Trumps calling

In the article “What Trump needs to do now with Saudi Arabia” by Marc Thiessen, the intended audience is those who believe Trump needs to take action with the situation occurring with Saudi Arabia. For instance, it is stated in the article “How does Trump reconcile these three irreconcilable realities? The answer is: He can’t. The result is going to be unpleasant and unsatisfying” (Thiessen). This statement shows that he does not believe that Trump will be able to solve the problem and the intended audience is likely to be people who feel the same way. The author, Marc Thiessen, is a credible author because it is stated that he served as chief speechwriter to two members of the government, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. As a result, the reader knows that Thiessen is reliable because he has experience with governmental affairs. Thiessen’s claim is that Trump needs to take action with the situation in Saudi Arabia; however, he is not sure whether Trump will do so. In the article, Thiessen states certain actions that he believes Trump should take: “Trump should make clear that Saudi Arabia’s actions have squandered…”  (Thiessen). The logic that Thiessen uses is that Saudi Arabia needs the U.S. and the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia. As a result, Trump needs to take action in order to maintain this relationship. I agree with the author of this article, based on the fact that Saudi Arabia was Trump’s first foreign trip and he put the crown prince in front of his own prestige (Thessien). Action must be taken in order to preserve and maintain the U.S.’s presence in foreign affairs.

Article: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-what-trump-needs-to-do-now-with-saudi-arabia

Brett Kavanaugh's case

In the article How Brett Kavanaugh Failed by The Editorial Board within the New York Times, the author informs the reader about how the court hearing went south for Brett Kavanaugh. The author explained all of the different ways Brett Kavanaugh messed up in trying to clear his name. If the reader did not know what was going on with the Kavanaugh situation after reading the first couple of paragraphs in the article, the reader would be well informed enough to follow the next set of paragraphs. The author of the article gives many good details, including the reasons why Brett Kavanaugh did a poor job when he attempted to explain himself and the situation he was in. In a very negative way, the author gives his opinion on the answers Brett Kavanaugh gave, exclaiming about trust, and even to go so far as to calling Brett Kavanaugh a jerk, which is not very professional but gets the author’s point across nevertheless. After that, further into the article, the author dives into the history of Brett Kavanaugh as a Republican, which was very interesting to say the least, but shows what kind of man he used to be. Then the author goes into great detail about what happened to past nominees when they were nominated by past presidents and what it would it mean if Brett Kavanaugh was able to get into the Senate, which I did not find necessary because the whole point of the article was to explain how he failed to prove his innocence.  

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-vote.html