1. The main argument of this editorial is that President George Bush should not
even bother trying to gain support and motivation for the Iraq campaign because
everything he has done so far has failed, miserably. Each paragraph gives a
different example of a speech or action by President Bush that has not
succeeded.

2. There are several different logical fallacies in this article that support
the main argument, including: post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominem, and guilt
by association. In the last sentence of the article it is mentioned that, "When
a leader and a nation reach that kind of realization, it is time to change
strategy." That is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc because after this
happened, then this should happen. I found an example of ad hominem in the
first paragraph when it is mentioned that President Bush "might be better off
fishing" rather than giving a speech to a National Guard group. Also, in the
same paragraph after it is mentioned that the president "might be better off
fishing," it is stated that one of his previous speeches "didn't get the result
he wanted." This is an example of guilt by association because since he "didn't
get the result he wanted" from his previous speech, it was assumed that his
next speech would fail, also.

3. It is suggested that President Bush should not give any more speeches
concerning the war in Iraq because he never gains support from his speeches.
Also, it is suggested that there should be a new strategy for how to handle
things in Iraq.