Because of the more intensive nature of this week's blog post, it will be worth 50 points.
The following is a link to an ongoing debate about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Read the rhetorical set up for the article and all five opinions that are listed.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-benghazi-a-legitimate-scandal
After reading the opinions presented, complete the following tasks:
1. Give a two-sentence summary of the issue being debated.
2. Choose three of the debaters' opinions and write a paragraph-long summary of each. Your choices must represent each side of the issue.
3. Decide which of the debaters present the most compelling and effective argument and tell me why you believe it to be so effective.
4. Write a two-paragraph-long rhetorical analysis of one of the debater's argument.
April McCool
ReplyDelete1. The debate is over the 2016 movie "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi." Critics are debated wether it is propaganda for Fox News or a classic war story of Benghazi.
2. A) John Bradshaw -NO, as someone who has experience overseas, Bradshaw believes it is not a political scandal. After investigation, it was concluded that security areas were "inadequate" because they were in the war zone. After a supposed attack on the US facility there, second-guessing and recriminations were triggered. At the time, Hillary Clinton was under investigation for scandal possibilities. An ambassador for the U.S., Chris Stevens, noted concern for the securities around the area and eventually was killed during the attack. B. Michael Needham - YES , Needham mentions the worries of ABC's Lara Spencer that the film will "reopen the wounds" that had been healed in the years since the attack. He also mentions the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal that she received only minutes before the attack. Clinton said that the attack was a terrorist notice and not a protest gone awry. Needham also argues that the film is an insight to the lack of response from Obama's administration. C) David Brock - NO, Brock states that politicians and other figures have utilized these event as a weapon again the Obama administration. He also explains his publishing of "The Benghazi Hoax" was to expose that the media aided Republican Party into making a phony scandal around this event. He mentions that the false Benghazi scandal happened within months of President Obama's re-election. He reveals the several false attempts to create a scandal of the attacks. House Republicans have selected a committee to investigate that is apparent to have continued longer than any other investigation of disasters that has occurred in the United States.
3. John Bradshaw. He creates pathos by utilizing the example of Chris Stevens. Bradshaw also attempts to create logos by giving explanations as to why the security failed and the American facility was attacked.
4. David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America and author, disagrees that the Benghazi attacks were a scandal by creating logos within his argument. He utilizes allusion to his own article, "The Benghazi Hoax," to reveal the failing attempts of the Republican Party to create a scandal around the attacks. By this he is able to create logic by having answers to questions that have risen around this event. Brock also utilizes shifts to create logos present in his argument. "That sham committee...," when referencing the selected committee by House Republicans shifts from explanatory to derogatory. He does this to further convince audiences that the investigation committee is doing poorly and are still in investigation to this day.
Will Ernest
ReplyDelete1) Since the release of the movie "13 hours" the debate over Benghazi has skyrocketed. The democrats claim that there isn't a legitimate political scandal, that the republicans make it look that way.
2)Brian Walsh, He sees Benghazi as a scandal by the Clinton Administration. Hillary either denied or ignored the requests for additional security at the embassy, even with known terrorist groups operating in the city. She is quoted in saying that it was her job to handle the transition of the government there. yet, what screams scandal the most is that they tried to cover it up.
Michael Needham, He also sees that there is a scandal in the events of Benghazi and that Hillary is at fault. Hillary received information about ten minutes after the firefight started and she knew it was terrorism. Then she has her cronies run a clip that says it's a protest over a video on Facebook, this screams scandal. She intentionally tried to cover up the details of Benghazi.
David Brock, He states that there is not a scandal at all. He says that the republicans have paid the new agencies to broadcast pieces to make it look like there is a guilty party to be had. That the whole court hearing is an attempt for the right wing to smear the Clinton and Obama administrations.
3)Michele Needham presents the most compelling arguments, he used eyewitness accounts of Hillary receiving the information and intentionally start the process to cover up the truth.
4) In Michael Needham's blog he uses both logos and ethos to establish his argument that there is a scandal buried in the ruble of the embassy. His use of logos comes from obtaining the facts on the night of the attack. He proves that Hillary knew what was happening and the nature of the event, yet she choose to write a cover story. She and her cronies wrote while Americans were dying in their own embassy. The majority of the ethos comes from why. The Clinton and Obama administration choose not to notice the incident for the benefit of their political agencies, when did politics become more prevalent than lives, they stood by and the opposite of what the needed to do, they made it look as though that the people at the embassy caused the attack.
Cameron Simon
ReplyDelete1)Conservatives are insisting that The Benghazi attacks are one of the biggest scandals of the Obama Administration. The democrats are saying they are using this to attack Clinton during the election.
2)David Brock)Conservatives are trying to use this movie just as a way to attack the Benghazi attacks.He blames the media for helping them create this scandal.Most of the questions have been answered regarding the scandal so their wasn't one to begin with. Even during Hillary's testimony it proved that their wasn't a scandal to begin with.
John Bradshaw)The Benghazi attacks were not really a scandal but a bureaucratic failure.The state department facility securities were inadequate regarding Benghazi as a war zone.Hillary Clinton even said that she leads it to security experts and did not give a stand down order.Funding has increased for more secure facilities.
Michael Needham)Hollywood is trying to get us the ask the right questions regarding the attacks in Benghazi.The movies is trying to remind America of Hillary's deception.Hillary and the administration peddle the video protest.The question still arises if their was a stand down order.The American people have know the truth.
3)David Brock had a compelling argument because he blames the media that they had created a false scandal.
4)The Benghazi attacks triggered a possible scandal within the Obama Administration. The media and conservatives are using this to worsen Hillary campaign.During a debaters club meeting, David Brock had a more convincing argument than the others. In David Brock's compelling argument, he creates a sense of logos and with the use of loose sentencing, he explains the false accusations of the Benghazi attacks.
David Brock starts by creating a sense of Logos with the readers.By saying that he participated in studies regarding the Benghazi attacks, he establishes his credibility to talk about how they were just falsehoods by conservatives.Another way is when he talks about he published a book called the Benghazi hoax.This establishes even more credibility to talk about how the media is to blame for creating this fake scandal.
Casey Coggins 1st
ReplyDelete1. Americans were attacked in Benghazi in 2012. Since then, it has been rumored whether or not the event has been mislabeled, not given proper security for prevention, and covered up in order to help elect Obama and H. Clinton. The issue being debated is whether or not Benghazi is the scandal it is said to be.
2. Brian O. Walsh claims that Benghazi was indeed a scandal of the Obama Administration and uses several facts to prove so. He cites how the Obama Administration had failed to provide a secure environment for Libya, Clinton’s job, which caused chaos in Libya and led to the attacks. Clinton also failed to provide adequate security in Libya for Americans. Furthermore, despite communicating with the Egyptian prime minister that it was a planned attack, Clinton told America that the attack was a protest to a video, most likely in order to help Obama in the election. He sees the event mainly as a failure of Clinton. It is because of these clear evidences seen in the Obama Administration of lying and failure to send aid that Walsh believes Benghazi to be a scandal.
Michael A. Needham believes that Benghazi was indeed a scandal that needs to be observed. To begin with he illustrates how, despite the evidence proving it was a deliberate attack on America, the Obama Administration decided to call the attack a protest to a video when it clearly was not. Also, the Obama Administration did not act in the quick manner that the situation demanded. He also states that if the Obama Administration would have helped reconstruct after Gadhafi and given the necessary security then the U.S. would not have been in this situation. He finds there to be many suspicious questions surrounding the event and demands that the answers be given. He finds that it is because of the unanswered questions that Benghazi has become a scandal.
Ethan Chorin does not believe Benghazi was a scandal on the part of the Obama Administration. He claims that the U.S. was courageous by intervening in Benghazi, but opponents are making it “murky” to aid their plans. According to Chorin, it was not ignorant decisions made in security that allowed the attack but rather the fact that an attack from this region was just not very plausible considering the demographics of the region. He cites how the lifting of the EU arms embargo fueled the attack not anything done by the Obama Administration regarding security or post Gadhafi reconstruction. He ends by saying that the Islamic groups are the ones who caused a scandal not the Obama Administration, and that the attack needs to be a lesson not a debate.
Casey Coggins 1st
ReplyDelete3. I believe that Brian O. Walsh’s argument is the most effective and compelling because he discusses the issue logically, uses viable facts, and applies these facts in a way that cause the audience to see why the event needs to be classified as a scandal.
4. One of the most effective rhetorical devices Brian Walsh uses in his article is exemplification. This is seen throughout his essay but specifically when he describes all of the things the State Department has done wrong concerning Benghazi. This provokes his article to be so effective because it creates in his audience a logical attitude that clarifies the event and allows them to understand the viable reasons for the classification of a scandal. Also, providing these facts allows his audience to identify, themselves, the faulty, scandalous decisions made on the part of the Obama Administration. By providing these facts he is thrusting his audience in a logical mindset, one that meshes with his claim that Benghazi is a scandal.
Another significant rhetorical device Walsh uses in his article to support his claim is a periodic sentence. A periodic sentence is located in the last paragraph of his article where he is describing the vast amount of terror attacks and the failed attempts to mediate the situations. This technique is so effective because it creates emotions of anger and sorrow in his audience over the fact that so much damage has been done, yet nothing is being handled in the correct way. Also, the long description of all the events that have happened creates in the audience a sense that it is not logical for these things to keep happening which signals to the audience that appropriate measures are not being done in the State Department. Lastly, his periodic sentence brings together the main points of his article, putting emphasis on his claim, and, thus, causing his audience to align their thoughts with his and understand that Benghazi truly is a scandal due to the inappropriate way it has been handled.
Sarah Mcwaters
ReplyDelete1. The debate is over the Banghazi Political Scandal. It is believed that President Obama had covered up the true events in order to get reelected, as well as have Hillary Clinton reelected.
2. Walsh: Mr.Walsh believes that the Benghazi Attack was a legitimate scandal. He believes that Hillary Clinton was gross, negligent, and selfish. In his post he questions the reasons for her actions. Was it because of the reelection? Was it to protect herself from something? As of now no one knows the true answers, only Hillary's statement that the intelligence community "took the lead".
