Any "mainstream" media addressing deserter-charge background?

[DeepModem Mom]

Has anyone seen any background on the deserter charge anywhere in the "mainstream" media since Peter Jennings asked his question of General Clark? Is the press unaware of the background for the charge, and think it has to do only with Bush joining the National Guard instead of serving in Viet Nam? Are they too lazy to research the charge, or do they think it was researched and dismissed in 2000? Do they consider any questioning of Bush's character out of bounds?

[jpgray]

1. No--the coverage will be "who says it, who denies it?"

The facts will NEVER enter into it.

[mitchtv]

2. Nothing to see here

keep moving- "he was honorably discharged, how could he be guilty? Old news" keep moving.

[FreeperSlayer]

3. BIG difference between deserter and AWOL

Bush was AWOL; Bush wasn't not a deserter.

Bush IS a treasonous, lying bastard though.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. A point that could be addressed if the press was doing its job --

the voting public is apparently being given no information whatsoever about this issue.

[Ivote]

5. Try this out

www.factcheck.com
lots of info

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I'm bothered by no information in the mass media...

for average Joe voter, who gets news from tv, or maybe a newspaper. Meanwhile, I'll check out the site myself -- thanks!

[democratreformed]

7. That should be factcheck.org n/t