Why wont the press report the wonderful progress in Iraq?

There are those, mostly Bush sycophants, who complaining that the press only reports negative stories out of Iraq. This complaint argues that there are many good things happening, nay many many good things happening that never get reported because . . . well take your choice: The so called liberal media (SCLM); the anti-Bush bias; the blame/hate America mentality.

Recognizing that "news" is not fact, it is the reporters slant, and that there may well be good things going on in Iraq, I am still not interested in hearing about such "success" stories. It detracts from the immense horror. I suggest that is like asking me to notice the pretty little flowers pushing there way up through the ground fertile with the putrid rot of the corpses they are growing from. How tender. Like asking me to be impressed with the new curtains in the bathroom; nevermind the house is burning down all around.

No, I am interested in the press, and every other media, portraying the mess in a way that discredits Bush, his neocon minions, and cynical policies in a way that future history records this period as a demented disgrace. Maybe from that we will learn something.

I reject those who want noticed the incidental and minute results of Bush's sick policy. I want the elephant in the room to continue to be exposed. Legions of new kindergarten classrooms are nice, but not worth one death, on either side. And incidental I do mean. Had Saddam died of a heart attack, there would not be one dime of US foreign aid given to Iraq. After all, he was a brutal dictator, no? Such is the skewed reasoning of those against whom Orwell warned.