Critiquing a Commission

An editorial written in the Austin American Statesman on February 20th by an anonymous writer does a great job at picking a fight with a news topic and holding its own. Entitled, "Looking for the truth? Bush witch hunt is bogus" this article takes on the idea presented by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers. These two men have put together a commission to probe into the events of the Bush administration in order to "examine" the actions of the former administration. The commission has even gone as far as to say that they have created themselves in order to look into the "failures of the recent past." The anonymous writer of the article does a very good job at thoroughly putting the original article or story in perspective while using quotes from the mouths of the people who have said them. The writer uses strong words to convey their message such as this following passage that pretty much sums up his or her views on the news topic. "Leahy's reconciliation commission would be little more that a partisan witch hunt, a way to humiliate the architects of such Bush administration controversies as the Iraq war, torture, rendition, firing U.S. attorneys who were thought insufficient partisan, and warrantless wiretaps." In this one sentence the writer is able to adequately describe his feelings on the issue while still using historical and factual information. Another thing that the writer has done well was to include rhetorical questions throughout the piece in order to add dramatic syntax as well as make the reader question the same things along with the writer. By asking questions such as, "But if members of the previous administration were guilty of criminal acts, they should indeed be prosecuted, not invited to testify under a cloak of immunity. Why have them admit wrongdoing only to escape punishment?" the writer is able to make me think about those exact same things. I had to ask myself the same question, it actually made me wonder. Towards the end of the article the writer begins to appear more frustrated as his questions and statements become far more opinionated and strong. The writer ends the article with a question that sums everything up nicely; "if the commission is not about vengeance, not about prosecutions and not about improving legislation, then what's the point?" Although i do happen to agree with the writer in his statements it is the way in which he has written his article that impress me more. I was impressed by the questions that they asked, and the ways in which he made the same points that surly many others have considered as well.