Politics

4 Pages 919 Words

The argument that I chose to analyze is one of Cynthia McKinney and her thoughts on the terrorist attacks on September 11th and America’s “War on Terrorism”. Cynthia deals with a few different arguments in one passage. I do not know if it is possible to say that her argument is both good and bad but I think some aspects of her argument are good and some very bad. My assessment will show you why I feel this way. In her argument she accuses the President and his administration of knowing about the attacks, but keeping quite about the attacks for reasons of personal financial gain. Cynthia also contends that others knew about the attacks such as our elected officials and the media and need to be held accountable. She also states that the “War on Terrorism,” is a gateway of rights violations that target different races by committing racial profiling.

In Cynthia’s first claim, that the President had personal financial gain her conclusion statement is: Persons close to the Administration (Bush’s) are poised to make huge profits off America’s new War. McKinney supports this conclusion with four premises. Premise number one: Former Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle group (Established in 1987, The Carlyle Group is a private global investment firm that originates, structures and acts as lead equity investor in management-led buyouts, strategic minority equity investments, equity private placements, consolidations and buildups, and growth capital financings). Premise number two: The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense industries, the Army’s fifth largest contractor. Premise number three: The stock offering was well timed; Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after September 11th. Premise number four: The stock sale cashed in on increased congressional support for hefty defense spending, including one of United ...