It's interesting isn't it how with every one of these Bush bashing media freak-outs, when you dig just under the surface you find they're based on lies, distortions, historical revisionism and some Democrat's spin on the events. I would say 95% of the time you can debunk a media Bush bashing story with just a couple minutes of web research. That's why whenever there is one, I almost always know it is a lie without even doing any further research. But I always do just to have the substance to rebut their bull with.
An interesting comparison would be to go back and review the broadcast stories on Vince Foster and Monica. None of these stories was ever told with the sense of disapproval or outrage. In fact, I got the impression that the Clinton stories were reported fairly objectively, just concisely laying out facts without editorial head shaking or eye rolling. The big difference was the MSM reported those stories only once, and after that it was 'old news'. They never gave them the repetition, ad nauseam, that bad news about Bush gets.