Rhetorical Analysis of President’s Address To The Nation Post 9/11

1668 Words 7 Pages
Rhetorical analysis assignment: President’s Address to the Nation Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the …show more content…
However, procession of nuclear weapons doesn’t mean the people who process them will use them. Therefore, process of nuclear weapons will not necessarily bring nuclear attack. His argument doesn’t sound like the non-sense that it actually is if we don’t take a closer look. If we look at the first backing and the support together, we can see that it is obviously a slippery slope which when an arguer claims that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. In the speech, the President claims that if we pull the troops out, the terrorists “will use Iraq’s resource to fuel their extremist movement”. Because of that, it will lead that “our children have to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.” The whole chains of events are not likely to occur that based on the initial event (pulling the troops out). First of all, Iraqis people will probably stay in civil war and fight for the resources. Therefore, it is not likely that the terrorists can use Iraqis resource

to “fuel their extremist movement.” Secondly, we don’t know who will be the next president of Iraq, and that president may not necessarily a “radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.” Thirdly, governing Iraq doesn’t mean governing the Middle East. Hence, pulling out the troops is not likely to bring up those negative consequences that
Open Document