Abstract
The present study examined how the pre-war debate of the US decision to invade Iraq (in March 2003) was discursively constructed in the US/British mainstream newspaper opinion/editorial (op/ed) argumentation. Drawing on theoretical insights from critical discourse analysis and argumentation theory, I problematised the fallacious discussion used in the pro-war op/eds to build up a ‘moral/legal case’ for war on Iraq based on adversarial (rather than dialogical) argumentation. The proponents of war deployed ‘instrumental rationality’ (ends-justify-means reasoning), ‘ethical necessity’ (Bush’s ‘Preemption Doctrine’) and ‘humanitarian virtue’ (the bombing of Iraq to ‘save’ Iraqis from Saddam’s pestilent tyranny) to justify the pending invasion of Iraq. Their arguments intertextually resonated with Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’ rhetoric in a way that created a form of indexical association through ‘recontextualisation’. The type of arguments marshalled by the pro-war op/ed commentators uncritically bolstered the set of US official ‘truth claims’ and ‘presuppositions’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
But, the authors also pointed that “morality and legality were marginalized” (ibid.: 20).
Features also contained opinion pieces (Schuetz 2005: 206).
For anti-war argumentation, see Wilson et al. (2012).
For critical discourse analysts, political power and control cannot be divorced from the power of language. “Anything that is said or written about the world is articulated from a position; language is not a clear window, but a refracting, structuring medium” (Fowler 1991: 11).
For example, the depiction of Iraqi men during the war as the main suffering subjects “over-masculinised” post-9/11 America in that the deployed “emasculating discourse” served “the testosterone-ridden military initiative of the US in its bid to demoralize and destroy its enemies and raise the morale of its soldiers” (Youssef 2008: 162).
Like McCarthy, Collin Powell showed up at the UN Security Council with a pile of poor ‘intelligence’ files he claimed would yield irrefutable evidence that Saddam had WMD. These pieces of ‘evidence’, however, were mere speculations based on phone interceptions, satellite pictures of areas beyond the zone under Saddam’s control.
“[t]here is one special context where ad ignorantiam is not a fallacious mode of reasoning, namely in the courts” (Woods and Walton 1989: 168). A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This can also be regarded as a form of hasty generalisation (secundum quid).
This “argument from example” is “inherently weak” because it fails to “confirm a claim conclusively” (Walton 1996: 50).
According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (2002) report, while Iraq military expenditures reached about $19 billion per year between 1980 and 1990, by 1995 Iraq military budget was only $1.5 billion (cited in Hartnett and Stengrim 2004: 166).
References
Altheide, David L., and Jennifer N. Grimes. 2005. War programming: The propaganda project and the Iraq War. The Sociological Quarterly 46: 617–643.
Bekalu, Mesfin Awoke. 2006. Presupposition in news discourse. Discourse and Society 17(2): 147–172.
Bell, Allan, and Peter Garrett (eds.). 1998. Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bellamy, Alex J. 2004. Ethics and intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq. Journal of Peace Research 41(2): 131–147.
Bjola, Corneliu. 2005. Legitimating the use of force in international politics: A communicative action perspective. European Journal of International Relations 11(2): 266–303.
Blommaert, Jan, and Jef Verschueren. 1998. Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of tolerance. London: Routledge.
Brookes, Heather Jean. 1995. “Suit, Tie and a Touch of Juju”—the ideological construction of Africa: A critical discourse analysis of news on Africa in the British Press. Discourse and Society 6(4): 461–494.
Bunnin, Nicholas, and Jiyuan Yu. 2004. The Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy., 500–579. Wiley and Sons online.
Burridge, Joseph. 2007. The ‘Spectre’ of anti-Americanism in the British public debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics 6(2): 201–221.
Chermak, Steven. 2003. Marketing fear: Representing terrorism after September 11. Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1(1): 5–22.
