RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events McCain in 08?

Actually, the "story" would appear to be as follows:

The allegations are eight years old and unproven.

The Times sat on the story for several months or years.

The New Republic (a liberal magazine) details that many editors at the Times were concerned that the story was not adequately documented to be published.

The Assocated Press reports that McCain's attorneys presented evidence to the Times to rebut the insinuations in the story but the Times chose not to include it in the article.

During the time period in which it sat on the story, the Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nomination, stating that "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," among other things. That would further seem to demonstrate that the Times editorial board had little faith in this story.

Now, after McCain becomes the presumptive nominee, the Times sees fit to run a story that consists of nothing but denied allegations and the fact that some staffers had concerns about the relationship nearly a decade ago.

Eight year old unproven (if not disproven) allegations are news?

No wonder the story is less about the unproven suspicions and more about the timing and ethics of the New York Times.