* Review the concepts in the lecture on conservatism and liberalism. You must refer to the presentations to receive full credit. Third, identify the key themes of the article. Compare these with what you have learned about conservatism and liberalism. What conservative ideas do you find expressed in the article? Why do you call them conservative? Are any liberal points present in the article? If so, what are they? Why do you call them liberal?
Your posting will consist of 2 paragraphs. In the first paragraph you will summarize the content of the article. Be sure to identify the thesis of the author. In the second paragraph you will give the analysis, explaining why the article should be considered conservative or liberal based on the presentations.
Remember: do not simply summarize the article. Instead, analyze its main ideas. Demonstrate that you can apply the conceptual material presented in the presentation outline and your textbook to actual writings you might encounter outside of this course.
Your thread should offer several points of analysis and demonstrate that you have listened to the presentation by making references to the points from the presentation. Be sure to select an article that is long enough to give you sufficient points upon which to write. Be sure to give the author and title of the article you choose and cite the source.
Article for Review
January 29, 2013 12:00 A.M.
Shouting Louder: Hillary’s Testimony
The Benghazi attack shows the failure of the unilateral “end” to the War on Terror. By Thomas Sowell
An old-time trial lawyer once said, “When your case is weak, shout louder!” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration’s story last fall that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence. She shouted: “We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people’s attention. But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success. Let’s go back to square one.
After the attack on the American ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration immediately blamed it on the anti-Islamic video. Moreover, this version of what happened was not just a passing remark. It was a story that the administration kept repeating insistently. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice repeated that story on five different television talk shows on the same Sunday. President Obama himself repeated the same story at the United Nations. The man who put the anti-Islamic video on the Internet was arrested for a parole violation, and this created more media coverage to keep attention on this theme. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Secretary Clinton now asks. What difference did it make at the time? Obviously the Obama administration thought it made a difference, with an election coming up. Prior to the attack, the administration’s political theme was that Barack Obama had killed Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALs) and vanquished al-Qaeda, and was now in the process of putting the terrorist threat behind us. To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack — and a devastating one — would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up. The key question that remains unanswered to this day is: What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador’s quarters? If there is no evidence whatever, then the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document