Needham: Mr.Needham also believes that the Benghazi attack was a scandal. He claims that the new movie about the attack, "13 Hours", will not just only open a wound, but remind Americans of Hillary's treachery. He says that the film will intrigue Americans and get them to ask questions. Questions such as: Why were 600 requests denied? Did Hillary actually know what she was doing?
Bradshaw: Mr.Bradshaw does not share the views of the previous to debaters. He believes that Benghazi is not, in fact, a scandal, but a bureaucratic failure on the State Department's shoulders. He believes that while it is impossible for the department to monitor each of the posts individually, they should have paid a bit more attention. If they had, perhaps the outcome of the attack may not have been quite so devastating.
3. I believe that Walsh's argument is the most compelling. It is so effective because he uses background information to support his claim and fine details to define his argument.
4. In late 2012 many American were shocked to the core with the news of Benghazi. Many questioned why and how such a terrible event had happened. Conspiracy theories were created and conclusions drawn. In order to address America's feelings on the situation, a debate was held. One of the contenders was Michael A. Needham, and throughout his thought-provoking argument he uses the device of rhetorical strategies in order to strengthen his claim that the event was indeed a scandal.
Using rhetorical questions, Needham arouses the readers mind. This lets the reader delve into several new avenues of thought that they had never perused before. By allowing this exploration, he forces the reader to crave more information from him on the topic. Without this the argument would be bland and unconvincing; also, if Needham had not included these rhetorical questions, his argument would lose most of its validity and intrigue.
Paige Nolen
ReplyDelete1. The issue being debated is whether or not Benghazi is a real scandal or not. Republicans and Democrats both have different views on if its just a war story or if it is more political than that.
2. Bryan O. Walsh states that it is Hilary Clinton's fault. That there were warnings about the deterioration of security in Libya. He says that her failure to acknowledge Stephens request to put more security down there was either negligence or she is lying about how informed she was. Clinton also told the American people it was a web video when she told her daughter in an email how it was terrorist related.He ends his speech by declaring that Benghazi was just one of many scandals by Clinton throughout her tenure.
Michael A. Needham also says yes. He makes a good point stating that the Clintons and Obama administration and their defenders are so worried about the "phony scandal" because its not phony at all. They made all of the poeople think that the killings had to do with a video that was online when really it was a terrorist attack and the US government knew it. They even made Rice go on television and "parrot the lie". He also states how there was a stannd down order for the CIA from the CIA's top Benghazi leader.He ends with saying that the American people deserve answers.
John Bradshaw believes that this was not a political scandal but a tragic outcome of two interacting forces. He says that The State Dep security bureaucraxy did not respond to the requests of more security in Libya effictively and that there was no specific knowledge that indicated an attack there. Bradshaw believes that there is no scandal but a "sad trail of bureacratic failures and plenty of blame to be shared". Clinton testifies that she is not a security expert therefore it is not really her fault that this happened. That we did not expect the secretary of state to review the security profile and respond to the requests.
3. Michael Needham presents the most compelling argument because he gives all of the reasoning as to why Clinton is to blame and states how the American people deserve answers and that the movie is making them ask the right ones.
4. Needham uses exemplification to show the American people that do not think it is Hilary Clinton's fault all of the reasons why it is. Needham inserts quotes from Hilary and emails that she has written to show how she lied to the American people. This gets the people that think she is for our country, realize she is not. By inserting examples it creates a sense of ethos, makinth people uestio clinton's authority.
Also, Needham uses a series of questions to get the people's attention. In the third to last paragraph he asks three questions relevant to the scandal. These make the American people think more about the scandal and why it happened. It makes them question Hilary and go more towards Needham's side. Asking these questions appeals to logos, making the people think more about the situation.
Ava Travis
ReplyDelete1. The issue being debated is the Benghazi attacks. Many people claim the attacks are either real or not real scandal the U.S needs to focus on.
2. Michael Needham: Michael Needham, a chief executive officer, believes that the Benghazi attacks are real and that they do deserve attention. He also believes that the American people deserve answers to why the attacks are happening and what the U.S plans to do to help the situation. Due to a recent movie that has been released, 13 hours, the movie has raised many questions that the American people should and need to ask. The movie, even though fictional, does represent in way the situation that is taking places in todays world with Benghazi and that's why it should matter.
John Bradshaw: John Bradshaw believes that the Benghazi attacks are a failure in our governments participation with foreign problems. The security of the people representing the U.S has become a problem with "trying to keep them safe but not feel locked up". That the Americans we have other there, while they are kept safe, some will push past security and basically do what they want when they feel it is necessary and that the attacks are not a scandal, just the government doing a poor job and not keeping them as safe as possible.
Ethan Chorin: Ethan Chorin, a former U.S diplomat, believes that the attacks are a scandal, but not in the way most people would think. Chorin points out that we, the American people, are blaming our leaders for not preventing the attacks, which makes it a scandal. The American people are more interested in "what could happen" rather than reality. The situations happening here in America with the elections are movies being produced on these topics are playing into why the attacks are happening.
3. In my opinion, Ethan Chorin has the most compelling argument because he has more reasoning behind to why the attacks are not as bad as they are made out to be since they are a scandal.
4. Ethan Chorin, a former U.S diplomat, uses euphemism and references to other works to portray why the Benghazi attacks are a scandal. By the usage are euphemism in the third paragraph, Chorin is able to appeal to ones sense of ethos to show why the Benghazi attacks shouldn't be blamed on Benghazi, but the Americans. The American people find situations like this to be "scandalous" and because we haven't "found a smoking gun", the people choose to blame government officials for not preventing the attacks. Instead, we release movies that shows off the reality of what happens in todays world. And that we choose to not see the internal dynamics behind in the events which appeals to ethos for the American people to make a change.
Additionally, Chorin uses references to another work to explain the situation in Benghazi. He uses a narrative to further reinforce his argument which also appeals to ones sense of ethos. It makes the American people reflect on fact that the government does certain things for a reason even if it does not have an outcome we would like. That they are using religion to exploit their internal hatred by committing these attacks.
Abby Ingle
ReplyDelete1.The issue being debated is if Benghazi is an actual political scandal. One side, the Republicans argue that it is a political issue caused by the Obama administration, while the Democrats say that the Republicans have turned it into a scandal.
2.Brian O. Walsh: Walsh argues that it is a political scandal. He blames Hilary Clinton for the issue, and accuses her of lying about how informed she was about the situation. He claims that the government failed to inform the people, and states that the reason for doing so is possibly related to the election. Walsh also cites America's own security problems, and implies that Clinton could make the same mistakes again, at home. He closes by saying that Clinton demonstrated poor judgment, and it has led to the end of people's lives.
Michael Needham: Nedham argues that it is an actual scandal. Like Walsh, he also accuses Clinton of being dishonest with the American people. He questions Clinton's authority and why the United States had troops in Benghazi to begin with.
David Brock: Brock claims that there is no scandal. He says that the conservatives have made it into one in order to discredit the Obama administration. Unlike Needham and Walsh, Brock says the American people know the truth and there is no need to question anything about the incident.
3. Needham is the most effective because he alludes to several political figures, and also establishes logos.
4. Needham is extremely effective because he alludes to several powerful political figures, as well as employs rhetorical questions in order to appeal to logos. The government, specifically Clinton, has been dishonest and broken trust with the American people. Its only logical to listen to someone who was involved in the incident.
Needham also utilizes rhetorical questions to build logos. These questions cause the audience to question the government, and whether or not they should believe what they are told. It also cause Americans in general to reflect on this incident, and determine how successful the Obama administration has been.
Taylor Burge
ReplyDelete1. The issue being debated concerns the 2012 attacks on Benghazi. The debate consists of Republicans stating that the attacks in Benghazi were a preplanned terrorist attack and that the attacks were covered up to re-elect Obama and now to elect Hilary Clinton. The Democrats say that the Republicans are fabricating a story out of a national tragedy in order to put Clinton out of the running for president.
2. Brian O Walsh firmly believes that Benghazi is a major scandal. Walsh believes that the entire Benghazi tragedy was a result of the failed leadership of Hilary Clinton. The author talks about how Clinton failed to grant security requests multiple times. He compares accounts from different sources about how Clinton told different stories to different people. Walsh not only believes that this is a scandal covered up from Americans to benefit Clinton, he states this is only one of the many scandal associated with Clinton.
Ethan Chorin agrees that the unfortunate events of Benghazi are indeed scandalous, but he does not agree that the attack was a scandal. Chorin knows that the attack was a shocking turn of events for the United States, yet he acknowledges we didn’t have a full understanding before we jumped in. He mentions that the network in Libya was deeply rooted and the United States previous interaction with Libya did not put our nation in good standings. Chorin states that Libya was actually least likely to accept an Islamist counterrevolution. The author mentions that it is unwise to bring this evet up in the current election.
David Brock says that the recent movie “Thirteenth hour” is just another excuse for critics of the Obama administration to try and attack the president. Brock says he believes that all the questions that have been asked, have been answered. He also argues that all the congressional investigations have proved that Hilary Clinton was clear. Brock counts seven congressional claims that have tried to force a scandal, but all have been proven false. He cites major TV stations jumping to conclusions and riling up the “scandal machine”.
3. I believe that Ethan Chorin had the best argument about the 2012 attacks on Benghazi. I believe that his argument was the most effective because he seemed like the most unbiased author. All the other authors were very obvious who they approved of and disapproved of politically, but Chorin was very straightforward and presented the facts without personal opinion.
4. Brian O Walsh uses specific quotes to cultivate his stance on the attacks of Benghazi. Walsh quotes Hilary Clinton on multiple accounts, citing her saying opposing views. Walsh does this in order to achieve the political advantage through his readers. He also makes use of public information to further prove his point, that Clinton was somehow being an inadequate leader. He writes about how Clinton denies requests from the US ambassador to increase security measures and he uses these unanswered questions to form a seed of doubt in the readers.
Walsh also prior instances of terrorist style violent to instill a sense of panic in his viewers. He brings up Paris and Philadelphia as examples that the world is becoming more conscious about their national security. He mentions these attacks to emphasize that with the world changing we can not afford to have leaders who are not completely trustworthy.
