WP3: Prewriting Assignment 1

I have skydived out of an airplane. I've talked with music superstars in front of screaming fans, and appeared on national television. I've even gone hunting for gators in the Florida Everglades.

But I have never had any experience with art objects.

That is a little strange, considering that art has always been a big part of my life. When I was a kid I used to spend hours and hours drawing and painting pictures in my free time. At the age of eight I was writing stories with characters, chapters and complex plots.

I was also artistic through the use of video cameras and photography in elementary school. I remember when my mom bought me my first camera, and how excited I was to use it. I would go around taking pictures of everything I could see. Dogs, people, trees, anything! Even McDonalds.

And while those pictures probably were not very good, it showed my passion for art and creativity even before I knew what I wanted to do with my life.

As I have grown older I find that I continue to use art in many areas of my life. I have always enjoyed using the internet, and constantly express myself through forum posts and blogging on various websites. A few years I also began using Photoshop, and have spent hundreds of hours working with all sorts of pictures in the artistic program.

Today as a college student I still use art on a regular basis. I am currently in a graphics class where I have the opportunity to design magazine, newspaper and book covers in a program called InDesign. I love using colors and shapes to be creative and to convey a message.

And though I haven’t had a lot of experience with art objects like what we saw today at the Sheldon Art Museum, I am excited for the experience. I have enjoyed many different forms of art throughout my life and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

I loved my first impression of my art object 'Torso' and can't wait to explore it further during our final class project. Ready or not, here we go!

WP2: Final Draft

- Statement of Purpose

- Rough Draft 1

- Rough Draft 2

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

• “Casualties in Iraq” Antiwar. 2009. November 12^th, 2009 <http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/>.

• “Cost of War” National Priorities Project. 2009. November 12^th, 2009 <http://costofwar.com/>

• "The Dark Side" PBS Frontline. 2006. November 12th, 2009 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/etc/script.html>

• "Bush Knew Saddam Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Salon News. 2007. November 12th, 2009 <http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/>

• "Discussion on Iraq War." NBC's Meet The Press. 2004. November 12th, 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/>

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.

WP2: Statement of Purpous

Right now, my uncle is in Iraq fighting terrorism and trying to make peace for other people in a violent world. He also fights bravely for all of us back here in America, and works hard to create a democracy for the people of Iraq.

Yet six years after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, the new Iraq is still a dangerous place to the people and the American soldiers that defend it. 4,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the war began. Thousands more have been injured, and over 100,000 American's are currently away from their loved ones as they continue the battle for democracy in the Middle East.

But an important question must be raised. Were their sacrifices in vein? Or at least not for the reasons most of them thought they were going into war? We started this conflict to defend America from terrorism. We were told that Iraq was a threat to our country and our way of life.

But was that true? Is the world safer today because of what happened in Iraq? And more importantly, did the Bush administration take advantage of September 11th to accomplish a political agenda? All of these arguments are raised in Oliphant's cartoon, and I intend to explore them in my project.

There is evidence to support the idea of a war under false pretenses.. Many months before the war began, 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."

We all know what happened next. The United States declared war on Iraq, and here we are today. But the war is not over, and the mistakes that we made must be considered when looking at the future.

Oliphant was preaching this message loud and clear through this cartoon. The sight of a dead soldier, killed in combat for a false cause should send shock and anger through our veins. And it must force us to change our behavior and think twice when making difficult decisions as such.

Today President Obama is currently faced with a military decision of his own. Do we send even more American troops to neighboring Afghanistan? Do we fully commit ourselves to another war? And if so, what will be gained. And more importantly, what sacrifices must be made?

Perhaps Obama will consider the meaning of Oliphant's cartoon, and remember the potential repercussions of his decision. What arguments can be made? I intend to explore that and more in this project as Obama continues to ponder his decision.