Paper 2 Rhetorical Analysis - Allison Morrow 102-3AA March...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Allison Morrow 102-3AA March 9, 2010 Paper #2: Rhetorical Analysis On September 11, the event that changed the United States happened, the 9-11 attacks. These extreme terrorist attacks changed everything about how we as Americans look at society, governance, and freedom. The president at the time, George W. Bush, tried to influence the general public that the best way possible to fight back against terrorism was pre-emptive first strike. To some, this matter was a bit too extreme, like the prestigious law professor, Richard Falk. Falk critiques the speech that Bush gives because of the new policy and doctrine that his speech lays out. Even though both have separate points of view, George Bush and Richard Falk are both effective in their essays and responses, but only to their respective audiences. George W. Bush, in his speech to the graduates of West Point Military Academy in 2002, already has some credibility or ethos to speak on the topic of pre-emptive first strike. When this speech was given in 2002, Bush was already serving as the United States Commander in Chief, a position of high authority, and the tragic attack on America on September 11, 2001 had just happened nine months prior. Being president, he would have the authority, with the help of Congress and the Supreme Court, to declare war on Iraq because of the September 11 th attacks. However, just because he has the authority to do so does not mean that he has the experience to logically think that this decision would be the best one for the country. For example, George Bush only spent a short amount of time in service with the military in the Air Force, but even then, controversy surrounded him about whether or not he actually completed his time of service as it was brought up during his presidency about his
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 possible desertion (York 1). He was not very successful in the military because he was not brought into a leadership position, and because he spent so little time there, which does not give him enough credibility in this speech to speak on strategic military matters. Even his degree from the prestigious Yale and Harvard schools account nothing for military strategy or law, for he received a Bachelor’s of History and a Master’s of Business (White 1). His whole college experience was made possible because of affirmative action, thanks to his father and grandfather being a graduate there themselves, and the fact that he came from a politically influential family (Kinsley 1). He did not even have adequate grades from high school to attend Yale (Kinsley 1). For Bush, with very little military background and a very weak academic background, to say that it is perfectly fine to go to war is very strange because he does not have authority on the matter. He has nothing but the authority given to him from his position of power, not actually authority from wisdom or knowledge. Richard Falk presents a different area of credibility than George W. Bush in his
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 06/16/2011 for the course ENGLISH 101 taught by Professor Bey during the Fall '11 term at University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Page1 / 8

Paper 2 Rhetorical Analysis - Allison Morrow 102-3AA March...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online