Sir Cumference wrote in message ...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?


CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.

But CBS and Dan Blater were relying heavily on their forged documents to
support their claims in their report. Now they have egg all over their
faces.

We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



That is a claim directly from Barnes' daughter. I heard her on a radio
interview, she has been interview many times.

Barnes' daughter is a once removed source. That's what he was trying to say.



Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.


Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

Care to clarify that last statement?