My analysis mainly focuses on semantic fields and syntax. A semantic field of fear runs throughout the discourses of both Blair and Bush. Bush began his speech with the following sentence; “Good evening… series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks”. Blair also opts to utilise the same method “it was the events of September 11 that marked a turning point in history, where we confront the dangers of mankind, it was tragedy, an act of evil”. Due to the semantic field of fear and terror running throughout the discourses of Bush and Blair their choice of lexis is crucial in conveying their political ideologies.
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
Chiefs of Staff and CIA’s stance: to use coercion (launch of pre-emptive airstrikes) and implement a threat strategy against the Russians. Challenging the legitimate power of a suspected-lukewarm President, they tried to influence him, by using negative framing effects and implicit threat: Kennedy would be made accountable for the death of million US citizens if he implemented a naval blockade that would cause annihilation of strategic surprise and first nuclear strikes by cornered Russians. However, having read “the guns of August” book, Kennedy was aware of the escalation risks of a threat strategy with low probabilities that: a. the airstrikes would remain “surgical” b. all USSR missiles could be 100% destroyed making the consequent retaliation risk insufferable. 2. Tusk and McNamara’s position: the implementation of quarantine.
earA Rhetorical look at Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation Given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt David Thayer English 112 This speech was in relations to the horrible and reprehensive attack on Midway. It was the start of the Unites States in World War II (WWII). The influence this speech had on the American people was of great importance to the acceptance of our entrance to the war. It showed that by allowing the people to know the gravity of this incident it would get their approval. President Roosevelt used Pathos and Logos to attract the nation to the idea that if we did not act swiftly with force we would get attacked again and many more innocent lives would be taken.
Purpose is the reason for the writing; whether it is to inform, entertain, explain, or persuade. Successfully accomplishing on a purpose requires explanation for why the speech or other form of writing was written. Purpose is also the argument the rhetor is trying to make. Without the knowledge of purpose one cannot begin to fully comprehend what the writer or speaker, in this case, wants to get across to his or her audience. In the speech, “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People” Bush’s overall purpose was to not only inform the United States on the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon but to give the Nation a plan of action.
He believes and he wants all the people to believe that America will finally take the role of leading the world into a bright future, with the help of its incomparable democratic tradition, its progresses in science and technology and military affairs and its people’s hard efforts. In order to perfectly address his ideas, he makes use of many rhetorical devices. Being faced with the terrible Financial Crisis, the loss of Public confidence, Obama makes his address a horn to inspire Public confidence, a warranty to get democracy power, and a banner to recall America dream. He tries to make his people believe that America and American spirit would conquer the serious economic situation, and change it into a more prosperous country. Both of them are addressing their speech when America is in tough situation.
UNEASY BALANCE William Haynes History 370: American Military History July 12, 2014 Introduction In Uneasy Balance, Thomas Langston provides a structure for analysis by dividing the nation’s political history and then examining the process by which the United States and its military realigned against different emerging peacetime or wartime threats. Tense with historical references, the narrative not only angles the reader but also provides the basis for any discussion on policy decisions. Langston’s thorough research pays major dividends, increasing the reader’s understanding while adding value to the analysis and conclusions. In examining wars scattered across the spectrum of conflict, the author points to several important lessons regarding cooperation between those who make policy and those who put policy into action. Langston also takes note of the interaction between all players in the policy process.
The debate on October 3, 2012, President Barak Obama and candidate Mitt Romney held a heated match over several main issues that dealt with economic policies. Both candidates had a subject to attack the other with but in the end Mitt Romney’s performance against Obamas was aggressive and strong. The debate seemed intense at certain points by cutting moderator Jim Lehrer off, to cutting each other off. Romney’s aggressive tone made it assertive of what he wanted to say and very believable of what he was saying. The candidates had many stats to back up each position they stated, but their main goal was to appeal to the audience and aim to tell them of the plans that would boost the growth of jobs and the economy.
Origins of the Bill of Rights | By: Leonard W.Levy | Nelson Fernandez3/11/15Per.6 | In today’s world of devious politics & manipulative politicians, it is more important to know your Constitutional Rights better than ever before. Leonard Levy’s book give great insight to what out United States Constitution written by our glorious Founding Fathers has guaranteed and safe guarded to all of us. The book gives insight on all the amendments and what they mean, where they bill of rights came from, skepticisms of people involved with this Bill of Rights, Leonard’s own opinion on the Bill of Rights. Despite the fact that Leonard put together of very informative, insightful book it is also very dull and takes much drudging to go through
“Unsung Heroes” follows the same line of thought. It enumerates explicitly false heroes that are often found among former US presidents and military people. Zinn reminds us of the crimes each of them has committed. He suggests that these undue idols be taken off their pedestals and be replaced by real heroes, people who have sacrificed something to make a change, even if it was a small one. Being a war-opponent and social activist, Howard Zinn’s most likely intention in writing “Unsung Heroes” was to educate people about the mistakes (and deliberate lies) that are, in his opinion, very common in the perception of American history.