Brandon Appling
ReplyDelete1. The article is about the Benghazi attacks that occurred in 2012. With the release of the new film 13 Hours the debate of the Benghazi attacks has been brought back up and the article focuses in if there was a government scandal involved.
2. John Bradshaw calls the Benghazi attacks a beaurucratic failure, not a scandal. He mentions the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens' request for more security at the embassy in Benghazi, and how that request wasn't ever carried out. Bradshaw goes on to mention the targeting of the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and how the targeting of her is unjust.
Michael Needham makes the argument that the reason the Clintons and Obama's are concerned about the film 13 Hours and talks of an alleged scandal is because a scandal exists. He even points out the films reminder to Americans of Clintons deception. It is still unclear why the CIA, who learned of the attacks almost directly after they occurred, took about 20 minutes to respond. This is just one bit of an abundance of obscure information revolving around the Benghazi attacks and further points out the deception of someone in the U.S. government.
Ethan Chorin makes the argument that the American people are not mad at the people in the U.S. government for taking part in some sort of scandal. He insinuates that the American people are mad at certain leaders in our government because they did not prevent or avenge the attack. Chorin says that the movie is just a caricature of reality and that it makes the waters of this situation even more unclear. Chorin recognizes why the governments situation in the attacks can sound scandalous, as the attacks happened on the cusp of an election.
3. I believe that Ethan Chorin makes the most compelling argument as he uses more logistical points to form his argument than the other debators and sounds more educated on the topic than the others.
4. Chorin's argument establishes logos as well as ethos through the use of connatative diction and descriptions of recent events in forgien countries. The author cites events with middle eastern countries and the U.S. in the early 2000s and how the lifting of the EU arms embargo poured many small arms and millions of dollars into Libya, and how that may have indirectly had an effect on the attacks at Benghazi many years later. The writer's citing of this indicates that he is educated around the topic and finalizes his credibility late in the passage.
Dillon Baker
ReplyDelete1. The event being debated is the Benghazi attacks. The topic is whether or not the attacks were a political scandal.
2. 1. Brian O. Walsh- Walsh believes that the Benghazi attacks were indeed a political scandal. He blames the Obama administration for the incident. He says the State Department failed to secure their personnel in Benghazi. This led to a grossly inadequate defense force.
2. Michael A. Needham- Needham states that the State Department tried to blame the attacks on an internet video. He also brings us how the States department denied over 600 requests to add security. He also talks about how Clinton blamed the video despite stating that the attacks were not a "protest gone wrong" but actually a planned attack. There is also controversy to why the CIA took nearly 20 minutes to respond to the attack.
3. David Brock- Brock believes that the attacks were not covered up at all. He says that 7 different investigations have proved nothing except innocence. He said that the "scandal" is simply the Republicans attempt at sabotaging Clintons career. He thinks it is simply a "partisan witch hunt" against Democrats.
3. I personally believe Brian O. Walsh's argument is the most effective because he makes the most valid points and utilizes various rhetorical strategies to strengthen his argument.
4. In Walsh's article, he utilizes various examples of other failures Clinton has had to strengthen his argument that it was indeed a scandal. This is an example of logos. It is a form of statistic because he is showing that Clinton has had major failures before so the Benghazi attacks is just another to add to the list. This helps to fortify the belief that the attacks are Clintons fault.
Walsh is also seen using various pieces of evidence that show Clintons involvement in a possible scandal. One such example are the emails sent to her daughter and the prime minister of Egypt, stating that the attacks were not because of a controversial video posted on the internet. However she later blames the attacks entirely on the video. This is an example of ethos because it tugs at the readers sense of right and wrong when regarding lying.
Emily Free
ReplyDelete1)Debate has resurfaced due to the recent release of the film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi". Some believe that the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi were caused by scandal and others believe that it was simply due to lack of security.
2)argument 1- Brian O. Walsh believes that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that Hilary Clinton is responsible for Benghazi's lack of security. He brings up the question of why Clinton ignored repeated warnings that the security situation in Libya was crumbling. He also questions whether or not Clinton is lying about how she got the information on Libya, as the chain of State Department command ends with the secretary of state. Clinton was caught in a lie, as she told the Prime Minister and the American people two different stories about why the attacks occurred.
argument 2-Michael A. Needham also believes that Hilary Clinton is guilty of deception. He brings up some of the information that Clinton gave to the prime minister of Egypt, in which she says that the attacks were an act of terrorism, while she told the American people that they were a result of a protest gone wrong. Needham also questions the response time of the CIA, which was far too long.
argument 3- John Bradshaw, who is a former foreign service officer believes that the attacks were not a political scandal, but due to an inadequate security. He brings up research that shows that the State Department security bureaucracy did not effectively respond to requests to improve the security. Bradshaw says that all of the conspiracy theories against Hilary Clinton have been debunked.
3.) I think that Michael A. Needham's argument was most compelling because of all of the evidence he brought to light.
4.) In his article, Michael A. Needham addresses the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, and explores the possibility of a political scandal. He implicates Hilary Clinton, as she lied to the people of America. To strengthen his idea, Needham uses rhetorical strategies such as exemplification and appeals to ethos.
Needham brings up evidence that Hilary Clinton told the US and the prime minister of Egypt two different stories, using exemplification to make his audience question whether or not there is some sort of political scandal taking place. Needham references to other people in his article that also believe that there is some sort of political scandal, strengthening his credibility.
Grace Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. The issue being discussed is whether or not the Benghazi is a legitimate scandal. Republicans believe that this issue is a scandal, while democrats believe it is not.
2. Walsh is involved in informing American voters about what is going on in our country. He believes that the Benghazi is a scandal and is true. He says Hillary Clinton may have neglected to do something about the situation in Libya. He believes that it may be her fault for the four deaths of American soldiers in Libya. He believes this because at the time of the event the 2012 election was taking place and she was trying to keep her and Obama's tenures safe. She put the blame on the intelligence community saying that they took over and left her, who is over the state department, not knowing.
Bradshaw believes that this issue was not a scandal. He says that we did not have any sort of idea that there would be an attack. He defends Clinton by saying she was not informed about the security because it was up to the security experts and they are the ones who did not get the information correct. He says that the defense system should not get in touch with the opposing population to ensure more safety for our soldiers who are in those countries. Diplomats should devote their time in resources to make sure nothing happens, they should make that call, not the security department.
Needham feels that the scandal is 100% true. He says, why would Clinton and Obama worry about the scandal being fake, because it's probably not a fake. When the video of the attack went public, Clinton stated that it had nothing to do with it and that it was a phony. Obama was afraid that the video would actually show voters that they failed to take control and neglected to something about the attacks that were about to happen, which could have changed voters mind at the time of the election. He believes that we as Americans deserve answers about the situation and Clinton and Obama have failed to make those answers clear.
3. I believe that Walsh had the best argument, it is so effective because he states that Clinton really did know what was happening at the time yet she didn't make any actions to protect those diplomats, and her being over the defense system neglected to do her job.
4. Many things have happened in our nation that us Americans have been neglected of the information we have received. In 2012, four American diplomats were murdered in Libya and Hillary Clinton and Obama, kept the details in the background. In Brian O. Walsh's informative article he uses pathos and allusions to explain to those who do not know what is going on, why our defense system have kept things quiet.
On September 11, 2012, which alludes to another attack in Americas past, a terrorist attack happened in Libya where four American diplomats were killed. The information about the attack is not for sure, and we don't know if any actions took place or if we knew anything about the attacks to make a plan to prevent it. Walsh uses pathos to make an appeal to the American people's emotions about why there were no actions put in place to do something about an attack that we reportedly knew about. He insists that because Clinton and Obama were in an election that they kept things quiet to make sure they won't mess up their elections. He wants to tell the American people that this scandal is true and the people responsible are still in our nation's capital.
Rett Saele
ReplyDelete1. The Benghazi attack back in 2012 was a very hot subject for news media, especially Fox News. Some people feel it wasn't a scandal at all, and others feel it was the biggest scandal of the Obama administration.
2. Brian O. Walsh- He feels mainly that there was a tremendous lack of planning for a post Gadhafi Libya. Doing this, he feels left the state in a political vacuum that resulted in the tragic events that took place. Also there were multiple warnings of an attack and he raises the question... Why did Clinton do nothing? All in all he feels it was a big security failure on the Obama Administration and Clintons behalf.
Michael A. Needham- He feels that Hollywood got it right for once when making the blockbuster 13 hours(the secret soldiers of Benghazi). The movie never shows what's happening in Washington, but he claims it does a great job of making people ask the right questions. He feels it motivates people to want to know the truth, the truth that Hillary Clinton knew exactly what was happening and did nothing about it. Together he is clearly on the side that feels that the event was a scandal.
David Brock- Brock has a strong opinion that the whole idea of a scandal was made by Fox News to help boost the republican party as a whole. The whole purpose and idea of a scandal was another attempted hit on the Obama Administration by the republicans. He says, " there's no scandal only a partisan witch hunt ." All together he is strongly on the side that believes there was no scandal, and the purpose of one was for political gain.
3. I felt that Brian O. Wash and David Brock both had very compelling arguments. On Brocks side he makes good points about how legit the information was that Fox was spitting out, and how Fox ate the opportunity up to try and make the Obama administration look bad. However Brian O. Walsh also makes a compelling argument in the sense that Hillary Clinton lied and denied ever knowing what was happening when there are emails to prove that she knew exactly what was going on, and that she had, and knew of multiple warnings of an attack in Benghazi.
4. The Benghazi attack has drawn high attention to todays media. It's one of the biggest controversies since 2012 when it happened. By using connotative diction, ethos, and parallel syntactical structure Brian O. Walsh rights a compelling argument in an attempt to convince people that the whole Benghazi situation was a scandal, and a tragic loss because of the lack of attention to warnings.
