As I've commented here before, the Wall Street Journal's regular feature, "A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq," is disturbing. Do you think the WSJ would've conducted this same service if Clinton were president and he invaded Iraq? And can you imagine the right-wing if the New York Times did this same thing regarding a sitting Democratic president?? Also, why just every two weeks for this column? Isn't there ample good news to publish each week or even twice a week? Could it be the editor of this column needs the extended time to first search high and low for good news in Iraq, and then shape or massage them into a flowing litany of heart-warming anecdotes???