Interesting but not very deep.

An important story, but so sketchily told. Sources comprise Rep. Murtha's remarks at his press conference, a "no-comment" from the military, a recap of part of a Time story, and a generalization from a Vietnam vet. There's also an unsourced statement that three officers were relieved of command. And I should mention the wanton use of the word "wantonly," as another reviewer noted. Apparently, the writers want us to see this incident as a Vietnam-style atrocity of major significance, and perhaps it is, but I'd like to see more evidence.

Conveys a sense of the complexity of the conflicts in Somalia and, by extension, throughout the Muslim world. Multiple viewpoints, including some skepticism regarding U.S. claims. No heroes, no easy answers.

Good information about the health reform bill itself and a bit about the conflict leading to this compromise, but no explanation of the conflicting positions. There's only ONE! named source, the Senate President. He likes the bill, but what do patients' advocates think? How about the two senators who voted nay? How about the insurance companies? In short, this reporter hasn't done her work, and the result is superficial at best.

The topic is interesting, but is it important? The story doesn't help us know. Its sourcing/point-of-view is absurdly narrow--a certain kind of businessman, whose significance to the struggle for Iraq is never clarified. Who are these guys--dreamers or connected players of the sort that helped to start the war? To unsophisticated American readers, I imagine they come across as reasonable people trying to deal with the "worsening" craziness of sectarian strife and the insurgency (which this story confounds). The possibility that there might be other interpretations of the role of business interests and of the general situation in Iraq never enters the discourse. That's not my idea of good journalism.