"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest"

Ari Fleischer's quote uses an effective metaphor to emphasize the abundance and viewed irrefutability of evidence concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged activities in collecting weapons for hostile purposes. By comparing the evidence to "a mountain" and suggesting that adding more details would be akin to including a foot to Mount Everest, Fleischer suggests that the volume and trustworthiness of evidence versus Saddam Hussein are enormous and overwhelming. Here's a breakdown of the components of this metaphor and their ramifications:

1. ** Mountain of Evidence **: The term "mountain" is especially illustrative, evoking an image of something massive and unquestionably formidable. In the context of legal or political discourse, proof is the backbone of arguments; hence, Fleischer is suggesting that the proof against Saddam is significant and engaging. The choice of such a huge noun suggests solidity and permanence, suggesting that the collection of evidence is not only huge but perhaps overwhelming.

2. ** Mount Everest **: By invoking Mount Everest, the highest peak in the world, Fleischer even more amplifies the metaphor of indisputable supremacy. Everest signifies the peak, the ultimate difficulty, therefore indicating that the evidence's stature is akin to an indisputable reality in the global arena.

3. ** An Additional Foot **: This part of the metaphor is particularly informing. Including a foot to Mount Everest would not considerably change the understanding of its magnificence; it would remain the highest mountain by a large margin. Fleischer uses this idea to communicate that additional proof, while contributing, would not change the frustrating conclusion that has already been reached regarding Saddam Hussein's intentions.

The metaphor serves numerous rhetorical functions: it looks for to affirm the certainty of the danger positioned by Saddam Hussein, justifying any subsequent actions handled the grounds of this evidence, and tends to pre-empt counterarguments by portraying any dissent as futile versus such a significant collection of proof. This option of language underscores the severity with which the administration saw the risk, hence rallying public and political assistance for their strategic choices.