Breitbart's senior management appended a long editor's note to their post that "exposes" a promotional booklet from President Obama's literary agency in 1991 that describes him as "born in Kenya," and their justification for running with it is ridiculously thin.
On a post by Joel B. Pollak, the higher ups write:
Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." ...
... we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
So they're basically saying "we don't think Obama was born in Kenya, but we'd like you to know that his identity is slippery and some people thought he was born in Kenya." Thanks, Breitbart Senior Management! Or as The Atlantic's David Graham notes succinctly, "We're not birthers, we're just raising questions so that other folks become birthers."
Just the post about the literary blurb alone wouldn't be too noteworthy or out of the ordinary for the folks at Breitbart, but the fact that they feel like they should justify their post with a lofty editor's note explaining their perfectly reasonable intentions makes it all a bit silly. Why even bother justifying yourself if your justification is so weak?