Chilton, Paul. and Lakoff, George. 1995. Foreign Policy by Metaphor. In Language and Peace, eds. Christina Schäffner, and Anita L. Wenden, 37–59. Second Printing, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic publishers.
Chouliaraki, Lilie. 2000. Political discourse in the news: Democratizing responsibility or Aesthecizing politics? Discourse and Society 11(3): 293–314.
Christensen, Wendy M., and Myra Marx Ferree. 2008. Cowboy of the World? Gender discourse and the Iraq War debate. Qualitative Sociology, Special Issue on Political Violence 31: 287–306.
Coury, Ralph M. 2005. The demonisation of Pan-Arab nationalism. Race and Class 46(4): 1–19.
Crawford, Neta C. 1996. Imag(in)ing Africa. Press/Politics 1(2): 30–44.
Crick, Ruth Deacon., and Clarence W. Joldersma. 2007. Habermas, lifelong learning and citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 26: 77–95.
De Goede, Marieke. 2008. Beyond risk: Premediation and the Post-9/11 security imagination. Special issue on security, technologies of risk, and the political. Security Dialogue 39(2–3): 155–176.
De Wijze, Stephen. 2003. Complexity, relevance and character: Problems with teaching the ad hominem fallacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 35(1): 31–56.
Dunmire, Patricia L. 2005. Preempting the future: Rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse. Discourse and Society 16(4): 481–513.
Esser, Frank , Reinemann Carsten, and Fan David. 2001. Spin doctors in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany: Metacommunication about Media Manipulation. Press/Politics 6(1): 16–45.
Fahmy, Shahira, and Daekyung Kim. 2008. Picturing the Iraq War: Constructing the image of war in the British and US Press. International Communication Gazette 70(6): 443–462.
Fairclough, Norman. 2005. Blair’s contribution to elaborating a new ‘doctrine of international community’. Journal of Language and Politics 40(1): 41–63.
Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Goss, Brian Michael. 2002. “Deeply Concerned about the Welfare of the Iraqi People”: The sanctions regime against Iraq in the New York Times (1996–98). Journalism Studies 3(1): 83–99.
Greenberg, Joshua, and Sean Hier. 2001. Crisis, mobilization and collective problematization: ‘Illegal’ Chinese migrants and the Canadian news media. Journalism Studies 2(4): 563–583.
Hahn, Ulrike, and Mike Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114(3): 704–732.
Harris, Jerry. 2008. US Imperialism after Iraq. Race and Class 50(1): 37–58.
Hartnett, Stephen J., and Laura A. Stengrim. 2004. ‘The whole operation of deception’: Reconstructing President Bush’s rhetoric of weapons of mass destruction. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 4 (2), 152–197.
Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. 1994. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. London: Vintage.
Hitchens, Christopher. 2005. The case for regime change. In A matter of principle: Humanitarian arguments for war in Iraq, ed. Thomas Cushman, 29–38. California: The University of California.
Hodge, Adam. 2008. The dialogic emergence of ‘truth’ in politics: Reproduction and subversion of the ‘war on terror’ discourse. Colorado Research in Linguistics 21: 1–12.
Hove, Thomas. 2008. Understanding and efficiency: Habermas’s concept of communication relief. Communication Theory 18: 240–254.
Jackson, Brian. 2007. Jonathan Edwards goes to hell (House): Fear appeals in American Evangelism. Rhetoric Review 26(1): 42–59.
Jacobs, Scott. 2002. Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The Warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jacobs, Scott. 2006. Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad. Argumentation 20: 421–442.
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203.
Janse, Ronald. 2006. The legitimacy of humanitarian interventions. Leiden Journal of International Law 19: 669–692.
Jones, David Martin, and M.L.R. Smith. 2006. The commentariat and discourse failure: Language and atrocity in cool Britannia. International Affairs 82(6): 1077–1100.
Kull, Steven, Ramsay Clay, and Lewis Evan. 2004. Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly 118(4): 569–598.
Lafollette, Hugh. 2005. Living on a slippery slope. The Journal of Ethics 9: 475–499.
