Modern public political discourse and Logical fallacies

1. An improper appeal to authority may come in various guises, but a common one is the bias of an arguer who has a motive, such as a political motive, to lie or mislead (Bassham, 2000). The rationale presented to the public for the US government's incursion into Iraq in 2002/2003 was built around the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were threatening the United States. Controversy has surrounded the fact that a career diplomat named Joseph Wilson investigated the premise that the African country of Niger had made a deal to sell uranium yellowcake, an ingredient necessary for production of nuclear weapons, to Iraq. The substance of Wilson's investigation was that the premise was wrong. Even so, the US invaded Iraq partly on the premise of Iraq's growing nuclear capability, and its executive-branch apparatus, as well as the political party apparatus of the group governing US federal law, proceeded to put about that Wilson had wrongly claimed that he had authority to speak for the US in respect of WMD and that his analysis was also wrong.

Specifically, the Republican National Committee stated that Wilson "insisted" that the vice president's office sent him to Niger, citing Wilson's own statement that he had been

. . .
of an appeal to ignorance comes down to this: just because nobody has found X does not mean it does not exist. Therefore, X must exist.s Controversy surrounds the question of whether weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were threatening the United States. According to those who authorized the invasion, these weapons were a threat, and that is why the invasion took place. To date, none have been found. That makes the following exchange, made in the valedictory press briefing of press secretary Ari Fleischer at the White House in 2003 relevant to this research: Q [HELEN THOMAS]: He [the president] still thinks that Saddam Hussein wanted to become a nuclear power and was trying to get uranium and you will find the weapons of mass destruction? MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed the President's thinking on that, absolutely (White House, 2003). That exchange took place in July 2003. The logic is that if Iraq's WMD must exist because nobody has proved that they do not. This fallacy relies on a ignorance of where WMD are to prove that there is a likelihood they will be found. Now equally, it might be argued that the claim of WMD existence must be false because the weapons were not found, and that is the line taken by Bush administratio
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
White House, Joseph Wilson, Wilson Niger, , Iraq's WMD, That's Gay, Retrieved July, Dick Cheney's, United According, National Committee, white house, retrieved july, critical thinking, mass destruction, bassham 2000, weapons mass destruction, same-sex marriage, weapons mass, white house 2003, threatening united, lied wmd, pearce 2003, july 17 2005, retrieved july 17, fallacy appeal ignorance,
Approximate Word count = 1252
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Modern public political discourse and Logical fallacies