I came across this post
on AMCGLtd.com via Instantman
that even Saddam did a better job than Dubya in restoring post conflict electricity. Excerpts from the article:
Some CPA officials concede privately that the problem stems from the lack of preparation before the war. “It always comes back to the same thing: no plan,” says one CPA staffer.
Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months.
You get the idea. There's no plan, we're losing the peace, Bush is a failure, yada yada yada.
So a "lowly blogger sitting in Northern Virginia with little more than Google and a good memory for stories" does a little fact checking and comes up with the goods: Saddam restored electricity selectively to reward his pals and punish his enemies. Since the pals were in Baghdad and the rest of the Sunni Triangle, that's where the juice flowed. The US is taking a different route, restoring power throughout the nation "fairly." I'm not sure how they are choosing which part of the grid to work on, but clearly it isn't based on political favoritism (since the Sunni Triangle would be completely blacked out for the next twenty years if that were the case).
OK, nothing unusual about that so far, but then I read in the comments:
"... does this mean that you will now go through all other "outlandish" articles looking for the historical inaccuracies? And when you find these written atrocities will you highlight the mistakes that are within the article? If so, then why didn't you start back when the repubs were showing all those ads about the amazing lies that Gore was doing? And does this mean we can expect a balanced "lie detector" with the upcoming elections and ads coming from both sides?
"Besides, good job in taking away from the remaining parts of the article. You know, the areas where they are talking about the no-bid contracts going to certain companies and the corners cut to make that happen."
, finding an "inaccuracy" (spin, mistake or lie, it doesn't matter, just call it like you see it) and writing a blog post on it is not an undertaking to critically review any statement by anyone anywhere anytime. If you want to criticize Bush campaign ads (three years after the election!), be my guest. You've got a blog. Use it.
The fact is that someone found an "inaccuracy" in an old media publication. You either want to defend that publication or you simply can't stand having Dubya look like anything other than a complete failure. Either way, a blogger's failure to also criticize the people you want criticized does not make the Newsweek story any more accurate.
The only failure here (besides Newsweek's) is yours. If you think the guy's post on the story is inaccurate or misleading, show me why you think so. Sarcastic references to completely irrelevant matters such as the 2001 election or portions of the article that the blogger was not commenting on just don't make it anymore.
Heres a clue: This is the NEW media.