By using connotative diction Walsh raises the question Why did Hillary ignore the multiple warnings. It builds the draw for people seeking the truth to find it, and look at all aspects of the situation. He also creates a strong sense of ethos that helps back himself as the speaker by bringing to attention the issue that we weren't ready to take on Libya's government transition, and because of our sec of defense Hillary Clintons ignorance Americans lost their lives.
kayla compton
ReplyDelete1. the issue being debated is whether or not benghazi is an actual scandal or not. the main people in the argument are those in the obama administration and hilary clinton.
2. "for once hollywood gets it right, benghazi matters" - the author of this article says that benghazi does matter. he says the obama administration wouldnt be worried about the new 13 hours movie if there was no scandal at all. he says clinton called the attacks acts or terrorism and said they had nothing to do with riots, and a video on the internet had nothing to do with the united states. he also states she emailed her daughter and theprime minister of egypt soon after the events. he ends the article by asking the important questions, such as why the US was in libya anyway
"a bureaucratic failure, not a scandal" - this article says that benghazi is in fact not a scandal. the author says that benghazi was like a warzone in the first place. and requests for more security just werent effective enough. he says clinton is not fully guilty because shes not a security experts and left the requests to the experts to handle. he also says there are so many posts around the world that people cannot expect every post to be important.but he claims future facilities need more security because of events like these.
"the benghazi attack is a scandal, but not in the way you think" - the autor starts by stating what a scandal is and going on to say that this is a scandal in our eyes, and because we dont know what had really happened, we blame our leaders for it. he goes on to say what many others would say about how the us intervened when we shouldnt had, and if we wouldnt have then this would have never happened.
3.i believe the best arguement is the article titled "a bureaucratic failure, not a scandal" because he explains what happened was not a planned and terrible thing, just a failure on the part of the leaders.
4.in john bradshaws article on the scandal of benghazi, he creates ethos and pathos in order to convince readers that benghazi was not a scandal, but a failure.
bradshaw creates ethos in his article by explaining that there are so many posts around the world for the US that not each one gets detailed attention. he also explains that the local security experts should have been more responsible in the area than those in the US. he creates this ethical appeal in order to convince his readers benghazi is not a scandal, and denies conspiracies by saying it is ridiculous that someone would believe clinton purposefully denied extra security in the area.
bradshaw also creates pathos. he does so by talking about one of the victims of this event. he said the man had asked for more security but the united states security bureau did not effectively reply to these requests. the failure to respond to these requests cost the man his life, and he was only one of the four victims. he ends the article by saying that men like stevens are brave and men that america need to keep interest in the us alive around the world. by using pathos bradshaw is trying to convince his readers that even though this man lost his life, he was very brave and could have stopped the event from becoming worse.
1.) The Benghazi is a very controversial topic involving attacks in 2012 on u.s facilities in Benghazi, Libya. This is debated amongst Republicans and Democrats and is a very heated issue that has recently been brought up due to the new release of the “Benghazi” films.
ReplyDelete2.) Michael Needham: Needham believes that this so called “phony scandal” is not at all phony and is very real. He believes that the Obama and Clinton administration is attempting to cover up the truth. Hillary Clinton knew that the attacks were terrorist and not protest but she pursued the path of making the public believe it was protest driven. Needham believes that Clinton had done this for political gain and is committing a corrupt act. Hollywood has done the right thing and is trying to show the american people the truth.
. John Bradshaw: Bradshaw believes that there is no scandal and that people are just trying to fit in evidence that just doesn't exist. He believes that many people are too blame but no real scandal exists. Bradshaw believes that our country has a duty to protect its diplomats and must use its resources to its best of use.
David Brock: Brock believes that conservatives have used these Benghazi attacks as a weapon against the Obama administration. He believes that conservatives should care about the real issues and using real issues as political weapons is very wrong. He believes that it is our duty to ensure that the media(fox news) does not twist ideas to show the american people the wrong messages.
3. Michael Needham has the more compelling and effective argument due to his speech going more along the lines of an everyday average individual making conversation. This ultimately appeals to the common man bc Needham talks about the movie 13 Hours and questions the motives of authority figures involved during the event. Not only that, Needham creates rhetorical appeals of pathos since he uses subtle humor in his article to grab readers and convince them of his position on the topic.
4. By creating appeals of logos and utilizing hyperboles, David Brock tries to convince those who believe in the Benghazi controversy that it is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
David Brock, a media expert who believes Benghazi to be a hoax, created logos to convince viewers who believe otherwise, his position on the topic. The logos that is created within the article acts as cushion for the credibility of Brock's expertise within the media and is evident "since 2013…we have written hundreds of blog posts and research items...providing thorough debunking of conservative falsehoods." The use of factual evidence only serves to give Brock a more knowledgeable appearance and emphasizes the fact that what happened in Benghazi and after were hoaxes and pure "make-believe." Not only that, Brock even goes as far to address his work to show that he, himself, debunked the hoax in his "Benghazi Hoax".
Brock also implements hyperboles in his article to compel viewers to take his side of the issue. The use of hyperboles primarily acts as a way to express/ emphasize Brock's take on the issue and his knowledge to add to his credibility, for example, "Media Matters reviewed 300+ questions that were asked" during Clinton's testimony. This exaggeration gives viewers what may be a false statement something to believe and keep readers reading as it is from someone who "seems" to be an expert. Not to mention the idea that the hoax created a "partisan witch hunt" creates an aura of satire since it exaggerates Brock's media expertise and shows how flawed the news media is due to its hoax and efforts to create a scandal and cloud the minds of the public from the truth, that is, if there was any.
Colby Free
ReplyDelete1) On September 11, 2012 the Benghazi attack happened. This attack is now being portrayed into a film inspired by the surviving fighters of it, and it is starting to expose so many lies that were told during the time and is staring to become a very popular political topic.
2) Brian O Walsh: Brian believes that Benghazi is a scandal. Brian shares the fact that Clinton tells America that the attack was about a video, that it was a protest. Yet, they have Clintons saying to the Egyptian prime minister that they know the attacks were not about the video. Brian points out, why would Clinton lie about it? Especially when its two weeks before Obama’s election. He also points out that this is just one of Clintons many scandals.
Michael A. Needham: Michael believes that it is a scandal as well. He states that is will “re-open the wound” just in time for clintons campaign. Even though the movie is not based on what Clinton said, it is sure to remind Americans of what happened that day. He also mentions about how the movie does a great job of showing how the CIA kept telling the men to “stand down” when the people being attacked were begging for help. Needham says "Benghazi matters. The American people deserve answers. And Hollywood, for once, is encouraging us to ask the right questions.”
John Bradshaw: Bradshaw beleives that it is not a scandal. Bradshaw states that it is not Clintons place to give them more security like they asked for. Bradshaw defends Clinton and says that we relied on our in state experts and expected the Sec of State to view our security profile and respond to our request.
I enjoyed and agreed with Needham’s debate. Needham shares the fact of all of Clintons lies and how there is no other reason for lying other than trying to cover something up. He suggest that the movie is showing the truth about what happened that day and it is going to open a lot of peoples eyes up to the fact that, they were denied security in Benghazi, the 4 men were told to stand down, and that clinton told the Prime Minister that America knew it wasn’t about the video and then told America it was about the video. I think America has a lot of unanswered question and the movie could be what we needed to get them answered.
4) On September 11, 2012 the Benghazi attack happened. This attack is now being portrayed into a film inspired by the surviving fighters of it, and it is starting to expose so many lies that were told during the time and is staring to become a very popular political topic. In Michael Needham’s debate he appeals to logos by utilizing exemplification to show his audience that Benghazi is a scandal.
Needham’s appeals to logos by stating the fact about Clintons lies by using the example of how she lied about the attacks being over a video. Needham shows his audience that he is intelligent and knows his facts. Needham uses his example of Clinton lying to achieve his purpose of telling his audience that Benghazi is a scandal and hollywood is just using this movie to encourage us to ask the unknown questions we have.
Drew Gardino
ReplyDelete- The issue that was being debated was whether or not the Benghazi attack was a scandal with the Obama Administration. The topic mainly focuses on the fact of whether or not Hillary Clinton knew that the attack was going to happen and neglected to send extra support for the base.
- In the Benghazi Is a Sad Chapter in Clinton's Tenure Walsh states that the Benghazi attack proves that the Obama Administration was not ready for post-Gadfhafi Libya. he claims that Clinton saw the security situation was deteriorating and that she intentionally choose to ignore it. He states that the State Department even refused to put a machine gun on top of the roof of the base when terrorist moved in right next door. He uses quotes from Clinton saying, " We knew what Stevens was asking for, but I was not in charge of the specific security decisions." Overall Walsh states that the Benghazi scandal is only one of many of hers and that they are responsible for the 4 Americans deaths.
In the For Once Hollywood Gets It Right: Benghazi Matters article Needham states Hillary Clinton is worried about the Michael Bay movie coming out not only because it could revive the scandal but because it is true. He also states that the CIA learned quickly about the attack but delayed twenty minutes and was far too long and cost the lives of four Americans.He also states that Clinton blamed the attack on a video; however, Needham believes that the video had nothing to do with the attack. Needham also raises questions as to why the United States was in Libya in the first place. Overall Needham blames the death of Americans on the Obama Administration and the CIA.
In the There's No Scandal, Only a Partisan Witch Hunt article Brock states that Conservatives have been trying ever since the Benghazi incident to show that the Obama Administration was behind the scandal when all the questions have been answered. He also states that Republicans have established a committee to investigated the incident so they can prove what they want to see. He also states how the Republicans have been "hyping" the Michael Bay movie so that they can hopefully bring back conspiracy theories and hurt the Clinton campaign. Overall, Brock states that all questions are answered and that there is nothing left to the incident.
- I think that Michael Needham presented the most compelling argument due to his appeal to logos through the use of facts and rhetorical questions.
- In Michael Needham's article he uses facts to create a sense of logos in order to convince people that the Obama Administration ignored and did not take action to save american lives. He states that the CIA delayed an evacuation attempt and that Clinton avoided Stevens and the Libya threat. When stating that the CIA delayed its shows a sense of resentment by the CIA and that they did not want to risk their resources in order to save American lives. When stating that Clinton actively avoided Stevens it shows segregation between Clinton and American lives in the Mid-East and that she is unaware of what is going on. These two things create a sense of logos in wondering if Clinton should be the Secretary of State and if the CIA is correctly doing their job.
