The New Scientist generally does an excellent job of explaining to non-scientists the implications of advances in medicine, technology, etc., on everyday lives. This piece is no exception, and the fact that the Pentagon and NSA has refused to comment on it is proof that the magazine has, again, covered important new territory.
It's always hard to take the WSJ at face value when it comments on non-business news items. After all, it is written for CEOs who, generally, hold a certain perspective. But this analysis seems to provide an honest, overall addessment of the current situation in Iraq and the lack of an effective White House policy for getting out of the mess it created.
Kennedy does a remarkable job researching, sourcing and reporting the story, pulling together a tale of deception, theft and deceit that runs all the way to the White House. Bits and pieces of this story have been reported elsewhere, but Kennedy's take takes a lot of loose strings and weaves them together into a coherent -- and frightening -- account of what really happened in Nov. 2004.
Reuters does a good job of interviewing an author -- in this case, a former US Secretary of State -- on a highly controversial topic: Her claim that Bush allows his religious beliefs to shape public policy.
I respect Jason Leopold's reporting on Plamegate and was as surprised as Mr. Ash when the Rove indictment was not announced -- it was the first time Leopold seems to have gotten something wrong. I think the mea cupla was a bit mealymouthed and I wonder why it never appeared in a prominent place at Truthout?
As usual, Salon does a solid job of reporting an important story that mainstream media overlook -- I didn't see this reported anywhere else. Murpha has impeccible credentials to be a "whistle blower."
