,

"Why did we have such valuable resources as highly trained pilots flying around Texas when they were needed overseas?"

Bush flew the F-102 a high altitude supersonic fighter designed to intercept bombers. F-102's were based all around the US and allied countries to protect against Soviet bombers in case of a nuclear war.

The F-102 would have been useless for the kind of missions carried out in Vietnam.

A little Googling wouldn't kill you, you know.

One thing that has to be crystal clear. "Experts" are going to consider if it is worth the hassle to work with CBS now. How many of their experts have they misquoted or mislead? They are going to have a real problem in hiring impartial, talented analysts.

There's lots of reasons to disbelieve Staudt. Here's some quotes from the Wash.Post in 1999. Here's the short version of the url: http://tinyurl.com/792u

--start except Wash Post---
Fourth of seven articles
Two weeks before he was to graduate from Yale, George Walker Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training.

It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied. His commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP's son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush's father the congressman – a supporter of the Vietnam War – standing proudly in the background.

--end Wash Post----

And as to getting to be a pilot:
from: http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=165

--start excerpt from LA Times---
“But Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, said that records do not show a pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at the time. Hail, who reviewed the unit's personnel records for a special Guard museum display on Gov. Bush's service, said Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he began applying. While that number was two short of its authorized strength, the unit had two other pilots who were in training and another awaiting a transfer. There was no apparent need to fast-track applicants, he said.” [LAT 7/4/99]

· “The Texas Air Guard had about 900 slots for pilots, air and ground crew members, supervisors, technicians and support staff. Sgt. Donald Dean Barnhart, who still serves in the Guard, said that he kept a waiting list of about 150 applicants' names. He said it took up to a year and a half for one name to move to the top of the list. "Quite a few gentlemen were wanting to get in," he recalled. For Bush, there was no wait. He met with commander Staudt in his Houston office and made his application--all before his graduation in June.” [LAT, 7/4/99]

“Beckwith, Bush's spokesman, painted a different picture. He said that the Guard needed pilots at the time and Bush was available. "A lot of people weren't qualified" or willing to fly, he said, so special commissions were offered to those willing to undergo the extra training required.”

[LAT 7/4/99]

· “But Shoemake, who also served as a chief of personnel in the Texas Guard from 1972 to 1980, remembers no pilot shortage. "We had so many people coming in who were super-qualified," he said.” [LAT 7/4/99]

· “Records from his [Bush’s] military file show that in January 1968, after inquiring about Guard admission, Mr. Bush went to an Air Force recruiting office near Yale, where he took and passed the test required by the Air Force for pilot trainees. His score on the pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers.” [7/4/99]

--end except LA Times----

Perhaps Staudt is telling the truth and Bush got into the TANG for pilot training the same way as anyone else. Perhaps Rather is correct that the memos are genuine. Based on the evidence available, I think both are equally likely.

And based on the evidence above, why should we believe anything Staudt has to say about Bush's physical? We shouldn't.

Semipundit,
You should really do some research before you comment on things you have no knowledge of. The Soviet Union was a big threat with their bomber fleet. Regarding F-102's, they actually were used in Vietnam and other SouthEast Asia bases, primarily as interceptors and 14 were lost in combat. The NVietnamese never came South with their aircraft so they did see limited use. I sat Bomber Alert in 80's (for the good guys) and have a little personal knowledge about the Cold War threats. Regarding President Bush's fellow pilots, I've seen comments by at least a dozen guys who served with him in the MSM and on TV, I can't recall a single guy bad mouthing his skills nor service. Just for the record, piloting a single seat fighter jet, especially in the 70's was not exactly a cakewalk job.

Well, its all coming to a crystallization as Dan and CBS deal with the realities of TODAY, in sharp contrast to the was-used-to-be dynamics they manipulated in times gone by.

They've been fighting a previous war, but they've been defeated by today's people.

"From two ranks amongst mankind hath power been seized... from the kingly caste and ecclesiastics."

"I have given POWER TO THE PEOPLE."
Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God, circa 1872

--Does anyone REALLY care what the two principle candidates did 30 years ago??--

Well, when you're meeting w/the enemy in Paris in 1970, testify before Congress in 1971 and paint a picture of the US armed forces which exists around the world today, moved the meeting 3(?) times so the FBI couldn't track you to find out whether or not you're actually going to kill senators AND you've never met a commie you didn't like,

YES -- I care.

