WHY? TO LIBERALS, WHEN IT COMES TO A REPUBLICAN, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE IS THE STANDARD. EVIDENCE OR THE LACK OF IT, DOESN'T MATTER. THE SAME RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE. YES, TO A DEMOCRAT! I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PROVE IT. NOW LET JOHN F*CKIN' PUT UP OR SHUT UP. FOR ONCE, AN 11TH HOUR TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY. WE HAVE A SERIOUS CHARGE HERE, PEOPLE.
WHY? TO LIBERALS, WHEN IT COMES TO A REPUBLICAN, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE IS THE STANDARD. EVIDENCE OR THE LACK OF IT, DOESN'T MATTER. THE SAME RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE.
I empathize with your frustration but don't forget - Kerry jumped on the NY Times/CBS bandwagon and now has massive egg, perhaps "ostrich" egg, all over his Botoxed face, because the story has a) been debunked in so many different ways and b) has been spun around to showcase him as not supporting and critical of the military's competence.
So going with unsubstantiated rumours without having all the facts and doing all the research risks blowing up in one's face, just ask the NY Times [and can result in libel suits but that's another matter]
No one mentions this about the NY Times which just floors me - they had 3 guys working on that story and they never bothered to research their own archives for background material before writing this story because if they had, they would have know Judith Miller filed a story on April 4, 2003 talking about the 3rd ID having arrived at Al Qaqaa a week before the 101st.
It took the blogosphere less than 24 hours to find that and it took the Times about 3 days to mention that fact finally.
I know Judith got legal problems but hey, don't reporters at the Times ever talk to each other?