Creft and Woody

Amber Creft and Ryan Woody

Assignment #2
Professor Blair
13 March 2015
Action against ISIS
As stated by President Obama, Earlier this week, one Iraqi said no-one is coming
to help. Well, today America is coming to help, (Ackerman, par. 4). This statement was
the result of the crisis in the Middle East also referred to as ISIS. ISIS is a well-known
Islamic terrorist group that is spreading anti American ideas throughout the Middle East.
They have killed many innocent people in twisted ways. America is now in a position to
lead the fight against ISIS. Bill OReilly wrote the article we selected to analyze. His
article was written to discuss the measure not taken by President Obama to do something.
Bill OReilly started his own show on the conservative Fox News. In 2001 it was the
most watched cable news program. He went on to create his own news column and radio
show and is often known for his blunt controversial statements He has also written
multiple best-sellers (Bill OReilly). Through Bill OReillys s use of Ad Hominem,
Stacked Evidence, and Slippery Slope; he attempts to sway the reader to his side and
portray President Obama in a negative manner.
Throughout the article there are many instances of Ad Hominem fallacies all in
which show Bill O'Reilly characterizing president Obama as a bad leader. Defined by,
Wood, an Ad Hominem argument attacks a persons character rather than ideas (Wood,
par. 15). An example of this is seen when Bill OReilly states, When he leaves office in
23 months, President Obama might consider a career in construction. Of course, no
responsible person has ever claimed we are at war with Islam or all Muslims (OReilly

Creft and Woody

par. 1-4). Through this we can clearly recognize the sarcastic personal attack on President
Obama rather than his idea specifically. He is sarcastically attacking his career by
implying that President Obama go into construction as well as his level of responsibility
rather than his ideas of how he will handle ISIS. A second instance of an attack on
President Obamas character is seen when OReilly says, The President always seems to
be overly concerned with the possibility that someones feelings might be hurt if he
speaks a little too harshly about Islamic-based terror (OReilly par. 6). Here OReilly is
depicting President Obama to seem weak as an individual. He is taking President
Obamas understanding and willingness to cooperate and displaying it negatively by
saying he is not a strong enough act. Lastly an Ad Hominem attack is seen when OReilly
says, That reluctant warrior, of course, is President Obama (OReilly, par. 12). This is
expressing that Obama is Commander in Chief, yet has not taken us into War against
ISIS. OReilly is attacking Obamas decision making and his position as a leader of our
nation. Obama has in fact used air strikes against ISIS to help civilians in the Middle East
and attempted to get rid of the leaders of ISIS (Spencer). More recently, Obama has asked
congress for more war time powers to wage more military operations against the Islamic
State (Lee). Through these various examples it is evident that OReilly uses Ad
Hominem fallacies to persuade the reader to see President Obama in his view.
Bill OReilly continues to use fallacies such as stacked evidence in his article.
Stacked evidence is, stacking evidence to represent only one side of an issue that clearly
has two sides and gives a distorted impression of the issue (Wood, par. 10). We can see
many uses of stacked evidence throughout the article and the first is seen when OReilly
states, President Obama made his declaration of non-war during a conference on violent

Creft and Woody

extremism. This week's three-day meeting probably cant do much harm, but it most
likely won't do much good either (OReilly, par. 4). This is stacked evidence because
first OReilly only states that Obama declared non-war during the conference but never
explains why. He also goes on to discuss the conference but never discusses the benefits
that came from these conferences. OReilly only presents his interpretation of the
outcome of the conferences. Another example arises when OReilly says, World leaders
are growing more ever more worried about ISIS But there is only one leader with the
cachet and the military might to lead the fight against the Islamic State and its barbarity
(OReilly, par. 11). Stacked evidence is seen here because OReilly is implying that
America is the only country capable of doing something to stop ISIS. He lacks to present
what other Countries are currently and could potentially do to stop the spread of ISIS.
Lastly OReilly expresses, The president also wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles
Times, in which he complained that many Muslim Americans across our country are
worried and afraid. Is he serious? Has there been a rash of anti-Muslim hate crimes in
America? Are U.S. Muslims living in fear like Copts in Egypt, Yazidis in Iraq, cartoonist
in Paris, Jews in Denmark, Christians in Nigeria? (OReilly, par. 7). Stacked Evidence is
seen here because OReilly mentions hate crimes in other nations but insinuates that there
have been no hate crimes here in America. There has in fact been hate crimes here in
America. One close to home took place at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, three Muslims students were killed execution style for their Religion (Ahmed). He
fails to display the other side of the story and continues to attack Obamas stance on
Muslims. OReillys use of stacked evidence in presenting only one side of the issue
distorts the image of President Obama.

Creft and Woody

The final fallacy we found that OReilly uses to display his view of President
Obama is Slippery Slope. As defined by Wood slippery slope is, a scare tactic that
suggests that if we allow one thing to happen, we will immediately be sliding down the
slippery slope to disaster (Wood, par. 20). This is seen when OReilly says, President
Obama and his team simply must acknowledge the fact that tens of thousands of Islamic
radicals are running wild around the world. Of course they are a minority of Muslims,
just as the Nazis were a minority of Germans in the 1930s. But their savagery is
unmatched, and they are determined to slaughter their to an Islamic caliphate (OReilly,
par. 8). Bill OReilly is implying that if ISIS is not stopped today then everyone is going
to parish and pay. This may then lead to the formation of an Islamic state that will cause
havoc across the world. ISIS should not be taken lightly, but they are not anywhere near
having the capabilities to cause such destruction. Another example of slippery slope is
seen when OReilly states, The world unites against the Islamic jihad, it can be defeated.
The fight requires a decisive leader who understands that jobs programs arent nearly as
effective as Special Forces. The world is watching and waiting, President Obama. There
is a Holy War underway and the last person to acknowledge that fact is the most powerful
man in the world (OReilly, par. 14). This is a call to arms saying a war is inevitable and
we must be ready as a nation. The use of slippery slope is clearly seen in this statement.
This again is attacking Obama and implying we do not have a strong leader as a nation.
Overall slippery slope was evident throughout this article.
Although OReillys concerns about ISIS are valid, illustrating Obama in an
unfavorable demeanor will not change the situation with ISIS. Through his abundant use
of fallacies like Ad Hominem, Stacked Evidence, and Slippery Slope a bias is seen and

Creft and Woody

Obamas character is attacked. He influences his readers to see Obama in the negative
light he sees him in as a leader. His approach can alter an individual's judgment on
Obama rather than focusing on the crisis of ISIS.