Error attacks.

In the following blog I will be critiquing the Washington Times editorial titled "Obama’s Benghazi lie". Before I begin my critique I would like define the word terrorism;  as I find the word is often misused, or needlessly used in an inflammatory manner.

Terrorism as defined by Merriam Webster’s online dictionary: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

The unnamed author of “Obama’s Benghazi lie” primarily seems to be criticizing President Obama’s recent conduct; concerning the Benghazi attacks. The presumably conservative writer mostly expresses displeasure that the President, and his cabinet members, are not using the word terrorism. And when they have use terrorism, it has been inconsistent, which is true, but not the real meat of the issue.

In the beginning of the article the author implies that Candy Crowley is biased because she fact checked the Presidents statements about the attacks in retort to Mr. Romney. Why is it biased to make sure you are correctly informed? This new antifact-checking(willful ignorance?) tactic that the Republican party has publicly encouraged, is to say the least disconcerting. The facts matter, and if we can’t agree as something as simple as a verifiable public statement by the most visible figure in the country, we have no shared basis of reality from which to make discussion.

The writer goes on to reiterate that the President did not refer to the incident as a terrorist attack, nor did he label the assailants as terrorists. It seems rather short sighted to me to push the terror issue, and ignore that the President has clearly and repeatedly stated that intelligence is still coming in, and we don’t fully understand what happened. He has also stated, that he and his administration are going to do everything in their power to fix the problem and prosecute any involved parties, which the Times also conveniently omitted. We now know from State dept reports that information on the nature of the attack was gathered very quickly,(within days), but expecting on the ground intelligence the same day, in a country without central ruler-ship clearly established is just unreasonable. It took the concerted power of the Bush administration years to come to the realization that there were no WMD in Iraq, and they most certainly didn't discover the identities of the perpetrators the same day and unveil the information on national television.

‘
The Author further criticizes Mr. Obama for attempting to soothe foreign relations over the inflammatory youtube video. Even if it’s in no way related to the Benghazi attack, that video did ruffle some feathers. And it behooves all of us to not offend a major global religion, or it’s worshipers. The Times go on to elude; that the White House is trying whitewash the story to benefit the Obama campaign, which in my opinion is preposterous. If the past indicates anything, throwing around the word terrorism is beneficial to an election

In summation, I believe the Author has clearly ignored the the real issues such as; embassy security, lack of congressional funding to the state department, and foreign relations. All in the name of being displeased with Obama for not being bombastic enough for their taste.

As A Poor Man Sees It

Hi I'm Buddy.  I'm not a heavily politically minded individual.  I'm an Anthropology major and will focus on Anthropological terms concerning the socio-political divisions in human societies, because a "state" in Anthropology is not the same as a "state" in political terms.  Just fair warning.



To my limited knowledge and based on my limited experience, the following is my world view.

I vote Democratic, partly because I was raised in a Democratic family and partly because I believe the Democratic Party is the most representative of the of individuals in my strata of society.  Though, to be honest, both parties tend to neglect the political interests and the greater welfare of those below the poverty line.  Currently it seems that they worry most about the taxes concerning the wealthiest Americans or the continued survival of the middle class (which I do understand is important), however, I am perturbed that the subject matter rarely concerns helping those below the poverty line improve their lives in general.  They often talk about how they will help improve their status, but in reality, from what I understand, those of us below the poverty line do not make up the bulk of the voting population. Since we don't make up the bulk of the voting population, why would the political machine on either side of the aisle bother with us?  When they talk about helping the poor, they talk about maintaining systems such as welfare and unemployment (I understand unemployment is not just for those in the lower class) rather than developing institutions and better programs to actually help those who are willing and able to better ourselves. For example in Philippe Bourgois' ethnography “In Search of Respect”, many of the subjects were highly uneducated and poor individuals who found it difficult to maneuver systems such as welfare, unemployment and tuition aide. Because of this (and other factors which aren't necessarily political), they are kept in a cycle of poverty. In my opinion, this leads to their feeling of disenfranchisement, which leads to lack of political cultivation of their vote. It is one big, ugly cycle. It makes perfect sense that politicians would not work to appeal to that audience as they don't make up a large enough percentage of the vote.



I am simply stating my view on this. It may not be rational and it may not be as concise as I like, but these are my current basic political beliefs. Admittedly, I am speaking from a poorly educated standpoint and I'm a mere novice concerning political ideologies. This is the precise reason I am taking Government, to further understand our political system in the United States..and it is part of my degree plan.