The irony of this is just too unbelievable. How did it slip past the editors less than a week after the Times printed unfounded rumors about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist.

Are the editors of the Times completely asleep?

I think it was Ann Coulter who used to say that the NYT had a process key (is that what you call it?) that inserted "the unsubstantiated charges of the Swift Boat Veterans."

Having someone say "I was there and that's not how it happened" is an "unfounded rumor"? That's their story and they're sticking to it.

Even when T. Boone Pickens challenged Kerry, Kerry said he was "prepared" to refute the charges, but backed off when Pickens said he wanted proof from his recrods and his diaries.

It's to the benefit of the Times and the other outlets to not put anything to the test...that way they can continue to claim there is a dispute.

There's nothing different in the NYT modus operandi.  They are still going to throw whatever they want against the wall and see what sticks.  Rush said years ago that reporters are basically lazy. They all want the stories coming to them not the other way around.

So pile on the falsehoods about Conservatives, the automatons that read the NYT will never challenge them on that. It is up to us and us alone to fight back against them.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Mr. Kerry to release his military records...

For what it's worth, I addressed Al Franken's failed attempts at challenging the SBVT:

1. Franken "Not There" on Swift Boat Claim.

2. Swifties Debunked? No. Franken Debunked.

...

Frankenlies.com: Al Franken debunked

Did you actually read the Powerline post you linked to? It says Kerry failed to release all of his records-he didn't release his reserve records. It also states that he only released them to 3 reporters, not the general public, and only released them as a "one time single release". In other words, he was afraid to let the general public see them, and would only let the reporters see them once.

Who were those reporters? All Kerry sycophants. Michael Kranish writes for the NY Times-owned Boston Globe, which endorsed Kerry. The insufferable Glen Johnson of AP totally embarassed himself on the campaign trail a couple of months ago, and the third reporter is from the ultra-left LA Times.

What's Kerry hiding? He obviously didn't want the general public to see his whole history.

As for T-Bone Pickens, he was too young to serve in World War 2, was in college during the Korean War, and by the time Vietnam came around he was too old.

Here's the money quotes from the Powerline piece you link to.

1. "The only apparent anomaly in the Form 180s is that they only authorize the release of Kerry's active duty records, not his reserve records. This could well be important, in that Kerry's antiwar activities occurred when he was a member of the reserves. On the other hand, some think that the language of the 180 is broad enough that the Navy may have released Kerry's reserve records, even though not specifically instructed to."

2. "The people who know, of course, are the reporters to whom the documents were sent. This is a very weird procedure--authorizing the records to be released, but only to specified reporters."

It's interesting to note that when other news organizations asked the Kerry folks for the same info he gave the 3 liberal reporters, they were rebuffed.

When they don't want to admit something, or find it disturbing if it's true, they label it as unsubstabtiated accusations or unfounded rumors, etc.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.