Churchill revisited

As appaled as we all were by the approach Churchill took in conceying his opinions about 9-11, Americans, and our government, taking an unbaised look at his material and his response helped me in focusing on the aspect of the text that we were meant to be critiquing. The task at hand was made difficult by Churchill's blatantly derogatory statements and disrespect.
We were asked to look at both the original text and his response. Although his response was less offensive and had more of logos, ethos, and pathos, his orginal text included these devices as well. In his original text, he establishes ethos by being an ethnics professor, American, and war veteran. He also quoted Madeline Albright and JFK. For logos, although he gives facts that are dirturbing, he does provide many facts within his text. Pathos however was ineffective. He had many instances in the text where he used pathos, but he used it in a way that angered people rather than appealing to them and getting them to agree with his side of the issue. So while he did have pathos in the text, it was not affective.
His response was much more toned down and far less offensive. He was able to get across major points in a short response by changing his tone that he could not get across in his long, original text. In the response he had ethos again for the same reasons, but he also quoted more people to stregnthen his credibility. He used logos by stating facts clearly and backing up the points he was trying to make (All of which we discussed in class). However, he did not use pathos in the response. I do not feel as if this affected his text in any way. In fact, I believe the nature of teh text and it's purpose was appropriate without it.