Here's a report (by Olivier Guitta of The American Thinker) which isn't getting much attention, so I thought I'd link to it here.

As far as I know, the following story has not been picked up by the US media, and that is definitely a mistake. You will see why shortly. Out of all places, I found this amazing piece in one of the most virulently Anti-American newspapers in Paris, Le Monde, in the June 25, 2004 issue.

The French reporter tells the story of an Iraqi from Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, who recently saved the lives of four US soldiers.

This hero wants to be called “Ahmed” because he does not want his true identity revealed. Ahmed fears that if anyone found out, his house would be hit right away by a rocket. He adds that he can only speak to the reporter because he is in a café in Baghdad, and not in Tikrit. Ahmed is very upset by the terror instilled by the insurgents. He remarks that even in mosques, imams cannot speak about non-violence -- otherwise their lives are threatened.

Ahmed then explains what happened on a Friday in June around Tikrit. He was picnicking with his sister and nephews when they saw an overturned US Humvee. They approached the vehicle and saw that four American soldiers injured, including two unconscious ones. At first, the soldiers were scared because they were quite certain that Ahmed was going to kill them. But then when they saw the whole family around, the soldiers grew less worried.

Ahmed doesn't speak a word of English, but nevertheless remembered the word “relax ,” and tried to explain with his hands that he would take them to the hospital. But the soldiers began yelling “NO, NO,” and asked Ahmed to take them to the US base. So, Ahmed took the two unconscious soldiers in his car and drove them to the nearest American base, while his sister stayed with the other two.

Upon arrival at the base, Ahmed was arrested, because the American soldiers obviously did not understand his Arabic explanation. But a translator soon sorted out the situation and told the soldiers from the base to go with Ahmed to fetch the two injured remaining soldiers. And they did. The GIs wanted to thank Ahmed with money, but he refused categorically and told them that he did not need any reward. Ahmed wanted more than anything else that his identity be kept secret because otherwise he would be killed on the spot by the insurgents.

Ahmed's wisdom about the situation in Iraq is incredible. He is very grateful to the US. That is what he had to say: “The Americans did not come alone and without support in Iraq. Four million Iraqis residing abroad and millions of Iraqis inside the country were totally behind them. The proof is that nobody fought to save Saddam's regime. Today, an honest Iraqi citizen can only call for the American departure. But I believe we have to help them leave in a peaceful manner. The guerillas only sabotage. They are the biggest obstacle to the reconstruction of Iraq.”

I suspect it isn't getting much play because in what passes for a morality play, the Americans are supposed to be the villains. (Or, at least, worse villains than Saddam Hussein or al Qaida.)

UPDATE: I knew of Le Monde's anti-American reputation, but still, until I read this, I hadn't appreciated the true perfidy of that vast coverup machine called The Washington Post. (To be sure, if ever cornered, they'd say it's all the fault of a 31 year old reporter who's in over his head, but considering the history of the Post I'm not buying):

Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.

Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.

This effect is magnified because of the Post's influence on what other news organizations report. While its national clout lags behind the New York Times, many reporters look to the Post for cues on how to approach a story. The Post interprets events, and the herd of independent minds bleat their approval and start tapping on their keyboards with their hooves.

....Don't take my word for it that the Post’s reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.

....Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Imagine! The anti-American French are fairer to the American military than the Washington Post.