The Times this morning features a page one, above-the-fold story that blares “Monitors in Iraq Review Votes Where ‘Yes’ Ballots Hit 90%.” Now, voter fraud is never a good thing, we can all agree. But the Times is suspicious because in Shiite and Kurdish areas where the constitution was expected to be adopted overwhelmingly, it appears to have garnered over 90 percent support instead of, say, 70 to 80 percent support.

Is that the stuff of Page One? In the past, the Times has seemed remarkably unconcerned about voter fraud when it appeared to play a likely decisive role in the victory of Venezuela’s leftist strongman Hugo Chavez, or of Clinton-fave Aristide in Haiti. It also treats Ahmadinejad in Iran as if he were the legitimately elected president of Iran, notwithstanding that the mullahs barred opposition candidates from even contesting. Why is it suddenly a major story in Iraq that a result expected, in places, to be one-sided turned out to be really one-sided?

Iraq had a free election, and even skeptics about its constitution (as I have been) have to marvel at the bravery of the Iraqi people and their fierce determination to emerge as a self-determining nation, against great obstacles. The country is concerned enough about legitimacy that its own “Independent Election Commission of Iraq” is looking into the vote, and delaying official results, without prompting. Is there no stunningly good news in Iraq that the Times can report without its sniping, Bush-bashing edge?