"WillStG" wrote in message
...
S O'Neill
No, they become ANOTHER story. And that one is about bogus
documents.
The AWOL fact remains, and keeps its significance, with the added
feature that a misdirection was attempted (and you bit).
The fact is without the bogus evidence they didn't have
enough of story
to even run it, for a major news organization it would have been
laughable.
They *needed* the lies to justify running the story.
I agree. It would have been a non-story without the documentary
evidence. Certainly not worth the air time.
Clearly political Bias was being expressed in presenting false
documents
to prove the case (which should have been debunked) and false
testimony by
Democrat activists to prove the case (who were on the public record
contradicting themsleves already, so that should have been debunked
as well).
They ended up with no credible testimony or documents to prove their
accusation.
However, I don't believe it was "political" bias that did it; it was
the bias towards a juicy story. It may be true that the majority of
journalists favor Kerry, but that's an order of magnitude less
important than the newsworthiness of the story.
Norm Strong