I grew up as an Air Force Brat. I think that someone who qualified for pilot training, was a graduate of an Ivy League college, and whose father was a pilot and hero in World War II would make a better candidate to be a pilot than someone without those qualifications. If Daddy was a congressman, that wouldn't hurt either.

We like to pretend that everyone is equal, but no two people are ever truly equally qualified by ambition, drive, demonstrated achievement and potential for any job.

I just love it when high school dropouts call Bush, who graduated from Harvard and Yale, dumb.

I have never cared for Dan Rather and rarely watch his newscast. He has been near the end of his run for some time now and is long overdue to find another pursuit. He and his organization must suffer the consequences of their folly.

As for Mr. Bush's service, I guess I'm just jealous. My brother and I could not get into the Guard because it was filled up with the sons of local dignitaries, so we looked to the other services, settling on the Army. I was rejected on physical grounds and my brother went on to serve two tours. I took an entry level job in research on the effects of nuclear radiation on humans, which was an issue of concern to all of us.

The recruiter encouraged me to apply for a commission in the Medical Service Corps, since I had graduated with training in areas such as histology and microbiology (thanks to deferments). The waiting list turned out to be very long and I was within weeks of being drafted.

That, and the stories we were hearing about officers getting fragged by our own men, made up my mind to go in as enlisted anyway.

So, my only long standing complaint with Bush on this matter is that he could have chosen any branch of the service, but settled on the Guard, and got in quickly. He was just like the rest of us in trying to survive.

As for the person here and there who appear attesting to having served with him, I am waiting to see a Swiftboat-type ad featuring all of them assembled together in one place, putting the matter to rest.

Regarding this memo matter, it only exists because there is somewhat of a lull in newsworthy events. It will be swept away overnight in the very near future.

Sheldon: Did you read my post? I specifically noted that Staut was not a 100% reliable witness. Now here is my question: Who is? Barnes? A discraced former speaker of the Texas Legislature (from the opposition party) who is telling the opposite story he told the world (and his own daughter) four years ago?

Burket? The man who has blamed Bush for the denial of his disability claim and who in all likeliehood committed a felony in forging (badly) the Killian Memos?

The Secretary? Didn't she say a week ago before Dan Rather fed her her "answers" on 60 Minutes II that she barely remembered Bush? And isn't Rather himself arguing she isn't credible, to the extent she is disputing the authenticity of the Microsoft Word memos in the first place?

About the only witnesses who don't have an incentive to lie and haven't changed their story are Killian's son and wife. And their verion of events contrasts sharply with CBS's.

As I said before, without the memos this is nothing more than a "he said, she said" story. A journalist should NEVER report a "he said, she said" story without airing all sides. CBS's failure to do so amounted to journalistic malpractic -- and that's on top of the fraud they committed by passing off the forged memos as genuine in the first place, and by their continued refusal to acknowledge the forgery and name their source.

Sandy P. and George B.,

Much of what you both have said about Kerry's activities in the 1970's (both factual and embellished), and about his intellectual depth may be highlighted in the upcoming debates, if they indeed occur. Aren't you worried just a little? It isn't Gore this time.

Staudt would not be a 100% reliable witness because the memos accuse him of misconduct - pressuring a junior officer to rate a subordinate higher than he deserves to be rated.

BUT - and this is a huge "BUT" - if the purpose of your investigation is to find out what happened, then you absolutely find Staudt & interview him before you run a story.

You want to know his opinion about Killian, whether he knew Bush, how Bush got into the TexANG, what Killian told him about Bush, whether he was aware of Bush going to Alabama, how he found out about it, whether Killian ever expressed concerns with Bush's performance, what he was doing for the 18 months after his retirement, etc.

And you want to show Staudt your alleged Killian memos & get his reaction to them - you can learn a lot by watching someone react to such things.

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in your "GWB the slacker" story, then you don't interview Staudt because he'll deny what the memos say about him - and then you have to deal with that denial.