Secondly Needham uses rhetorical questions to create a sense of logos. He states questions saying, "Why is the US in Libya?" and "Is Hillary Clinton capable of being Secretary of State?" When asking these questions it shows that the Obama Administration might not know what they are doing. It also shows that Administration's foreign affairs policy is weak and that Hillary Clinton is not capable of being Secretary of State. This creates a sense of logos and shows that the president might have picked the wrong person for Secretary of State.
Julie Morrison
ReplyDelete1. The argue is on the Benghazi scandal. The main question is, Is it real or not?
2. Michael A. Needham- Needham believes that it is real. He says that Obama was mainly focused on his presidential election at the time. Obama was so focused on trying to keep his votes. Clinton was focusing on keeping hers and Obamas jobs and was trying to convince the public that it was fake. Needham's main point was why were they so concerned about something if it was "fake"?
-Brian O'Walsh- O'Walsh believes that it is true. He claims that Obama was only focused and keeping his tenured and position as president. O'Walsh also believes that it is Clinton's fault for neglecting the security. And that it could have been partly her fault for the four deaths.
-John Bradshaw- He believes that its not a scandal. He claims that it is all the defense system's fault. That Clinton has nothing to do with the safety/security. He claims that no one knew there could be an attack and there was no way to stop it.
3. I believe O'Walsh made the best argument. I believe this because his situations he described about Obama mainly focusing on his presidency and Clinton neglecting the security seems like a reasonable and true story.
4. The Benghazi scandal has been an issue in America. When the film, "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" came out, it sparked questions about rather it was real or not. In O'Walsh's convincing argument, he appeals to pathos and logos through the use of statistics.
O'Walsh uses statistics throughout his argument to show how the Benghazi scandal is real. He states how Clinton simply neglected her duties and was only focused on her position. Tis makes people feel neglected by her and makes people feel unsafe. He also talks about Obama doing the same thing and not letting it get out because of him waning to keep his votes. This all creates emotion in American and makes people feel unsafe.
Hannah Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. The issue that is being debated is the fact as to whther the benghandi ws a scandal or not a scandal. Republicans are trying to research and figure out more about this topic while democrats are saying that republicans are only trying to this for personal gain.
2. Brian Oswalsch says that this incident is all of Hillary Clintons fault because she didn't share the information that she recieved from one of the terrorist with any other people. He says that Hilary claims that she was not responsible for the security requests. Yet the chain of State Department command ends with the secretary of state. She is trying to cover up why she didn't let anyone know about this scandal. Their are many questions that people are wanting answered but they are not willing to answer.
on the other hand John Bradshaw says that this was not a scandal but inadequate security for U.S. posts. Also this was the propensity of foreign service officers to continually push against the boundaries of the security envelope. He says that the security provisions for the State Department facility in Benghazi were inadequate given its location in what was essentially a war zone.
Michael Needham says that for once Hollywood finally gets it right and that Benghazi is a scandal. He says that many Americans are asking questions about this incident. No one is answering them and they deserve to know the truth about this. he says that These are not "conspiracy theories" just because we don't have all the answers. The American people deserve to know the truth. Hollywood is finally starting to encourage those to ask the right questions in order for them to be heard and answered.
3. I believe that Brian Oswalsch's article is the most effective because he uses many examles in order to show how this whole incident was a he scandal and while doing all of this you can also agree with what he is saying.
4. Many things have happened in our country. Some things that we as Americans don't even have an input on because we are kept from it. Their have been four people that have been killed in Lybia because of a scandal that Hillary and Obama both knew about but didn't share with others. In Brian Oswalsh's article he appeals to those by utilizing exemplification in order to tell those that do not know, that this incident in Binghazi was a scandal.
Brian Oswalsch appeals to ethos by utilizing exemplification. He says that Obama and Hillary both know about this terrorist situation but do not tell the American people about it because they are trying to keep the country safe and out of trouble. He says that Hillry was not responsible for the security requests when in fact she was because that is her job. Many people are wanting to know about this but no one is willing to answer their questions they have. Hillary even lies about a video being sent out instead of telling the truth to the people. Even if they are trying to keep the country safe they should strengthen the security systems so it is harder for terrorists to attack innocent people. Americans should be able to trust their own president and secretary of state but how can they when they ie and go behing their back?
1. The Democrats and Republicans are constantly and consistently arguing over whether or not the Benghazi attack scandal is legitimate or not. The Republicans are trying to uncover the so called "scandal" to use it as an attack towards presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democrats insist that their is no such scandal and that no attacks were ever covered up.
ReplyDelete2. Brian O. Walsh - On Septemeber 11, 2012, the eve of the Benghazi attacks, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's lack of action helped take the lives of four American officers. Secretary Clinton ignored a multitude of warnings about the current state of security in Benghazi, and took no action whatsoever. Secretary Clinton even denied the placement of a machine gun on the roof of the Benghazi compound even though a terrorist group were located near the compound. In September 2012, President Obama was only a few weeks away from re-election, and a scandal such as this coming out would have ruined his chances, hence why Secretary Clinton covered it up. With the constant terrorist attacks from Islamic Terrorism groups all over the world, Benghazi is just one of many of the Secretary's scandals that she is hiding from the world
Ethan Chorin - Benghazi is in fact a scandal, but not the type of scandal that the GOP is making it out to be. The attack could not have occurred at a worse time for the Democrats, and the GOP is taking advantage of the bad timing fully. They are blaming our leaders for not preventing the attack, and by making it out to seem that Clinton and the entire Obama administration was fully aware that the attacks were to take place. The American public seemingly loves the idea of a scandal, and the Republicans are all for making it seem like their was one, when in fact their was not. IN 2004, when the arms embargo was lifted, under a republican president we might add, many terrorist groups throughout Europe were able to become armed when thousands of small arms were released into Europe. Benghazi is not a scandal that anybody could have foreseen, it is only another terrorist attack that could not have been stopped.
Michael A. Needham - The attack in Benghazi was most definitely a scandal, and one that needs to be uncovered and told. If there was not a scandal in Benghazi, why would Bay's movie have the President and Clinton riled up? Because it is very real. Hillary Clinton knew that the state of security in Benghazi was getting weaker as the months flew by, and she repeatedly denied over 600 motions for additional security from ambassador Stevens. Clinton admitted to both her daughter and the ambassador in Egypt that the attacks were clearly planned, and not part of a protest. Clinton and her state department had to have foreseen the attacks and known that they were coming soon, so why did she not make any actions to save the officers that were killed that night?
3. I believe that Brian O. Walsh gives the most compelling argument due to him giving a multitude of examples and facts throughout his essay that back up his given claim.
mills harrison
ReplyDelete1. Is the Benghazi that happened in 2012 a political failure? or is the fatal attack a scandal?
2. (Brian o Walsh) Benghazi was a failure of the Obama administration. After the Gadhafi regime fell there were civil wars that broke out. At this time Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state and was in charge of the foreign affairs. Clinton was not prepared for the attack which caused a fault line in U.S. security. the Obama administration had failed to materialize the needs after the fall because of ill preparedness.
(john Bradshaw) The Benghazi attack was a failure not a scandal. The U.S. embassy was technically placed in the middle of a war zone. One of the men who lost their lives Chris Stevens during the attack had on an earlier date asked for security to be increased. The State department security bureaucracy had failed to heed this request effectively. This is the attack was aimed toward the secretary of state.
(Michael A Needham) the media is now worried about the new Michael Bay film "13 hours". Reason being is that it would wake up the conflict of a scandal. It showed what Hillary really did during the attack. The media worries that this will effect the Clinton administration do to the scandal. The movie portrays what goes down in Washington at the time of the fall and how it is taken care of. The movie may not all be wrong because not all of it is a scandal.
3. I believe that Brain O. Walsh presented a stronger argument because he actually used real evidence and broke down what went on in Washington that affected the out come of Benghazi and further most what role did it play in the future.
4. In the article by Micheal Needham he appeals to pathos, ethos, and logos by utilizing exemplification, visual imagery, and rhetorical questioning to convince the confused or wandering minds of the politically involved public and the manipulated general public that its a scandal. When Needham wrote this article he was thinking of the men who lost their lives or where involved in the attack. He also took into account decisions in Washington were made that day and who they were made for. the film "13 Hours" comes as close to it gets to what really went down. The examples that Needham utilizes are from the first had accounts of those involved.
To appeal to pathos Needham visual imagery through diction for example "When the bodies returned to American shores" he begins to pain the picture that the Clinton administration lied over the coffins of their or our beloved soldiers and citizens. Needham also appealed to ethos through rhetorical questioning as this "Did Hillary Clinton know what she was doing when she had her hand on the tiller of Barack Obama's foreign policy?". Needham causes you to think about why was Hillary calling the shots in this attack. The creation of logos is brought about by the use of exemplification. " The United States knew the events were terrorist attack,". this is what Needham uses to show that the U.S. should have acted logically and increased the security,
1. With the release of "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" has brought up a controversial opinion about what exactly people think Benghazi was. Some are saying that it was a huge scandal by the Obama administration and some say its not that at all.
ReplyDelete2. Brian O. Walsh- He is of the strong opinion that the State Department was well aware of the poor situation in Benghazi. He states that either a complete failure occurred in the State Dept. or Clinton completely ignored requests fro more protection there. Clinton repeatedly denied requests for more protection and staff by the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Not only were the requests denied, but the staff was even reduced by Clinton.
Micheal A. Needham- He is of the opinion that the reason the Obama Administration was making a big deal of saying it was a "phony scandal" was because it wasn't actually a phony. The Clinton state dept. lied about the attack being caused by an demonstration gone wrong when they were well aware that it was an act of terrorism. Clinton had Susan Rice spread the lie on national television in a slap in the face to the American people. After 600 denied requests for more protection why the hesitation to act?
Ethan Chorin- He thinks that while Benghazi was a scandal, it was not one of Clinton's doing. The question is why were we even in Libya in the first place? why support a new regime when it was due to fail? These are the questions that should be asked.
