He turns some readers off with his vitriolic attacks. Further, his attacks are is blatant propaganda. Why? Because while Taibbi does mention that the Democrats already crafted legislation more than once - setting timetables for withdrawal and tying those timetables to funding, bills that Bush subsequently vetoed - he uses quotes from unnamed "congressional aides" to solidify his assertion that the Democrats just wanted to "score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home." Taibbi does use evidence that there are anti-war leaders outside of Washington who are discouraged and bitter. But he fails to build a case for his most radical assertion, that the Democrats "hijacked the anti-war movement itself" in order to play to the voters, and that the Democrats filled the "ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks." This is pure propaganda, and the evidence he provides is very thin. He doesn't name some of the most prominent peace groups against the war, including veterans' groups, student groups, and others. His beat is Washington, D.C., and he fails to address people and issues outside the nation's capitol.

Influences: Moreover, Taibbi is influenced by his anger about the war; it possesses him, he's steaming mad at Bush, so he writes vicious attacks against the Democrats. In another Taibbi article ("Rudy R.I.P.") he claimed that "the best day" in Rudy Giuliani's life was 9/11, as "thousands of Americans were roasted like marshmallows" (in the World Trade Center) and "hundreds more leaped from half a mile up into piles of burning steel." This kind of sick writing is contemptible and unconscionable. He is saying the terrorist attacks made Giuliani something of a media folk hero, and that this incident helped launch Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Perception: His perception...

Like millions of others, he perceives that the American occupation of Iraq is morally wrong and strategically unwinnable, but he cannot restrain himself from using the basest language that can be printed in a magazine like Rolling Stone. He ends his piece with language that cannot be used in this research paper.
Outline:

A. The war in Iraq has gone on for five years and most Americans want it ended

1. Over 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed and the cost approaches $2 trillion

2. The Democrats won majorities in the House and Senate in 2006, based largely on their promise to work to end the war

3. Each piece of legislation sent to Bush to end the war is vetoed, and there are not enough Democrats to over-ride the Bush veto

B. Journalists have very different views on the war and efforts to fight it and end it

1. Stephen Biddle and Matt Taibbi both see the war as a failed policy but they have radically different ways of expressing their points-of-view

2. No matter what journalists write, or people say, Bush has the upper hand and any legislation he does not like he will veto, and meantime the war grinds on Summary of articles:

Stephen Biddle is a polished journalist who writes for a respected and scholarly journal called Foreign Affairs. His approach is to build a case that while the Bush approach to winning the war is like that used in Vietnam, it is not working and cannot work because of the very different nature of the Iraq conflict vs. The Vietnam War.

Matt Taibbi's article is a smear campaign against the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. He uses profanity and propaganda to show how angry he is that the Democrats were not able to stand up to Bush and cut off funds for the war. Since he writes for a "counterculture" publication like Rolling Stone, he apparently can use vulgarity and propaganda freely.

Works Cited

Biddle, Stephen. "Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon." Foreign Affairs 85.2 (2006): 2-14.

Taibbi, Matt. "The Chicken Doves." Rolling Stone Issue 1046 (2008): 37-39.