Staudt doesn't have to be "100% reliable" versus the memos BECAUSE THE MEMOS ARE FAKE. It is the memos that were CBS' only hard evidence that Staudt gave Bush preferential treatment. Without the memos - which were FAKE - there is no accusation other than that from Ben Barnes, a known Kerry partisan and fundraiser, and from Mr. Strong, an anti-Bush author, both of whom have motive to lie. Against them Staudt is more credible because he is a first-person witness to the events in question. Strong is not, and Barnes has changed his story 180 degrees, so he lacks credibility especially given his partisan connection.

To put it more succinctly, Staudt is not accused by the memos of anything, and need not defend himself against the memos, because the memos have already been proven to be fake and, therefore, the memos do not accuse him of anything.

Sheldon;

1) None of the articles you cite mention that different queues, one for part time and the other for full time pilots. The pro-Bush side agrees that the waiting list for part time was long but not for the full time, which is what Bush did.

2) Note that Shoemake was in charge starting in 1972. Of course there was no shortage then and plenty of qualified pilots coming in - the USA was busy pulling out of Vietnam. Bush, however, as noted in the same article, entered in 1968, a very different time.

After stating my position on Bush's service above, I feel compelled to ask if it really was possible to avoid full-time ground-pounding in Vietnam by serving part-time as an ANG pilot?

SemiPundit;

Possibly. However, Bush served as a full time pilot for the first two years, so it's difficult to see the relevance of your question. Please try to pay closer attention in the future so as to not waste everyone's time.

SemiPundit's comments come from a domain name that is on the MT-Blacklist list of sources of comment-spam. You have to wonder if he's a comment spammer as well as a troll.

Mr. Hobbs,

As you well know, I am a member of the Rocky Top Brigade, the same as you are. My objective is to ask cogent questions, and occasionally state an empassioned position on a given issue.

Don't mistake my brevity for lack of insight and curiosity on these matters. After spending three decades in the company of scientists and engineers who beat a subject to death with details, I confess that I sometimes yield to the temptation of sharp retort.

If I should find myself barred from a given site because of my opinions and my desire to interact in a challenging way, then I will consider myself indeed fortunate to find other quarters where discourse rather than complacent reassurance is desired.

Here is the truth: I personally and passionately believe that another Bush term will do incalculable harm to the country that I love.

On top of that, I'm gonna tell Bubba.

As I "well know" ? I don't have a clue who you are, semi, other than a troll who routinely posts comments that expose your innorance of or deliberate ignoring of facts. Your blog gives no indication of who you are, and I could care less about the Rocky Top Brigade.

I don't plan on banning you, I just find it interesting that you are somehow connected do a domain that also posts spam in blog comments.

Forgive me for assuming too much. I thought you would be familiar with the membership roll since your name is also on it. I note that you also occasionally drop by Bubba's place (the hub of the RTB).

As for my identity, posting and commentiny pseudonymously (not anonymously) is the wisest course at this time, since my livelihood could possibly be impacted and I owe much more to my family than I do a little free website that gets a few visits a week. Besides, I presently have little time to attend to it. For most people, participation in comments at numerous sites gives much more opportunity to express ideas and opinions.

On being connected to a domain that posts spam in blog comments, do you mean att.net or comcast.net, which I use? I am puzzled, since I am not up to speed on many of the technicalities of this genre. Do you mean like putting ads for Viagra in the comments? I have never seen anything like that. Frankly, I don't know what you mean.

So, from West Knox County, I'm out of here for the day.

Your comments show up on the spam filter as having come from the domain it.tt, which is on the MT-Blacklist.

Beats me. Isn't that somewhere in Italy?

Maybe I've been outsourced by AT&T or Comcast.

I do not know who Semipundit is but from the standpoint of an uneducated arrogant buffoon...he is an unmitigated fool. Semipundit does not seem to realize that the conflict between the Soviet Union and its lackeys and the United States and other free nations of the World was just that.. Worldwide. The North American Air Defense Command was using TANG pilots on patrols in the Gulf of Mexico and flying down near Cuba. We had troops in Korea and Japan.. England and Germany and the Mediterrean area was home to many of our military in those years. Instead of criticizing Semipundit should be thankful that there were those who served, no matter where or in what manner.

LarryP,

Try http://semipundit.blogspot.com

You'll get some idea. There are some posts about Vietnam, my deferments, my brother's service there, etc.