Rhetorical analysis of the president's speech to the nation. Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration has called on all citizens and all nations to support its Middle East policies. Nevertheless, the United States has been involved in the struggle in the Middle East for more than half a century, wars have been fought and citizens have been killed. Yet political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were during the Clinton presidency. As the "President's Address to the Nation" is a speech asking everyone to support the troops to continue fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not at all convinced due to the error illogical of his arguments. In this essay I will analyze how and what illogical fallacies he uses in his speech. The “president’s address to the nation” is a political statement. President Bush is asking people to support his policy that "we" must continue to fight the war "until we or the extremists emerge victorious." To support his claims in favor of such a policy, he uses three arguments in his speech. The first is that “if we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators.” armed with nuclear weapons. To support such an idea, he uses two supports. The first support is: “if we withdraw…they (the terrorists) will not leave us alone. They will follow us... they will find a new refuge; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement,” while the second argument is that terrorists hate us. To achieve this support, he assumes that terrorists will use nuclear weapons to attack us as soon as they can obtain nuclear weapons. The illogical fallacy of this assumption is due to a... middle of paper ......ng logic, it is difficult to separate the logic from the problem because they are closely related. However, I have discovered that the problem is that because of his personal values, assumptions, and illogical reasoning, he is misleading American citizens into putting forward a strategy in the Middle East that we do not. would not have otherwise. Six years after the September 11 attacks, the Americans are still looking for reasons to keep their troops in Iraq. Besides the real reasons, President Bush has yet to provide actual evidence to support his claims. As an audience, I'm not at all convinced.BibliographyBush, George. “Address by the President to the Nation/” The fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001. September 11, 2006. (http://whiteshouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html).Reporters without borders. Press release: 2007 World Press Freedom Index. Paris: Reporters Without Borders, 2007.

Essay / Rhetorical analysis of the president's speech to the nation. Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration has called on all citizens and all nations to support its Middle East policies. Nevertheless, the United States has been involved in the struggle in the Middle East for more than half a century, wars have been fought and citizens have been killed. Yet political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were during the Clinton presidency. As the "President's Address to the Nation" is a speech asking everyone to support the troops to continue fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not at all convinced due to the error illogical of his arguments. In this essay I will analyze how and what illogical fallacies he uses in his speech. The “president’s address to the nation” is a political statement. President Bush is asking people to support his policy that "we" must continue to fight the war "until we or the extremists emerge victorious." To support his claims in favor of such a policy, he uses three arguments in his speech. The first is that “if we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators.” armed with nuclear weapons. To support such an idea, he uses two supports. The first support is: “if we withdraw…they (the terrorists) will not leave us alone. They will follow us... they will find a new refuge; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement,” while the second argument is that terrorists hate us. To achieve this support, he assumes that terrorists will use nuclear weapons to attack us as soon as they can obtain nuclear weapons. The illogical fallacy of this assumption is due to a... middle of paper ......ng logic, it is difficult to separate the logic from the problem because they are closely related. However, I have discovered that the problem is that because of his personal values, assumptions, and illogical reasoning, he is misleading American citizens into putting forward a strategy in the Middle East that we do not. would not have otherwise. Six years after the September 11 attacks, the Americans are still looking for reasons to keep their troops in Iraq. Besides the real reasons, President Bush has yet to provide actual evidence to support his claims. As an audience, I'm not at all convinced.BibliographyBush, George. “Address by the President to the Nation/” The fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001. September 11, 2006. (http://whiteshouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html).Reporters without borders. Press release: 2007 World Press Freedom Index. Paris: Reporters Without Borders, 2007.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch