On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, the Senate leadership had introduced a resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration, to authorize the President to attack Iraq. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been noted for his strong anti-war views. However, he was at the time struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could sway the election in his opponent’s favor. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his anti-war convictions, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual courage” and raise his concerns about the direction of American foreign policy (Kennedy 223). …show more content…
On October 25th, just twelve days before votes were to be cast, Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, three campaign staff members, and a pilot were killed when their charter plane crashed in a northern Minnesota forest. In the chaos after his death, Wellstone’s remaining children chose former Vice President Walter Mondale to replace him on the ticket. Mondale would prove unable to regain Wellstone’s momentum, and when “the results of the election were announced in the early morning hours of November 6…Mondale lost to Coleman by two percentage points” (Lofy 126). Paul Wellstone knew that, as Kennedy wrote, “it would be more comfortable...joining whomever of our colleagues are...enslaved by some current fashion” (17). But he understood that true statesmanship is putting the national interest above one’s own benefit. Wellstone, in a time of conformity, showed courage and strength in risking his political life for an ideal he cared deeply about. Perhaps the best description of Wellstone’s character came from a colleague, Sen. Barbara Mikulski: “He didn’t look ahead to the next election; he looked ahead to the next generation” (CITE
In 1971, John Kerry stood in front of the Senate and spoke about his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier. There would be many that would agree with his position, some that would disagree and ultimately some that had no strong opinion at all. John Kerry knew that although he was speaking to the senate he was also speaking to the American people and through his intentional way of speaking he used this to his advantage. In John Kerry’s speech, strongly opposing the Vietnam War, Kerry successfully uses his persona as one who experienced the war head on, to reveal the lack of morality in Vietnam and paint the war as barbaric acts with no true purpose behind them.
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
In the “George Bush’ Columbia” speech, George W. Bush used a variety of ways in order to make his mark and effectively assemble his dialog. One of the most prominent strategies Mr. Bush used was his sentence structure. He did a great job shaping his speech by initially addressing the problem at hand. He first stated what happened, who it happened to, and gave his condolences to the ones who didn’t make it, along with their families. Mr. Bush also seemed sincere throughout his speech as he made sure to mention each hero apart of the crew. Another technique George W. Bush displayed was the diction and tone he used while delivering the speech. From listening to the audio last week, I remember the passion behind Bush’s words and the sincerity
September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.
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
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 speech.
Denise Grady’s (2006) article sound a strong wake up call for the American government and for the American public to re-evaluate their guiding principles towards war in Iraq and the continued presence of the American soldiers in the Iraqi soil. Grady delineated the enormous damages the war had costs in not only monetary terms but also the future of thousands of promising young and talented men and women sent in the Iraq War; that had no clear benefits to them or the American people.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
On March 15, 1965 in Washington D.C ……..the courageous President Lyndon B. Johnson has delivered a legendary speech. It was called, “We shall overcome.” The speech came into conjunction, after the sad death of a black protester in Selma, Alabama. The protest was over black voting rights. Blacks were simply discriminated against voting rights on the basis of their skin color. Johnson’s aspiration for the “we shall overcome” speech, was to convince the congress, Americans, to pass his bill. This would be beneficial by enabling blacks to vote. Johnson is widely known for his effective use of ethos, logos, and pathos to engage the crowd.
From September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945, the world was witness to the most fatal war in our history. During this six year period, an estimated 78 million died. In 1940, The US, despite not having joined the war at the time, was at risk of being invaded. Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that without the help of the US, the war efforts of Great Britain and the rest of Europe were futile. However, American citizens were opposed to joining the war because of the horrors of World War 1 and the idea of those horrors being repeated. In an effort to convince the American public to take action, Roosevelt addressed the country on December 29, 1940. Roosevelt’s use of repetition and pathos within his speech, “The Great Arsenal of Democracy,” illustrated
In 1987, the President of the United States at the time was Ronald Reagan. Everyone has their differing opinions when it comes to judging the quality of the job a President has done. There are many factors that cause biased opinions. Some of these include your political party affiliation, your viewpoint on the social matters that were going on at the time, and your economic standing. Despite all these varying viewpoints, people can agree upon one thing when it comes to Ronald Reagan. That one thing is that in 1987, when turmoil due to post-war political issues split Germany into two sides, Reagan made a speech that is known as “The Speech at Brandenburg Gate” that altered the course of history. His exalted rhetoric was highly touted at the
Theodore Roosevelt was well known by the people for being for the people and willing to stand shoulder to should with “anyone who had a forward-thinking vision of the future and intense convictions,” he called them Progressives (Bowles, M.D., 2011). In 1912 TR and his Progressive Party had already accepted that their chances of winning the Presidential Race were very small. "Although I expect to lose I believe that we are founding what really is a new movement, and that we may be able to give the right trend to our democracy,” (Kraig, R.A., 2000). TR’s hope was to get his message out to as many Americans as possible to lay the groundwork for the future of his political pa...
The Supreme Court has the highest authority in this country and throughout its existence the diversity of people in it had been lacking. On May 29, 2009 a new Supreme Court Justice was nominated, she was the first Latina to be appointed to this position and eventually was confirmed by the senate. Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination speech was a moment that brought joy to many Latinos who often did not feel represented in higher positions of authority in this country. She was the first to break the norm for this and in the speech she delivered to the country via new stations she was able to present to the country what qualified her as a Supreme Court Justice. Former President Barack Obama presented Sotomayor as a person
Emily Bazelon brought up a controversial point, “Republicans in Congress denounced the Obama administration for going soft” (9). Although this statement w...
In 1971, during the unpopular Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to the press, influencing public opinion and ultimately ending the war. In 2009, during the unpopular Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith released a feature film telling Daniel Ellsberg’s dramatic tale. While no parallels are explicitly drawn in the film between the past and current presidential administrations, one can’t help but feel that the directors were attempting to awaken something in a contemporary audience.