top of page
  • Writer's pictureStudentGuiders

BUSN410 Week 3 Discussion

Read the various perspectives on going to war in Iraq.

President Bush

David Koehler

Compare and contrast former President Bush’s claim that Iraq was a threat to world peace with David Koehler's position on the issue. Which claims are valid? Which are based on fallacious reasoning (note instances)? Who has the stronger argument? Why?

First off, please reread my subject line. How did you perceive it? Did you read it two different ways? Did the tone affect the way you read it? Was there tone in it? Thoughts? This is important in this weeks question because tone really plays a big part in Politician speech!!

I really wish we would not bring up President Bush in the class. I could really present a whole bunch of evidence I did in a law class based on bias he had for many years on numerous amount of subjects based on ‘feelings and distilled fear’, but we will not go there. In-fact it runs in the family! There are a few words I want to point out for the way Bush talks: Expert Witness, Confirmation Bias, and Ostensible. All these words can be used to describe how when President Bush talked about UFOs and even the launch codes. Same demeanor came similarly when it was through 9/11 to this weeks subject: All about Iraq. When Bush talks is very acute and keen and not very lightly spoken, but he does not speak very brashly or faintly either. Tone! He says it with confidence and for lack of better words quick on the uptake. He is certainly overwhelming factious when it come to being an ostensible person. This means he uses the approach of his creditability and his ability to deliver very well-mannered speeches to strike fear in a situation. A lot of Politicians have different demeanors on how they talk and present themselves! For instance Obama was very charismatic, and Trump just spoke his mind. Bush wants and to have the United States to see the severity of stopping the mass destruction that could be released. Once again, he is using his expert witness and confirmation bias based on his position and job to strike fear. I wanted to incorporate these key words because in an expert witness he is trained to see that this could be a danger. But the opposite for the other two words. In the sense that he is leaning toward what is plausible and what might happen based on his credibility that it will happen. For Koehler he is way less than that. He is not striking fear and using his position in such global fictious way. He honed into the fact of what President Bush was saying. It is like he is ridiculing (between the lines) of there is no evidence. I mean there really was not. He uses much more reason and really attacks President Bush. Someone had to do it! But in an argument, it is who is going to be trusted more. I must biasedly say President Bush gave the better evidence (even though there was no facts only fear that a nation could have the power to stop and destroy the US.) But for lack of better words sometimes you must bullshit it until you make it! That was one of President Bush’s best and worst qualities he really knew how to strike down the nation when it came to being afraid distilled in them. (Many Politicians hone in on that skill, sadly.) Of course, this is what drawn us in wars for years and why he did not need the concrete evidence of what he was distilling into the American People.

After reading both articles they both agree that Saddam Hussein is bad. Other than that they take the same information and present it in different ways. President Bush appealed to people's outrage over the events on 9/11 and omitted facts to make it appear that there was no other choice but war. Koehler seemed to call Bush out on misleading people while exaggerating in a way that made it seem completely preposterous that we would go to war. President Bush laid out a better argument in my opinion and acknowledged the skeptics and responded to them. "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States." While President Bush uses name calling in this quote he also states Hussein's opinion of the US which was widely known. The language he uses and examples he gives appeal to people because we were taken unaware on 9/11 and innocent people were killed by the thousands.

Koehler breaks down Bush's argument and tells us what is wrong with it. He makes himself appear to be an expert on the subject and tears down each argument and then discounts the examples and reasoning that were given.

Overall I think Bush has a better argument because he gives plenty of evidence and answers concerns he knows people will have. He has a more well rounded argument and while he won't get everyone on his side, he appeals to the many to convince them of his actions.

Recent Posts

See All

When infusing pantoprazole, use a separate IV line, a pump, and an in-line filter. A brown wrapper and frequent vital signs are not needed. A client has gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The pro

Your paragraph text(10).png
bottom of page