The MO of Obots is to distract the discussion away from anything that hurts Obama. The author bio seriously hurts Obama. As in, it cripples his HI narrative. All the other items you mention have been discussed & debated a million trillion times. So I choose to discuss a point the Obots hate, & for which they have no coherent answer. That bothers you. I understand. Were I am Obot, it would bother me too.
It hurts him . . how? He's still the President. He's won all the court cases directed his way. The Congress unanimously confirmed his election (twice). In the media Birtherism is a joke of an issue represented by the likes of Donald Trump and Orly Taitz. And this bio hasn't moved the needle on the gauge one bit.
Good grief. If this is "being hurt," what, pray tell, does being helped look like?
As in, it cripples his HI narrative.
Nah, that narrative has won the Hawaiian Ironman Triathlon.
All the other items you mention have been discussed & debated a million trillion times
So help me out here, what is the "Birther" response to the 1) the Indonesian school application from 1968 and 2) the Times, Post, and Tribune articles from 1990? I don't think the old saw "it's forged" bails out the Birthers in these instances.
So I choose to discuss a point the Obots hate, & for which they have no coherent answer.
The simple and coherent answer is that the bio was a small circulation piece, for which Obama was one of 90 entries; that there was no real need to proof this extensively; that the agency admitted the mistake; and that and in the context of the time (where the media outlets had just recently reported the "born in Hawaii" narrative clearly taken from interviews with Obama himself) that the mistake is obvious.