I posted this comment earlier. Clearly, I should have waited for this article, but I just had to get this out there. I hope you will find the appropriate fora to reveal Couric for who she is : an enemy of the people.

Please, please comment on Katie Couric's "reporting" from Iraq. She just said that the people (Iraqi) want us to stay! She also said that the number of Iraqi "militia," "police," "national guard" or some other unit has "increased" to 19,000 and that "reports of violence" are "down" from like "14,000" to "400." The last numbers are not exact but they were that skewed! WTF, people. Who saw Bushspeak yesterday? Who believes a word that f####### says! Now, Couric says Bush "expressed his frustration" at the Maliki government. Gimme a break. This, I hope, is the reason nobody watches her. I never liked her, but this just confirms it.

Couric reveals her lack of knowledge when she says, "General Petraeus is a straight-shooter."
As Paul Krugman pointed out yesterday in the New York Times: "And General Petraeus's history also suggests that he is much more of a political, and indeed, partisan, animal than his press would have you believe. In particular, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed - wrongly, of course -that there had been 'tangible progress' in Iraq, and that 'momentum has gathered in recent months.' Is it normal for serving military officers to publish articles just before an election that clearly help an incumbent's campaign? I don't think so."

General Petraeus is not a "straight-shooter" and it's time the media stopped reporting the way they did when President Bush assured us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Doh!

Another example of how "news" is conducted.