David Brock- seems to think that there is no scandal what so ever. He goes on to claim that FOX News helped the Republican Party make a "phony" scandal. He states that all the government investigators say that there is no scandal. He believes that the idea of Benghazi being a scandal is ridiculous.
3./4. Brian O. Walsh- All he says seems to make sense he uses his tone and words to make a sophisticated argument. All these factors combined create a sense of logos that supports everything he says. It just gives you a "this guy knows what he's talking about" kind of feeling. While he targets Clinton he also makes it clear that its more than just Clinton that is wrong with the Benghazi scandal.
~Blake E. Lockridge
BRIAN PHAM
ReplyDelete1. The issue being debated is about the Benghazi attacks in 2012 on US facilities stationed in Libya. The issue has surfaced once more with the release of "13 Hours" and the upcoming elections with Clinton being one of a few at the forefront.
2. Mchael Needham: Needham comes into the debate believing that Hollywood has given insight to the attacks. Needham acts like a movie critic trying to determine if the movie got everything right, but in fact, only leaves Needham with more questions than answers. Needham seems to be anti-Clinton and takes the form of blaming her for the attacks.
John Bradshaw: Bradshaw takes the most realistic approach and believes the scandal didn't exist, but was a government failure instead. While there is no scandal, there is still plenty of blame to go around as Bradshaw believes whoever was involved with the attacks and didn't do anything about it should be blamed. Not only that, Bradshaw also shows that we should be obligated to protect others and use our resources for the greater good. All in all, Bradshaw shows a more responsible characteristic in his article.
David Brock: Brock assumes a position that the other debaters never really considered and believes that the scandal was the result of the news media creating a hoax. Brock takes the stance of being more satirical with his idea of the hoax being a "witch hunt". Brock blames the news media for the impact it has made and goes as far as to check off on his resume to show how his employer, Media Matters, helped debunk the scandal.
3. David Brock's argument compelled me the most due the variety of exaggerations being present in his article and the subtle use of pleonasms to emphasize his side of the debate. Not only that, the argument had the aura of being satirical due to the crazy title of the article and the exposure that FOX News got through the argument.
4. David Brock utilizes hyperboles to emphasize his side of the argument and convince those who fell for FOX News' tricks that the scandal was an elaborate hoax. The use of hyperboles primarily acts as an attention grabber and because the argument is almost like that of satire which is not surprising to hear as such tactics are employed to attract. The hyperboles also allow for Brock to seemingly become an expert on the topic at hand. For example, "Media Matters reviewed 300+ questions" that were asked during Clinton's testimony. If Media Matters reviewed that many questions, surely they should know the truth by now? Exactly that, Brock implements these hyperboles so well that they almost seem logical and factual, but in fact, the truth is being stretched. While, the hyperboles are expertly executed, the use of pleonasms allows for both strategies to appeal in sync.
David Brock utililzes pleonasms to convince those who are clouded by the news media that the scandal is a hoax. Now, there are several instances of where these pleonasms are cleverly used to clarify Brock's position on the topic, one of which appears after providing a list and stating once more,"seven- count them, seven -congressional investigatons have disproved the conservative claims". This use of pleonasm only serves to emphasize that the media and conservatists are wrong about their attacks on Clinton. Not only that, the tactic even goes as far as exposing the truth behind many figures who were involved with the hoax.
Christina Cabanero
ReplyDelete1. A new film called “13 Hours: The Secret Soldier of Benghazi" recently came out by Michael Bay about the deadly 2012 attacks on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. This brought up the debate as to whether or not this film is political and critiques the presidential administration at the time or if it is just another film which documents and tells the story of war.
2. Brian O. Walsh believes that the Benghazi situation is a legitimate scandal. He explains that there were extra security measures that could, and should have been taken in Benghazi that day. Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton failed to take precautionary measures based on the warnings she was given on the deteriorating security situation and then misinformed the American people on the cause of this attack, which created more controversy, thus making it a legitimate scandal.
John Bradshaw does not believe Benghazi was a scandal. He believes that situations like these lead to “second-guessing and recriminations”. Everybody is looking for someone to blame and many locked on to Hillary Clinton as the one at fault. Bradshaw is able to link his personal experience with serving in U.S. posts overseas to this situation and further explains that when he was serving they “relied on in-country experts, regional security officers and the appropriate bureaus back in Washington to ensure our security” and the security responsibilities didn’t fall solely on the shoulders of the secretary of state.
Michael A. Needham Benghazi is another who believes that this does count as a legitimate scandal and Hollywood did the American people a favor by releasing the movie 13 Hours. Needham believes the movie will bring Benghazi back under the microscope as it should. He explains that the way in which the situation was handled in Libya was a failure that the state department and the Obama administration misinformed the American people about. They blamed a video protest for the attack although they were aware that it was a premeditated terrorist attack.
3. I believe John Bradshaw presented the most compelling and effective argument. Bradshaw starts off by describing his personal experience and connection to U.S. posts overseas then goes on to relate to and explain the Benghazi incident. By describing his own experience he is able to prove that he is credible, thus giving the audience more reason to listen to him over the others who are just criticizing without necessarily knowing exactly what they are discussing.
4. John Bradshaw appeals to ethos and logos in order to strengthen his argument - the Benghazi scandal is not a scandal at all. Through personal exemplification Bradshaw creates credibility with the audience. His experience in U.S. posts overseas not only credits him, showing people that he knows what he is talking about, but also acts as an example, backing up his point that attention in all of the wrong places or not enough attention at all can cause total misrepresentation of what actually occurred.
Bradshaw also creates a sense of logos throughout his passage. By providing statistics, a detailed explanation of the focuses in Washington D.C, and how they work he is able to strengthen his argument. One of the more persuasive ways to win a debate is to appeal to the logical side of things, which is exactly what Bradshaw does as he tells the ins and outs that he learned during his experience in U.S. posts overseas and other information he had gathered. These facts provide strong evidence, that make his position more compelling.
Gabby Traywick
ReplyDelete1. The issue being debated is if Benghazi is a scandal. Some believe it is one of the biggest scandals of the Obama Administration and others believe that people are making a scandal out of nothing.
2. Needham begins his debate by stating that the Michael Bay film may reopen wounds from the 2012 Benghazi attack. He states that the film reminds the American people of Hillary Clinton's deception. This is because she knew the nature of the attack and did not have a sense of urgency. People have also noticed that the CIA took some time to respond to the attacks, it took them 20 minutes to prep for responding to the attacks. Then, he views how it raises questions like, "Why was the United States in Libya in the first place?"
Bradshaw begins his debate by stating how he is former foreign service officer, so he says the 2012 attacks had a resonant meaning to him. He does not believe it was a scandal at all but the outcome of bureaucratic inertia and boundary pushing foreign service officers. Bradshaw noted how investigations observed poor security provisions. He believes that the posts should not rely on the State Department for security. He believes this because when he was at a post there too was security issues but they handled it themselves.
Walsh begins by noting that the security issues at the post were directly linked to Hillary Clinton and how she did not help. Also, the Obama administration did not prepare for post-Gadhafi Libya which drove the country into instability and lawlessness. He again emphasizes the fact that Clinton repeatedly ignored warnings about the attacks. Then, why she chose to act as if the video was just a web video instead of saying it was actually a terrorist attack.
3. I believe Needham presents the most compelling argument because it focuses on Hillary Clinton's part in the 2012 attacks and the CIA's. He believes the film is encouraging the American people to ask the right questions.
4. Needham's argument begins with a rhetorical question. Needham does this to get the reader to think and believe that the event is not phony. The rhetorical question appeals to logos as it makes you think. He also does this at the end of the article to appeal to logos.
Victoria Jones
ReplyDelete1. The release of the movie "13 Hours" has sparked a national debate and made the Benghazi terrorist attacks a political issue. Republicans and democrats are split over the attacks, and it is very evident in the use of the attacks for the presidential election.
2. Ethan Chorin: Former U.S Diplomat believes the attacks were not scandalous. He also believes that the US was morally in the right for being in Libya. Plus he states that if the US had not intervened, Libya would be worse than what they are like right now. He thinks we are blaming our leaders not for causing it but not being able to prevent it.
John Bradshaw: He believes the areas the attacks occurred essentially in a war zone, because that is what the state department concluded. Plus, even the Ambassador to Libya had stated his concerns for the work going on over there. He lost his life during the terrorist attacks. However, even though he worker overseas at one point, Bradhsaw concludes that it was not a political scandal.
David Brock: He also believes there is no scandal tied to these attacks. States that if anything a scandal is being imagined just to harm the Obama administration, which is what individuals have been trying to do for years. And this movie that has just been released has just given more fuel to the fire. He states the media is to blame for this Republican attack using the Benghazi events.
3. John Bradshaw, he has been overseas, in a similar position as to where the attacks took place.
4.
Haden jones
ReplyDelete1.The movie "13 Hours" is about the soldiers that were in the benghazi attack. This has sparked the issue back into debate on whether it's a tragedy or a well-planned scandal.
2.Michael Needham: Benghazi is not phony at all. Clinton received an email about the 15 armed attackers and was briefed on the attack. Clinton tried to shift blame to an Internet video trying to turn it from a terrorist attack into a violent protest. The film will remind the American public of the administration's failed response to the attack and encourage us to ask questions on why we were there, what was our plan to keep order, and why did Clinton deny 600 requests from the ambassador to beef up security.
Ethan Chorin: The attack is a scandal but not in the way we think. The attackers counted on the murkiness of the attack to make attention turn away from transgressional political agenda. It is also the west's fault for taking down ghadhafi without considering what it would do to the internal dynamics of the country.David Brock:Benghazi isn't a scandal but the conservatives having a partisam witch hunt.The media helped the Republicans to have their witch hunt.There can't be a scandal because all the answers for benghazi have been answered.The Republicans are ruthlessly trying to the Clinton down by saying she sympathized with the attackers.
3.I believe Michael Needham made the best argument using statements and facts from the incident.
4.Ethan Chorin tries to take away from the movie's credibility by saying it has heavy one sided political undertones.