Lakoff, George. 1999. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Viet Nam Generation Journal and Newsletter 3(3): 1–17.
Lando, Barry M. 2007. Web of deceit: The history of western complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Doubleday: Bush.
Lazar, Annita, and Michelle Lazar. 2004. The discourse of the new world order: ‘Out-casting’ the double face of threat. Discourse and Society 15(2–3): 223–242.
Leeuwen, Theo van. 2003. The Representation of Social Actors. In Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, ed. Michael Toolan, 3: 302–339. London and New York: Routledge
Mazid, Bahaa-Eddin M. 2007. Presuppositions and strategic functions in Bush’s 20/9/2001 speech. Journal of Language and Politics 6(3): 351–375.
Meer, Nasar. 2006. ‘Get off your knees’: Print media public intellectuals and muslims in Britain. Journalism Studies 7(1): 35–59.
Miller, Richard B. 2008. Justifications of the Iraq war examined. Ethics and International Affairs 22(1): 43–67.
Neiger, Motti. 2007. Media oracles: The cultural significance and political import of news referring to future events. Journalism 8(3): 309–321.
Nikolaev, Alexander, and Douglas Porpora. 2007. Talking war: How elite US Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces debated the attack on Iraq. Sociological Focus 40(1), 6–25.
Noakes, John A., and Karin Gwinn Wilkins. 2002. Shifting frames of the Palestinian movement in US news. Media, Culture and Society 24(5): 649–671.
Norris, Andrew. 2004. “Us’’ and ‘‘Them’’: The politics of American self-assertion after 9/11. Metaphilosophy 35(3): 249–272.
O' Tuathail, Gearóid. 2002. Theorizing practical geopolitical reasoning: The case of the United States’ response to the war in Bosnia. Political Geography 21: 601–628.
O' Tuathail, Gearóid, and John Agnew. 1998. Geopolitics and discourse: Practical geopolitical reasoning in American Foreign Policy. In The geopolitics reader, ed. Gearóid O' Tuathail, Simon Dalby and Paul Routledge, 78–91. London and New York: Routledge.
Pfiffner, James P. 2004. Did President Bush mislead the country in his arguments for war with Iraq? Presidential Studies Quarterly 34(1): 25–46.
Porpora, Douglas, and Alexander Nikolaev. 2008. Moral muting in US newspaper Op-Eds debating the attack on Iraq. Discourse and Communication,2(2): 165–184.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Roth, Kenneth. 2005. War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. In Human rights in the ‘War on Terror’, ed. Richard Ashby. Wilson, 143–156. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schuetz, Janice. 2005. Arguments of victims: A case study of the Timothy McVeigh Trial. In Argumentation in practice, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 197–214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Peter R.R. White, and Karin Aijmer. 2007. Presupposition and ‘Taking-for-granted’ in mass communicated political argument: An illustration from British, Flemish and Swedish political Colloquy. In Political discourse in the media, ed. Anita Fetzer, and Gerda Eva Lauerbach, 31–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sornig, Karl. 1989. Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion. In Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse, ed. Ruth Wodak, 95–113. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tindale, Christopher W. 2005. Hearing is believing: A perspective-dependent account of the fallacies. In Argumentation in practice, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter. Houtlosser, 29–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1987. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1988. News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Opinions and Ideologies in the Press. In Approaches to media discourse, ed. Bell. Allan, and Peter. Garrett, 21–63. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2002. Political discourse and political cognition. In Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse, ed. Paul Chilton, and Christina Schäffner, 203–237. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Eemeren Frans H., Rob. Grootendorst, Henkemans A. Francisca Snoeck, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson, Erick C.W. Krabbe, Christian Plantin, Douglas N. Walton, Charles A. Willard, John Woods, and David Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren Frans H., Bert Meuffels, and Mariël Verburg. 2000. The (Un)Reasonableness of ad hominem Fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19, 416–435.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 130–144. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20: 381–392.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Texts and practices, readings in critical discourse analysis, ed. Carmen Rosa. Caldas-Coulthard, and Malcolm Coulthard, 32–71. London: Routledge.
van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1(1): 83–118.
Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Walton, Douglas. 1999. The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation 13: 367–377.
Walton, Douglas. 2002. The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation 16: 473–503.
Walton, Douglas. 2004. Argumentation schemes and historical origins of the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation 18: 359–368.
Weber, Cynthia. 2005. Securitising the unconscious: The Bush doctrine of preemption and minority report. Geopolitics 10: 482–499.
Whaley, Bryan B., and Lisa Smith. Wagner. 2000. Rebuttal analogy in persuasive messages: Communicator likability and cognitive responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19: 66–84.
Wilson, John, Sahlane Ahmed, and Somerville Ian. 2012. Argumentation and fallacy in newspaper Op/Ed coverage of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics 11(1): 1–30.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 1999. The discursive construction of national identity (trans: Hirsch, Angelika and Mitten, Richard). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Woods, John. 1998. File of fallacies: Argumentum ad baculum. Argumentation 12: 493–504.
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas. 1989. Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. Dordrecht- Holland/Providence RI-U.S.A.: Foris Publications.
Youssef, Maisaa. 2008. Suffering men of empire: Human security and the war on Iraq. Cultural Dynamics 20(2): 149–166.
Zarefsky, David. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22: 317–330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 List of Opinion/Editorials
-
1.
“Uncertain territory,” The Times (London), March 11, Tuesday, Features; 21, 644 words.
-
2.
“Oil, intimidation, rage -why we are really at war,” The Times (London), March 20, 2003, Thursday, Features; 20, 1407 words, Anatole Kaletsky.
-
3.
“Boys with big, loaded toys…I know what that’s about,” The Times (London), March 19, 2003, Wednesday, Features; 22, 613 words, Melissa Kite.
-
4.
“Le Bulldozer takes up tap dancing and learns to love himself,” The Times (London), March 15, 2003, Saturday, Features; 26, 1012 words, Ben Macintyre.
-
5.
“Clare Short, ally of the ‘post-heroic strategists’”, The Times (London), March 5, 2003, Wednesday, Features; 20, 1414 words, Simon Jenkins.
-
6.
“Honesty is the first casualty of the War of Short’s Ego,” The Times (London), March 13, 2003, Thursday, Features; 22, 625 words, Mick Hume.
-
7.
“Uncertain territory,” The Times (London), March 11, 2003, Tuesday, Features; 21, 644 words.
-
8.
“Law, and conscience, demand we go to war,” The Times (London), March 3, 2003, Monday, Features; 18, 1423 words, William Rees-Mogg.
-
9.
“Bush: a policeman with the law on his side,” The Times (London), March 17, 2003, Monday, Features; 18, 1424 words, William Rees-Mogg.
-
10.
“Comment & Analysis: Too much of a good thing: Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new opportunities for surplus capital,” The Guardian (London), February 18, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 17, 1232 words, George Monbiot.
-
11.
“Comment & Analysis: A wilful blindness: Why can’t liberal interventionists see that Iraq is part of a bid to cement US global power?,” The Guardian (London), March 11, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 21, 1200 words, George Monbiot.
-
12.
“Threat of war: Wimps, weasels and monkeys—the US media view of perfidious France: Dissenters in Europe become the first victims—of a war of words,” The Guardian (London), February 11, 2003, Home Pages, Pg. 3, 757 words, Gary Younge in New York and Jon Henley in Paris.
-
13.
“Comment & Analysis: Why I had to leave the cabinet: This will be a war without support at home or agreement abroad,” The Guardian (London), March 18, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 26, 831 words, Robin Cook.
-
14.
“Comment & Letters: If we are going to intervene, there will have to be rules: Fetishising sovereignty is a dictators’ charter, but Martini interventionism is no better,” The Guardian (London), March 8, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 20, 1242 words, Jonathan Freedland.
