I look at placement within the article. Look at how it started:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Through 22 months of occupation and war here, the word "America" was usually the first word to pass through the lips of an Iraqi with a gripe. Why can't the Americans produce enough electricity? Why can't the Americans guarantee security? Why can't the Americans find my stolen car?
It's never about the insurgents sabotaging the infrastructure. It's never about the remnants of the Saddam regime. It's the fault of the Americans.
And then, suddenly, the story isn't about realizing that the Americans brought the good of the election. It goes from BAD AMERICANS to BAD IRAQI GOVERNMENT. And no statement of the good of the election itself.
dirt boy.......I think you are missing the big picture here IMO.......I thought the article was bringing clear the fact that the Iraqi's are now realizing it is not the Americans that are either at fault nor the saviour......it is themselves that have to fix the problems that Saddam left. The article was not intended to address the election itself but the aftermath and the thinking that is changing
You are correct despite the objections. This article is a masterful piece of the propaganda of omission. They learned their wordcraft quite well.