Yasmine Evans (3rd)
ReplyDelete1. The debate on the upcoming release of the 13 hours movie changed from nonpolitical to political. Now, Benghazi has become the topic of discussion, politically.
2. Michael Needham said that Benghazi matters. I agree, but it doesn’t have to be a political matter. The movie 13 hours is just a movie telling the story of the soldiers in Benghazi and how an anti- Muslim video added fuel to the fire. Needham wants to remind people on what Obama didn’t do. He feels that the response time took too long.
Ethan Chorin says that this isn’t a scandal like what we think. Just like Needham, it blames the leaders for taking a long time. The U.S. providing aid to Libya was a factor of Gadhafi’s creation of OPEC.
Brian Walsh blames Hilary Clinton for everything. He says that it was the lack of security. He states that she ignored the signs and the situation.
3. John Bradshaw made the most compelling argument saying that it was a government failure. It was because U.S. Ambassador Steven was killed by Islamic militants. According to Wikipedia, “State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack”.
Cameron Rico
ReplyDeleteMichael Bays movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" has rekindled an argument that Benghazi is a scandal or not. The movie has add to the arguments and actions people are taking to confront Clinton and the Obama administration.
Brian O Walshes in argument he claims that it was a scandal and that Its Hillary Clintons fault there was a lack of security. He mentions how that when they took down Gadhafi, that there wasn’t really a plan for what to do next and if there was, it didn’t work. Also that there was a concern from U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens that he felt as there was a lack of security and there was a need for more.Clinton's State Department not only refused to try to help, they also reduced the number of security in Libya also, and this shows negligence on Clintons part. And she says that she had no power over what they did, but obviously she did.
Michael A. Needhams argument is that he is glad they brought up the Benghazi issue again and that Hollywood got it right for once. He talks about how Clinton keeps referencing a video that doesn’t really matter, and won’t take responsibility for it. And apparently the The Obama administration and Clinton knew it was a terrorist attack and not jut a little protest that went wrong. They also sent a woman name Susan Rice to talk on shows to make the lie go around that they were going to do something about it. He questions if Clinton even made a stand down order and let them just attack it.
In John Bradshaws argument he says that it was just a bureaucratic failure not a scandal . he feels for this situation because he was a former foreign service officer and that he was posted overseas. He says that this tragedy happened because of two forces colliding not because of something that Clinton did. He argues that Clinton had was no a master of security measures and she was right to let them do what they needed to do.
The Benghazi debate was a fierce argument about how to blain for the tragedy that happened there and has been recently been rekindled by a movie that Michael bay created. People and scandalmongers have been looking for someone to blame and they are pointing their anger at the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton . And now that Clinton is running for president the argument could be detrimental to her success and campaign as a president. John Bradshaw argues that the entire situation was just a bureaucratic failure and not a scandal. In Bradshaw’s reasonable opinion , he creates a sense of pathos by using connotative diction.
First he creates logos by using connotative diction. He mentions the death of Chris Stevens, a U.S ambassador, and “, had noted his concerns about security” and that the State Department security bureaucracy, did not give a good response. He says this to show how this is just a failure of planning and orders from that security dept. And that there is no underlying cause. This is done nicely to show that if they would have sent reinforcements , maybe he would still be alive. He also says this to point fingers away from Clinton and to show its not her fault.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Hardy
1. The debate at hand is the discussing the topic of Benghazi. The argument is whether or not it is a political scandal or a real tragedy.
2. Michael A. Needman’s opinion on the matter is that this wasn’t just a phony scandal. Why would the Clintons and the Obama administration be so worried if it was just a phony scandal? He states that just minutes before the assault, Hillary Clinton received an email saying that "15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance." She even told the prime minister of Egypt and her daughter that the US knew that the events were a terrorist attack, but decided to hide this information from the American people. The movie “13 Hours” reminds the American people that the Obama administration failed to response to the attack. The CIA heard fairly quickly about the attack, but it took 20 minutes for the agency to respond to the assault. Needman’s argument comes to the conclusion that Benghazi matters and the American people deserve answers.
Ethan Chorin believes that it is a scandal. However, not in the way that Americans perceive it. He starts by defining a scandal to mean "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage”, which he then states is true. Its perpetrators killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. However, Americans find it scandalous because our leaders didn’t prevent the incident.
David Brock believes that the conservative media figures and politicians have tried to turn the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, into a political weapon against the Obama administration. Also that they’ve begun to use the movie “13 Hours” to do this as well. He states that all the questions have been asked and answered. However if you still don’t believe it isn’t a scandal, then to check the seven congressional investigations that have found no evidence of wrongdoing by administration officials, including Hillary Clinton. Fox News just wants you to believe it is a scandal.
3. I believe that Michael A. Needman presented the most compelling argument. He gave factual evidence behind what we as Americans see on the news and that Clinton and the Obama administration did in fact know about the attack.
4 In Michael A. Needman’s compelling argument, he appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos by asking rhetorical questions and exemplification.
By asking rhetorical questions, Needman brings up exellent questions creating an appeal to pathos and ethos. An example of this is when he questions, "Why are the Clintons, the Obama administration and their defenders so worried about a phony scandal?" In this, he raises the point that it must not be phony if they are so worried about this. He brings up other questions that we as Americans are also wondering. Was there a stand down order? Where did it originate?
Needman also uses exemplification to support his points. He brings up that Clinton recieved an email 15 minutes before the incident, but did nothing. She alson told the prime minister of Egypt and her daughter that the US knew that the events were a terrorist attack. He also talks about that the CIA also knew but took 20 minutes to respond. By providing these examples, he validates his argument.
summary:
ReplyDeletePeople cannot decide if Benghazi is a scandal or not. Republicans believe the fact have been covered up, while Democrats think they are overreacting.
3 debaters:
Michael Needham
Needham believes that Benghazi is a scandal. He claims that Clinton knew and told people that it was a terrorist attack, despite telling the public it was a protest gone wrong. The Obama Administration sent someone on tv saying that it was a protest. The CIA response was way too late according to people that were there. Needham believes Americans deserve to know the truth. Some of the things he wants answers for include why the U.S. was even there and why, when everyone else left, Americans stayed there.
John Bradshaw
He was interested in this issue because he was a foreign officer. He believes this issue is not a scandal, but the outcome of of inadequate security and a push against the boundaries of the existing security. The day before, no one had received anything about potential danger. Bradshaw claims that Clinton is being blamed for things she did not do, like issuing a stand down order. He says that more resources should be allocated to the security of our foreign officers.
Brian Walsh
He starts by saying that there is clear evidence that proves Clinton was involved. The first issue with this attack is the failed attempt at fixing Libya. He also says that Clinton might have ignore messages about potential danger there. The Obama administration publicly blamed a video but privately called this a terror attack. He ends by saying Benghazi is only one of many Clinton scandals.
I think that Brian Walsh's argument is the most effective because he has the most factual evidence and reports in his argument, so it is more believable.
Rhetorical analysis:
First, Walsh uses quotes to appeal to ethos.He quotes two Senate reports, one saying "There was ample warning that the security... was deteriorating..." this makes his audience, those unsure of whether Benghazi is a scandal lean more towards hi point of view, that it was. Quoting Senate reports make Walsh seem very knowledgeable, like he has done his research on the topic. Also, the audience will question Clinton's actions after the attack and why she says there was no warning, when the Senate claims there was.
Next, Walsh uses rhetorical questions to appeal to logos. "Why not be honest?" Walsh is asking why Clinton feels the need to lie or omit or cover up the true nature of the tragedy, and then follows by asking if it was because of the nearing election. This makes both her and President Obama seem guilty, as well as angering those who voted for him that might have done otherwise if this information was public then.This definitely did what is was supposed to do, as Benghazi has sparked outrage and controversy all over America.
Ashlyn Grantham
ReplyDelete1. Through the new film 13 Hours being released, its Benghazi-filled plot has revived some debates of if it was a scandal through the Obama administration or not. The attacks on the military base in Benghazi might have more secrets that Americans don't know about.
2. Brian Walsh believes Hilary Clinton is to blame for Benghazi’s lack of security. The Obama administration failed to prepare a transition between the government before and after Gandhafi. Clinton knew the security in Benghazi was deteriorating; yet denied requests to strengthen it. Clinton also knew that the attack had nothing to do with a web film, yet told Americans that anyway.
Michael A. Needham believes Hillary Clinton knew before, during and after the events in Benghazi occurred that it was a terrorist attack. Yet she still claimed it was a web video protest. The movie showed the attack on th4e ground, causing Americans to think back at Obama’s lack of response. Needham wonders why we didn’t have a plan for post-Gandhafi and why did we continue to stay in Benghazi when Britian and other countries were leaving because of the danger?
John Bradshaw believes the State Department dif not respond to repeated requests for increased security. He however, does not believe it was a scandal but a tragedy by which had multiple groups of people to blame. He says it isn’t possible for Clinton to be involved in the security of all American posts worldwide. It, therefore, is not the secretary of state’s fault, but the State Department needs to respond when posts feel like they’re in danger.
3. I believe Bryan Walsh gave the strongest argument by appealing to logos through statistics and ethos by establishing his authority to write about the topic.
4. Needham begins and ends using rhetorical questions, questions that Americans don't have the answer to. This device strengthens his position that us Americans are hidden in the dark, and not truly told everything. He references evidence of Clinton's phone calls to show that she deliberately knew facts, and hid them from Americans, lying to the nation. He doesn't get emotional, but using logistics Needham lays his argument out and shows why he is correct in his beliefs about Benghazi.
He shifts focus from Clinton onto the Obama administration and the CIA. Needham tells the story on how the CIA waited 20 minutes to respond, appealing to pathos to create exigency in readers. Americans wonder why the CIA would wait so long to address such a tragedy. He creates confusion and wonder in Americans in order to strengthen his belief on the Benghazi scandal. He references the movie moment where the attack is taking place on the ground, and Americans wonder why the Obama administration doesn't respond. He inflicts distrust on Americans against the government, a sense of unsafety.
Jane Frances Armour
ReplyDelete1. This issue being debated is whether Benghazi is a legitimate scandal or not. Also, it's about passing blame onto others and different political parties.
