Today’s front-page NYT story titled “U.S. Is Seeking Better Balance In Iraqi Police” cherry-picks the one negative item from General George Casey’s discussion of the Shiite mosque attack backlash:

GEN. CASEY: The reports that we have is that they were allowing the Mahdi militia to pass through their checkpoints. And, obviously, this is not something that we are going to condone, nor will the Iraqi security force leadership condone.
But as I said, this is different than August ‘04 and April ‘04. The militias didn’t take over anything, or if they did, it was quite fleeting. And when the Iraqi security forces showed up, they, by and large, yielded control.

Is truncated into this:

After the bombing, mobs led by Shiite militiamen attacked dozens of Sunni mosques and left hundreds dead. Many police units stood aside, either out of confusion or sectarian loyalties, according to Iraqi witnesses. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, said Friday that police officers had allowed militiamen through checkpoints in eastern Baghdad, where much of the violence occurred.

However, what stood out more about this piece—and caught my eye initially, more than just the usual NYT spin—was the picture used alongside the online article:

Initially our focus is on the van destroyed by a roadside bomb, with a distressed Iraqi police officer standing guard. But look behind them on the billboard. A familiar sign: the purple finger. The brutal attacks are tragic events; democracy is permanent change. It also shows what the NYT does so often: leaving it up to us to find the truth behind its reporting.