NEW YORK (CNN) - Some journalists just can't stand success... especially certain liberal columnists and newspapers, and a few Arab reporters.

The New York Times in its Sunday editions was kind enough to reassure us in its editorial that while they did not "belittle the achievement of American fighting forces," they sure hope Mr. Bush doesn't think the overthrow of the Hussein regime validates the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes. And goes on to say the administration's noble goals of righting wrongs were overshadowed by an arrogant, go-it-alone stance. The Times apparently believes the French and German governments should have a veto over noble goals, or is it just when those goals are pursued by this administration?

At least The Washington Post forthrightly admitted that the Bush Administration was right to act against Saddam Hussein, and said straightforwardly that France, Germany and Russia were obstructionists. But then the Post went on to helpfully suggest the United States should restore order in Iraq, and ensure delivery of humanitarian supplies. I'll bet the White House appreciates the Post calling for precisely what the administration has said it would do from the outset.

And several Al-Jazeera journalists have been on the air for several days saying the presence of US troops in Iraq is upsetting to many Iraqis and Arabs everywhere, and I haven't heard a single one of those journalists credit the United States for overthrowing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

But I wonder why those same Al Jazeera journalists aren't asking why those Iraqis and the so-called Arab street weren't more upset about Saddam's torture of their fellow Iraqis and Arabs? Curious, don't you think?