Nevertheless, I found out that the issue is that because of his personal values, assumption, and illogical reasoning, he deceives American citizens to push a Middle East strategy we otherwise would not have. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, Americans are still looking for reasons to keep the troops in Iraq. Besides real reasons, President Bush still needs to provide real evidence to support his claims. I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all. Bibliography Bush, George.
Snowden, as reason for his security breach said “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” In this statement he refers to the immense secrets that the U.S. government is keeping from its people. So, the debate still goes on: Yes Edward Snowden broke the law, but was it for a good reason? Now, as to who the breach went to. At first he planned on telling the story to the New York Times, but in the end he decided not to because he found out that the New York Times had a great scoop in “the election year of 2004- that the Bush administration, post 9/11, allowed the NSA to snoop on U.S. citizens without warrants- but had sat on it for a year before publishing.” Snowden said that “this was the turning poin... ... middle of paper ... ...art a new life for himself in Russia. Now, the debate rages on: Is Edward Snowden an American hero or an American villain.
It specifically proves how the Bush administration provoked the media to convince the people of America to support "war on terror" by creating a non-existent fear. It offers interviews and documentaries that show the hidden motives of the Bush administration kept secret from the American public such as gradually expanding the country's power through extending the military expenditures and power to keep up global hegemony. Finally, if anyone pins the America vs. Iraq war on terrorism and have not seen this documentary they are to a certain extent mistaken hence, it is full of vital facts but with less irony, sarcasm and biases than Fahrenheit 9/11.
Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation. The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton).
Is this “the big lie [Obama's opponents] dare not to admit?” MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews asked last year. “They know full well he's an American. They're simply out to destroy him personally. Yes, assassinate him with their lies.” What this is trying to say is that clearly the president is a citizen but to some they just didn’t want to believe it. Also it depends on your point of view to agree if he was lying or not.
Fighting terrorism is good behavior and it is justice, but Bush chose a wrong way. This war brought him a terrible reputation because a huge number of people thought he was too arbitrary in this case. He could have avoided this criticism if he had asked for a declaration of war from Congress (Knott, 2012). In addition, he had the lack of calm that is an important characteristic of a hero. Another unacceptable decision made by him was he monitored the contact between American citizens and foreigners without obeying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) guidelines as The New York Times disclosed in December 2005 (cited in Knott, 2012).
The government does not have any guidelines on what they consider to be a terrorist; therefore everyone could potentially be called a terrorist. President Bush claimed that the act was to protect our freedoms, but it cannot be possible when it violates our freedoms. What the government gained on this day is more than enough to have the will to sacrifice these innocent American citizens. It may be asked by most American’s why the government would sacrifice thousands of people’s lives, but we will take a look at some American history first. Some examples of how America has sacrificed thousands of people would be, the French and Indian War, the War of 1812 and both World War I and II.
The war in Iraq is over now. Looking back on a huge controversy makes one side seem clearly more “correct” than the other. Yet in the beginning there were two sides to the controversy about the war in Iraq. There was the terror brought upon by the 9/11 attacks, people that the government wished to punish or kill like Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden, and a country which was in “need” of US help both politically and financially. At the time of the Terrorist attacks, people were afraid of what else the terrorists were planning or could do and so George Bush sent troops in to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
President Bush's administration (McClellan) may have been too quick to judge the scandal over the leak, making a firm statement to fire whomever was responsible for the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative in 2003, but since it has been found that two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the source of the leak, the administration as of now has reneged on it's original statement. Creon would not listen to the people because he wanted to keep image of the state strong, essentially acting too tough. Bush went back on a statement made by his administration in order to protect people in his administration, thereby trying to be little too fair to his cabinet. What if these two men were switched? Creon probably would have just fired the party/parties responsible for the leak, and Bush wouldn't sacrifice either of his daughters just to uphold something he said in the past, even if it is essentially the law of the land.
It's much more plausible that the big companies control the government, but I'm not going to open that kettle of fish. So let's forget about conspiracies for the moment, and simply focus on the media coverage: are we getting a fair shake? Increasing numbers of Americans don't think so. Despite the fact that UK is our strongest ally in this conflict, their media has been considerable more even-handed in cov... ... middle of paper ... ...s a "war on terrorism", but kills countless innocent Afghanis because their government refused to give over bin Laden without some evidence of his involvement in the WTC attacks. But if that's the radical view, and the media comments above are mainstream, we'd do well to broaden our scope.