I was just reading the online editorial from the Economist about President Bush's second term. They describe the effort in Iraq as a "disaster." The editorial states:
Mr Bush's second term is not going well. The most visible disaster remains Iraq: the euphoria of the January election has worn off, six out of ten Americans want to bring their troops home and he has failed to get much help from the Europeans.
How accurate is it to describe Iraq as a disaster? Reporters in Iraq seem to be nothing more than ambulance-chasers. They go from one incident to another.
Hey, I could make Lansing, MI seem like Beruit during their hostilities if I reported on nothing but the police calls everyday and every night. Why are reporters afraid to get out with the people and report what's going on with them in Iraq? Maybe, it's not the reporters, but the bias of the editors.
If that's the case, then the American people are really being cheated. They are only getting one-side. Where's Sigma Delta Chi when you really need it?