Rhetorical Analysis Of Rush To War

After an analysis of the preliminary speeches Former Senator Robert C. Byrd gave in the early 2000s one may deduce that the senator had the welfare of his fellow Americans in mind as the copious amounts of people around the world might be effected by this war. These speeches are in regard to the grand dilemma that presented itself over a decade ago. This conflict happened to be whether or not we ought to go to war with Iraq. The vein of the initial speech, Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution, is cautionary. Byrd is attempting to emblematically pump the breaks on the notion that we have a duty to wage war. In the second speech A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq, Byrd continues to convey his disapprobation as well as recurrently referencing

This is clearly an appeal to the ethos that accompanies a roman with such a title. “We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict” (We Stand Passively Mute 5), Byrd is fundamentally holding up a stop sign to the Senate. He warns about human error and appeals to the authority of our founding fathers. Ad Naturam occurs when one appeals to Mother Nature itself, and appeal to authority is claiming that a person with pronounced ethos is correct about their stance on an issue. “But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war” an obvious disproval of giving the President too much power (7). Byrd justly and mildly utilizes ad misericordiam, which is using pity to gain favor. “We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her songs and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act (9). Byrd turns up the heat by pointing out the enormous burden the United States would be taking on if they overpower Iraq. In a minor way Byrd is using antithesis to achieve this. Which is taking two dissimilar concepts and presenting them jointly triggering one to ponder their variances. “Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world’s last remaining superpower behind her (11). By inserting humor and comparing an enormous