WP2: Rough Draft 2

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 in what was then called 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. And the fighting has bled American's of another $700 billion to support the effort. 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.

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.

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."

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. But Oliphant was preaching this message loud and clear through this cartoon. He does this using 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. Why is Cheney so much larger in this photograph than Bush? Why is Cheney dressed in a suit, while Bush is dressed informal cowboy style with a look of almost childlike innocence on his face?

Ethos is conveyed because Cheney appears proffesional and business like in his suit and stature. 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 President in charge. 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. 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 also using pathos here 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 killed in the war, really drives this argument home. What if someone you cared about died for nothing? These thoughts enter our minds when we begin to connect with the image.

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 happened 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. They messed up badly, and this soldier paid the ultimately price. as his sacrifice in veign? Was all of this worth it? And as more information has come to light, could this soldier's blood be on Bush's hands? If they lied to the country, there is an argument for such a statement.

We may never know the answer to these questions. And last year, the backlash against the Republican party led 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.

But we must never forget the lessons that we learned in 2003. A lesson clearly communicated in this 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 purous is accurate and truthful.

As President Obama weighs his own wartime decision in whether or not to send troops to Afghanistan, let's hope he has learned this lesson from his predecessor, and takes note of the mistakes that ultimately cost this soldier and thousands more of their lives.

WP2: Rough Draft 1

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 in what was then called 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. And the fighting has bled American's of another $700 billion to support the effort. All of this in contrast to the fact that we have still not found a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, 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. 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.

A month later, Tenet once again briefed the Bush administration. He presented information suggesting that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. This information was dismissed and never shared with Congress.

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." 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. But Oliphant was preaching this message loud and clear through this cartoon. He does this using variety of rhetorical argument techniques.

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. Why is Cheney so much larger in this photograph than Bush? Why is Cheney dressed in a suit, while Bush is dressed informal cowboy style with a look of almost childlike innocence on his face? These nonverbal statements are important.

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.

We see interesting use of body language when looking at Bush and Cheney. Evidence suggests Dick Cheney was the man responsible for what happened to this soldier. And while Bush is on his knees trying to comfort him, Cheney stares angrily from above into the man's eyes. This tells us 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?" It's almost a slap in the face for the soldier, a prod at his honor and pride. Was his sacrifice in veign? Was all of this worth it?

We may never know the answer to that question. We now have a new administration. Security in Iraq has improved dramatically. And perhaps in the end, some good came out of this war.

But we must never forget the lessons that we learned in 2003. And that is what Oliphant reminds us of in this cartoon. With great power comes great responsbility. The United States must use discretion and work hard not to rush as a nation into important decisions with unknown repricussions.

As President Obama weighs his own wartime decision in whether or not to send troops to Afghanistan, let's hope he takes a look at this cartoon and takes note of the lessons and mistakes that were learned and made.