Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

I selected an article titled “Most Likely to Attack Iran”.  My primary reason in selecting this article is because it looked interesting.  The article talks about various reasons why Obama would be more likely to take military action against Iran and how his “intellectually elevated” personality could persuade European nations to stay in Afghanistan.

The author is Glenn Greenwald. According to Wikipedia, Greenwald has received the following awards: Izzy Award for independent journalism, Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, and the EFF Pioneer Award for coverage and analysis of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. Greenwald is also a published author. The first ever book he wrote was titled How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok. According to Wikipedia, “Greenwald practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.”  He has also had numerous guest appearances on various TV shows. I think that all of the above make Greenwald a credible author.

Greenwald’s main claim is that Obama would be more likely to “risk other people’s lives with the use of military force against foreigners.” Greenwald believes that Obama would be more likely to confront Iran militarily “should sanctions and negotiations fail”. Greenwald’s evidence behind this claim is that Obama would be more likely to use military force against Iran then Mitromney is as follows: Greenwald thinks that from a political standpoint “Obama will be freer to attack Iran than Romney would be because Democrats, progressives, and the “international community”.  Greenwald also mentions “Obama’s more extremist assassinations without any judicial review or transparency”, as being even further evidence to support his claim. His logic behind this claim is that not only has Obama done things as president that would indicate he would be more likely to take military action against Iran; he would also face far less persecution from the international community for doing so.

I think that given when this article was published, Greenwald intended audience was undecided voters. He was trying to persuade voters. I do see how someone could read this article, and think that Greenwald was simply voicing his political beliefs. With the intended audience being other people who hold a similar view. However,  Greenwald published this right around election time, and meantionded to opposing candidates. That’s why I am positive his intended audience was undecided voters.

Critique an editorial or commentary from a national newspaper

I decided to write my critique about an article titled “Official Warns Shutdown Could Make Spies Double Agents” by Denver Nicks.  According to Wikipedia, Nicks work has been published in the Nation and Huffington Post. Nicks got his Bachelor’s in Political Science and International Studies from Southern Methodist University, and he got his Master’s Degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. I think that given his educational back ground as well as the reputable news agencies that have published his work he is more than a credible author.
In my opinion, Nicks intended audience in writing this is the American people. He concludes his article with a quote from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper writes, ““This seriously damages our ability to protect the safety and security of this nation and its citizens.” I feel that Nicks picked this quote from Clapper because it would appeal to his intended audience, being the American people.
Nicks is claiming that our current government shutdown “heightens the risk that American intelligence officers could be flipped as double agents.” His logic behind this claim is that government employs are not being paid by the U.S. government, therefore government employees will look elsewhere for a pay check. Nicks quotes Clapper a second time: “This is a dream land for foreign intelligence services to recruit.” Nicks is alluding to the idea that our U.S. Government employees will start working as "spies" employed by foreign nations there for becoming "double agents".  Nicks is proposing that spies who currently work for the U.S. Government may decided to start working for other nations. Nicks logic behind this claim is that the U.S. government is not currently paying its spies.
Nicks main source of evidence to support this claim are the words of James Clapper. As I have previously stated Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence, therefore he is a credible source on this matter.