2. 1. Brian O. Walsh's opinion about the Benghazi is that it was a scandal. He thinks that the Obama administration was not prepared and lead the security to fail in Benghazi. Also, he mentions Hillary Clinton and the mistake she makes by ignoring warnings that there needed to be more security in Libya. He says it is a scandal because the American government lies and says that it happened because of a video when it really was a terrorist attack. Basically, Walsh thinks that it was a scandal because of Clinton's lies and poor judgement. 2. John Bradshaw's opinion of Benghazi is that is was not a scandal, just a failure. He also thought that it wasn't just Clinton's fault but the State Department because she can't focus on each post individually. He thought it was ridiculous that Clinton was being accused of intentionally denying the post of security. Also, Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador for Libya knew what he was doing and loved it, but diplomats need to be ensured of their safety. He thinks that people wanted there to be a scandal so they blamed it on Clinton, even though it was the State Department's fault as a whole. 3. David Brock's opinion about Banghazi is that it was not a scandal. He thinks that Fox News is trying to convince people that there is a scandal even after investigations showed that there was no wrong-doing. He thinks that Fox News is going to use "13 hours" as an excuse to try to blame Clinton for Benghazi. He believes that all the questions have been answered, so there was no scandal. He thinks that politicians and others are trying to blame the Benghazi incident on the Obama administration to bring it down.
3. John Bradshaw's argument was the most compelling and effective argument because he established ethos and gave us reasons on how it wasn't Clinton's fault. He used logic to explain his reasoning and wasn't trying to blame it on any one person. He was rational.
4. 1) In John Bradshaw's article he uses an anecdote to create an appeal to ethos. He tells us that he used to serve in multiple U.S. posts overseas and that shows that he knows what he is talking about. It establishes that he is not just an outsider looking in, but someone who has been involved in it and it makes the reader trust that he knows that the Benghazi was not a scandal. Also, he uses it to share that not all the blame should be put on Hillary Clinton, creating an appeal to logos. He uses his personal story to prove that it would not be Clinton's fault by saying how it was when he was at a post. The use of the anecdote is really effective because it creates an appeal ethos and logos. 2) Bradshaw uses connotative diction to create an appeal to pathos. He uses words like "tragically" and "chaotic" and "passionate" to describe Stevens and what happened to him. These words make the reader respect Stevens and sad about what happened to him. He also uses words like "ridiculous" and "scandalmongers" to describe what happened to Clinton and who did it. These words make it seem that what Clinton was accused of is insane and that the people who accused her are insane. Bradshaw's use of connotative diction was effective in making the reader feel a certain way towards that subject and creating an appeal to pathos.
Abby Nelson
ReplyDelete1.) The debate being discussed here is whether Benghazi is an actual political scandal or not. It brings in to question if the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were responsible for this political issue or scandal.
2.) Michael Needham believes that yes, this is a real political scandal and isnt just a "phony." He talks about how Hillary Clinton received an email about a terrorist attack was occuring. She even told the Prime Minister of Egypt and her daughter. However, when she got this information, she chose to hide the true nature of the events to the American people. Michael then goes on to talk about how the CIA took too long to respond to the attack. Overall, he believes that America deserves to know what really happened with Benghazi as it really matters and has been overlooked.
David Brock believes differently as he doesn't think that the Benghazi attacks involved a political scandal. He thinks that republicans have made this phony scandal to attack the Obama administration and to use it as a political weapon towards the president. Brock talks about how the attacks happened before Obama was even re-elected and Mitt Romney used it as a way against him. He believes that the media is just using the Benghazi attacks to appear as a phony scandal to citizens and they are bringing in misinformation to make them think so. In conclusion, he believes that this movie being made is just twisting facts and creating a scandal that is all fake and wrong.
Ethan Chorin thinks that this issue with Benghazi can be seen as a scandal. However, he believes that Americans are just blaming all the attacks and everything on the leaders of America. He says that Americans are perceiving the attacks wrong and blaming them on the wrong people. Chorin said that because of these political debates, people are missing the real focus of the Benghazi attacks. He believes they should be put in context and learn from what has been being debated lately.
3.) I believe that Michael Needham presented the most effective argument. I believe this because he brought in many facts and tried to back up what has been heard about the scandal.
4.) In Michael Needham’s argument supporting the political scandal with Benghazi, he creates an appeal to logos and ethos by using rhetorical strategies like exemplification and also asks rhetorical questions.
Needham asks rhetorical questions to make the audience rethink their stance on this political scandal. In doing so, he creates an appeal towards ethos as he is trying to bring up ethical points to the reader. For example, he asks, "Why are the Clintons, the Obama administration and their defenders so worried about a phony scandal?" He says this so that maybe people could realize that this scandal cannot be fake if these leaders of America are so worried about it. Needham also asks other questions so that the readers can realize his point and the information he has on the scandal.
In this debate, Needham also uses exemplification as a rhetorical strategy to help back up his belief about the political scandal. He talks about Clinton getting an email right before the attacks, yet she didnt do anything to prevent it from happening. Clinton even told her daughter and the prime minister of Egypt that these were actually terrorist attacks. Needham then goes on to exemplify how late the CIA was to responding to hearing of the attacks. He provides such an emphasis on these things to let the citizens know how much proof he believes is behind this political scandal. Overall, he provides these examples to exemplify his points and provide logical information to create an appeal to logos.
Kailie Porter
ReplyDelete1. Critics and citizens are arguing over the topic of whether or not the Benghazi attacks are scandal or political charade. This topic has been revisited due to a film adaptation of the attacks, and whether they do the soldiers justice or just promote propaganda.
2. -Michael A. Needham argues that the Benghazi attacks were political scandal. He believes that the film is a good way to remind those following Clinton's campaign trail of her deceit when serving as Secretary of State. Apparently, Clinton knew at the time of the attacks that they were terrorist attacks and so did the Obama administration, however still held up the lie to the American people that they had no idea of such nature. Needham argues that the film encourages Americans to present the correct questions, and to be aware of what is happening behind the scenes of the presidential candidate they are following.
-On the other hand, John Bradshaw argues that the Benghazi attacks were not in fact a scandal, but just a security failure. He states that prior to the attacks American soldiers had complained about a worrisome lack of security. He claims that Clinton did not deny requests for more security, as she is accused, but instead left that to the security officials, claiming security was not her responsibility. Simply put it was a mistake and a failure on the government's part and a lack of security officials in Benghazi.
-Brian O. Walsh argues that the attacks were a scandal. He says the Obama Administration as well as Clinton's place as Secretary of State both failed to exemplify the amount of security needed for such a place as Benghazi. He states that Clinton was fully aware of the security needs and as her place in the government should have made sure the requests for more security were fulfilled.
3. I believe that Brian O. Walsh presents the strongest and most effective argument towards this topic by the way he describes exactly how Clinton held the place at the end of the chain of command and ultimately is either lying or did not take proper actions to fulfill her duties and the requests of the American soldiers in Libya. Walsh presents the strongest and most detailed argument towards his stance. He uses factual evidence concerning the attacks and Clinton's knowledge towards it to back his argument.
4. Brian O. Walsh appeals to ethos by using factual evidence, quotes from Hillary, and quotes from American soldiers stationed in Libya. By doing so Walsh establishes credibility and strengthens his position. Walsh also uses examples from recent attacks from the Islamic State of Isis in Paris, San Bernardino, and elsewhere to furthermore connect with his audience.
Additionally, Walsh appeals to logos by describing exactly Clinton's place in the government and the power she held at the end of the chain of command serving as Secretary of State. This establishes logic towards his audience that Clinton should have had a direct influence on the security problem in Libya prior to the attacks at Benghazi. Walsh establishes logic an credibility into his argument against Clinton and the Obama Administration, calling it a scandal inside the government.
1. The issue being debated is whether or not the conflict that happened in Benghazi in 2012 was a political scandal.
ReplyDelete2. O.Walsh: In O'Walsh's argument he believes that the attack in Benghazi killing 4 Americans was a political scandal and could have been prevented if Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and the Obama administration took precautions after the fall of Gadhafi and have a plan in place to make a smooth transition of governments. O'Walsh believes that Hillary was informed of the instability in Libiya and even denied and decreased security. Bradshaw: Bradshaw is a former foreign service officer. In his argument he believes that there was and never will be a scandal, just a series of failures of the bureaucratic system. He explains that one of the victims repeatedly asked for increased but was not responded to by the department of security. When no one wanted to take the blame so everyone began to call it a scandal. Needham: In response to the movie, 13 hours, Needham believes that the Benghazi was a political scandal. In his argument , he states that Hillary Clinton and her daughter knew that the attack in Benghazi wasn't a protest attack but a terrorist attack and in order to make it seem like a " protest gone wrong" they created a video. He compares the movie and the actual events leading up to the attack.
3. O' Walsh had the most compelling and effective argument because he goes into great details as to why it was a political scandal and he gives examples of how she knew more than she let on , in addition he goes in to how most of the decisions go through the secretary of state so how could she not know.
4. In Brian O' Walsh's argumentative debate about whether or not the 2012 Benghazi attack was a political scandal or just bureaucracy gone wrong. He us exemplification to establish logos. Through out history, America's main concern was for national security inside and outside the country and to do whatever it takes for it to be met, but in 2012 national security was given poor judgement that killed 4 people. In O'Walsh's debate he states " she (hillary clinton) is responsible for she is responsible for Benghazi's lack of security becomes increasingly clear." as secretary of state she is responsible for the well being and decisions that affect diplomats in other countries but she failed to do so and when under pressure she created a video to cover her tracks and lied to the american people. In addition, O'Walsh uses recent terrorist attack as examples of how national security is slowly diminishing.
O'Walsh uses syntactical devices to establish ethos. Through out his debate he uses periodic sentences to emphasize how we, the american government, has failed to protect our own in another country, "expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound." the victim was denied protection from his country because secretary of state didnt have the "authorization". Hillary clinton and the Obama administration were held responsible not only by the government but by the american people who felt pity for the victims and frustration towards the ones who were suppose to protect us.
Teriana Moore