Sunday, November 15, 2009

WP2: Final Draft


Author's Note

When deciding on what cartoon I wanted to use for my project, I knew I wanted to focus on something in politics. I was not a big fan of the previous administration, and I felt like I had a lot to offer through a project that explored one of their political decisions, the Iraq War. That is why I selected this cartoon, and focused on a cartoonist who has similar political views to me.

When I first began writing the paper however, I faced a dilemma. I watch the news constantly and follow politics closer than most of my peers. As such, I have an unrealistic expectation of what others do and should know about our world and its political decisions. This caused me to write my first rough draft without explaining my arguments thoroughly or going into detail about how certain rhetorical techniques were being used. Basically, I assumed my audience knew everything that I did.

I realized my mistake, and focused much of my editing in the second rough draft to provide context for readers who may not follow politics and world events closely. I also wanted to further explore this cartoon and its message through factually relevant information and insightful details that might be new to some readers. And finally, I worked hard to explain how rhetorical techniques from the book were being used in this cartoon. I found ways to explain the use of vector lines, pathos, logos, body language and more to show how this cartoon made a political argument.

For my final draft, I felt it was important to cite my information to add credibility, and to tighten the focus of my paper to make a direct and clear argument. There is so much information that could be thrown into a paper as broad as the War in Iraq. So many events played into it's existence, and so much has happened since the war's end that could be talked about in hindsight. But I wanted the focus of this project to be on the cost of war, and the integrity of those leading our country.

Overall I am satisfied with how my project turned out. The message here as we look into the future is the importance of honest leadership, and the responsibility that comes with being leaders in the free world.

----


On March 20th, 2003 President George W. Bush went on national television to address the nation. He told the American people that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, capable of threatening the United States. He offered Saddam Hussein an ultimatum - step down or face war.

Days later, the United States invaded Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Six years later, the new Iraq is still a dangerous place requiring the protection and assistance of American troops. And though the United States was able to remove one of the most evil and tyranical leaders in modern history in Saddam Hussein, we must ask ourselves if the ends justified the means.


Over 4,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the war began (Antiwar). And the fighting has bled American's of another $700 billion to support the effort (National Priorities Project).

All of this despite the fact that we still haven't found a single weapon of mass destruction, the defining reason and propaganda used by the Bush administration in it's push for war.



This cartoon was created by world famous political cartoonist Pat Oliphant. And he is not one to hide behind his work. But to understand his message, we must first look at the context and explore new information that has emerged since the end of the war.

Many months before Bush addressed the nation about Iraq's intentions, George Tenet of the CIA insisted there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. In response, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence, this time excluding the CIA and Tenet. This new and controversial information was not analyzed and instead presented directly to the public (PBS Frontline)


A month later, Tenet once again briefed the Bush administration. This time he presented information suggesting that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, contrary to claims by the Bush administration. This argument was dismissed and never shared with Congress (Salon)

Than in September 2002, the Bush administration claimed to have evidence suggesting Iraq was making an effort to create nuclear bombs. This analysis was opposed by the US Department of Energy, who are considered experts in gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs.

An effort by the department to correct Colin Powell's forthecoming address to the United Nations on the issue was rebuffed. Powell later admitted he had presented inaccurate data to the UN, and that the intelligence he was relying on was in some cases "deliberately misleading." (Meet The Press)


So what does all of this mean? Basically, there is evidence to suggest that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the United States of America in their push for war with Iraq.

But to accuse the President and Vice President of the United States of lying to start a war is territory many news and media outlets are afraid to approach. They are bound by the ethics of Journalism and must be fair to both sides. But Oliphant is not bound by these rules, and was preaching his message against Bush loud and clear through this cartoon. He does this using a variety of rhetorical argument techniques, such as visual hierachy, ethos, logos and pathos.

The first thing you might notice when looking at this picture is Dick Cheney towering over this dead soldier. His body language communicates anger, dominance and even evil by the look in his eye and how he stands over the soldier in a hostile position.

This contrasts the small, innocent cowboy dressed version of George Bush we see looking curiously at the man on the ground. Right away Oliphant is using ethos and visual hierachy to demonstrate differences between Bush and Cheney. We see that Cheney is much larger in this photograph than Bush, showing superiority. We also see ethos in how Cheney is dressed in a suit, while Bush is dressed informal cowboy style with a look of almost childlike innocence on his face.

Because Cheney appears proffesional and business, he seems in control, though for the wrong reasons. Bush contrasts Cheney's ethos in that he does not come across professional or like he is the Commander in Chief. Cheney's towering size over the image also gives him dominance through visual hierachy. Oliphant is sending a message trough these nonverbal statements. He is saying that Cheney runs the show, and that Bush is merely a child in a man's world.

But Oliphant also makes it clear through pathos that we are not to trust Cheney. He looks intimidating, dark and shows no compassion. We don't feel like he is a man that should be trusted. Because this is a cartoon, this is his way of conveying a message that you will never read in a newspaper. Oliphant boldly argues that Dick Cheney is an evil person, and has no compassion for this soldier or any of the other things that he has done.

But even more important is the use of vector lines to draw our attention to the soldier laying on the ground. He is consumed in darkness and death, his pain the most real and emotional element we see in the image. He is a symbol of the sacrifice we make as a nation when we go to war.

Oliphant is using pathos to make us feel compassion for the soldier. Many Americans know someone who is serving in the military. Some even have close loved ones that are currently overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan. The emotional connection we feel to this soldier, and the possibility that he could represent one of our own friends or family being injured in the war, really drives this argument home. What if someone you cared about died under false pretenses? These thoughts enter our minds when we begin to connect with the image and it's nonverbal arguments.

We see more interesting use of body language when looking even closer at the physical relationship between Bush and Cheney. There is evidence to suggest Dick Cheney was the man responsible for what the war and what has resulted to this soldier. And while Bush is on his knees trying to comfort him, Cheney stares angrily from above into the man's eyes. Oliphant is saying that Bush, though uninformed and inept for the task at hand, feels bad about what has happened to the soldier. We see no such indications through body language or any form of communication from Dick Cheney.

But what really seals the message in this cartoon are the words spoken by Bush. "Would it make you feel better to know we had inaccurate intelligence?" This is reverse ethos, in that it boldly accuses Bush and his administration of making a costly mistake by not doing their job; and perhaps even lying to the country. And this soldier paid the ultimately price. Is his blood on Bush's hands? And was his sacrifice in vein? If you believe the administration lied to the country, than perhaps the answer is yes.

We may never know the answer to these questions. And last year, the backlash against the Republican party contributed to the first African American President being elected. Over time security in Iraq has improved dramatically. And perhaps in the end, some good came out of this war as things begin to settle down, and a new democracy is born in Iraq.

But we must never forget the lessons that we learned in 2003. A lesson clearly communicated in Oliphant's cartoon. With great power comes great responsibility. Oliphant is arguing that the United States must use discretion and work hard not to rush as a nation into important decisions with unknown repricussions. We must make sure the inteligence and the purpose are accurate and truthful. Because any war comes with great sacrifices.

As President Obama weighs his own wartime decision in whether or not to send troops to Afghanistan, let's hope he has learned lessons from his predecessor. For the actions and decisions of our last President ultimately cost this soldier and thousands more of their lives.

----

Works Cited
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)