This article is an example of letting "the facts" speak for themselves without any overt interpretation by the writer. The writer juxtaposes remarks made by Bush against remarks made by Cheney. Simply by looking at what each has said, you can see that Cheney's statements are a direct contradiction of Bush's. There's really no reason for the writer to point this out for the reader.

This is clearly an "opinion" piece, not a news story in the journalistic sense. Its rhetoric is highly inflammatory, not neutral, and it engages in an "ad hominem" attack against the poll taker (that is, trash the messenger if you don't like the message.) It does not mention that polls normally take into account imbalanced representation when determining percentages. Others polls have an imbalance in the direction of Republicans, and they also follow a methodology that will balance the result.

Using clear words, a neutral tone, balanced argument, and exceptionally thorough sources, this article exposes the terrible state of our electoral process, as exemplified by the 2004 election results. Placing the entire story within the larger context of the American political system makes it obvious that the hallmark of democracy -- an honest and fair election process -- is in great danger of being lost in the United States.

The story is neutral in tone and well-sourced in terms of having specific names of U.S. personnel attached to direct quotes and mention of U.N. officials' and human rights activists' concerns. What's missing is any perspective presented from the prisoners' point of view, but that of course would be difficult to obtain, given the structure of this place. Perhaps interviewing some of the lawyers representing the prisoners involved could have provided a better "big picture."