-
15.
“Comment & Analysis: Want to be a world leader? Learn the vital five steps: Blair, Bush and even Saddam are unwittingly giving a master class in how to govern,” The Guardian (London), March 15, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 20, 1244 words, Jonathan Freedland.
-
16.
“Comment & Analysis: Dilemmas of war: It is entirely consistent to be against this invasion—yet hope for a speedy victory in the interests of the Iraqis,” The Guardian (London), March 19, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 23, 1157 words, Jonathon Freedland.
-
17.
“Comment & Analysis: Trust Tony’s judgment,” The Guardian (London), March 18, 2003, Leader Pages, Pg. 25, 807 words, Bill Clinton.
-
18.
“Threat of war: Paris: emollient words but no retreat on war: France insists on UN route as criticism reaches new intensity,” The Guardian (London), March 14, 2003, Home Pages, Pg. 4, 826 words, Jon Henley in Paris and Patrick Wintour.
-
19.
“The Calm Before,” The WP, March 12, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A21, 783 words, Michael Kelly, Kuwait City.
-
20.
“Why it’s War, Dear Friend,” The WP, February 9, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. B07, 734 words, Jim Hoagland.
-
21.
“Thinking Parochially, Acting Selfishly,” The WP, March 13, 2003 Thursday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A23, 813 words, Jim Hoagland.
-
22.
“Hussein’s Shame Strategy,” The WP, March 20, 2003 Thursday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A29, 791 words, Jim Hoagland.
-
23.
“Europe’s Monomania,” The WP, February 23, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. B07, 788 words, George F. Will.
-
24.
“Permission from the Powerless,” The WP, March 4, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A23, 751 words, George F. Will.
-
25.
“Uncomfortable Silence,” The WP, March 15, 2003 Saturday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A23, 860 words, Colbert I. King.
-
26.
“Ignoring the Unthinkable,” The WP, March 17, 2003 Monday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A19, 844 words, Fred Hiatt.
-
27.
“When War is the Best Medicine,” The WP, March 16, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. B07, 948 words, Bill Frist.
-
28.
“Bush’s Minimalist Mantra,” The WP, March 11, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A23, 774 words, David S. Broder.
-
29.
“Pearl Harbor 2003?,” The WP, March 18, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A29, 1015 words, Frederick W. Kagan.
-
30.
“The Case for Action,” The WP, February 5, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A22, 1306 words.
-
31.
“Are Inspections Working?” The WP, March 11, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A22, 736 words.
-
32.
“Damage Control,” The WP, March 16, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. B06, 700 words.
-
33.
“A Question of Will”, The WP, March 18, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A28, 738 words.
-
34.
“First Strike,” The WP, March 20, 2003 Thursday, Final Edition, Editorial; Pg. A28, 571 words.
-
35.
“D-Day,” The NYT, March 19, 2003 Wednesday, Late Edition–Final, Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 29, 750 words, By Thomas L. Friedman.
-
36.
“The Gridlock Gang,” The NYT, February 26, 2003 Wednesday, Late Edition- Final, Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 25, 757 words, By Thomas L. Friedman.
-
37.
“Give Freedom a Chance,” The NYT, March 6, 2003 Thursday, Late Edition- Final, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 31, 682 words, By William Safire.
-
38.
“President Bush Prepares for War,” The NYT, March 17, 2003 Monday, Late Edition–Final, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 22, 464 words.
-
39.
“Power and Leadership; The Real Meaning of Iraq,” The NYT, February 23, 2003 Sunday, Late Edition–Final, Section 4; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 10, 1724 words.
-
40.
“Today’s War is Against Tomorrow’s Iraq,” The NYT, March 10, 2003 Monday, Late Edition–Final, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 19, 1034 words, By Philip Bobbitt.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sahlane, A. Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq. Argumentation 26, 459–488 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9265-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9265-8