You sure have a beef against Snopes, don't you? Most of us around here consider it the bible of debunking. Maybe what you're really looking for is unquestioned affirmation of your conspiratorial suspicions. In that case, Snopes is definitely the wrong site to reference.
I used to, until I detected a leftist slant to their site, something serious debunkers avoid. Serious debunkers let the chips fall where they may and don't jump the gun until all facts are in. Plus they don't reconstruct a debunking to make it fit an agenda.
This is the best example;
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/navyflag.htm
This is the third incarnation of this debunking. I used to check their site every day. When this first appeared, not only did they mention the flag, but also that Clinton had no trip to Vientnam scheduled. That was the other half of the story. They were also pretty vocal about debunking the trip part of the story. A week later the Clinton administration admited that a trip to Vietnam was indeed in the works. Snopes just chopped that part off of this whole issue.
Geoff Metcalf at World Net Daily still stands behind the story, even after Snopes "debunked" it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21167
He cited active military sources who wanted to remain unknown, for obvious reasons. This would classify it as "can't be verified at this time" to serious debunkers. Snopes had it up as "False" from day one.