Why do people think the NYTimes is biased? This story illustrates. It starts out telling us that Donald Rumsfeld is touring Iraq to see how things are going. He's told that "ttacks against American and allied troops had dropped more than 50 percent in the past two weeks," due to better intelligence.

Then the third paragraph tells us "But neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of allied forces in Iraq, would declare that the allied military had fully defeated a guerrilla offensive that began with the Ramadan holy season in late October and November."

This isn't reporting; it's argument. Do articles about the Democratic Primaries tell us that no one has won yet? Are readers asking "Does the reduction in attacks by 50% mean that we've defeated the guerrillas? I wasn't. If Rumsfeld had made that claim, it would have been in the headline, not stuck in the third paragraph. Why add that bit of negativity unless you are looking to put a negative spin on the good news? If the Times wants to opine this way, fine. Just don't portray it as news.