Jacques Chirac's Route after his Nuclear Remark about a Nuclear Iran

Jacques Chirac's Route after his Nuclear Remark about a Nuclear Iran
Identify and explain the fallacies of relevance in the following passages:
PROBLEMS
1. If you can't blame the English language and your own is unforgivingly precise, blame the microphone. That was Jacques Chirac's route after his nuclear remark about a nuclear Iran. "Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous," Mr Chirac said with a shrug. The press was summoned back for a retake. "I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record," Mr Chirac offered as if the record rather than the remark were the issue.
—Stacy Schiff, “Slip Sliding Away,” The New York Times, February 2, 2007
Jacques commits the fallacy of relevance in the passage. He claimed that Iran's one or second bomb did not pose a threat. Later, he stated that if he knew he was being recorded, he could not have made such remarks and would be more attentive to what he was saying. Thus, from the passage, he commits a red herring fallacy even though he tried to distract the crowd.
2. Nietzsche was personally more philosophical than his philosophy. His talk about power, harshness and great immorality was the hobby of a harmless young scholar and constitutional invalid.
—George Santayana, Egotism in German Philosophy, 1915
The passage presents a hominem fallacy. The author argues with the philosopher rather than their ideologies. For instance, he makes remarks about the philosopher's attitude, i.e. harshness of the young scholar rather than the idea presented. But, to make his argument relevant and why he thinks Nietzsche is more philosophical than his philosophy, he would have presented facts to justify the claim.
3. Like an armed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine marched down the halls of the American Congress. He threw his shining lances full and fair against the brazen foreheads of every defamer of his country and maligner of its honor.
       For the Republican party to desert this gallant man now is worse than if an army should desert their general upon the battlefield.
—Robert G. Ingersoll, nominating speech at the 
Republican National Convention, 1876
A weak analogy fallacy is committed in the passage. This can be seen in the statement, 'Leaving the general on the battlefield is severe compared to leaving an individual by the political party. The betrayal in the passage is comparable to Blane's case, which presents a false analogy.
4. However, it matters very little now what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet, and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty procured for himself a universal hatred.
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Pain commits a genetic fallacy when he argues that what the king of England does or say matters very little as he is wicked. Pain concludes that the Prince of England is wicked from his origin rather than the merit of his character.
5. This embarrassing volume is an out-and-out partisan screed made up of illogical arguments, distorted and cherry-picked information, ridiculous generalizations, and nutty asides. It’s a nasty stewpot of intellectually untenable premises and irresponsible speculation that reads like a "Saturday Night Live" parody of the crackpot right?
—Michiko Kakutani, “Dispatch from Gomorrah, Savaging the Cultural Left,” 
The New York Times, February 6, 2007.
The passage portrays a misplaced argument and does not align with the concluding sentence. This commits a fallacy of relevance. Also, from the passage, the author depicts to be partisan and uses illogical arguments. Thus, the author ought to present erroneous criticism to make the volume relevant.
6. I was seven years old when the first election campaign, which I can remember, took place in my district. At that time, we still had no political parties, so the announcement of this campaign was received with very little interest. But popular feeling ran high when it was disclosed that one of the candidates was "the Prince." There was no need to add Christian and surname to realize which Prince was meant. He was the owner of the great estate formed by the arbitrary occupation of the vast tracts of land reclaimed in the previous century from the Lake of Fucino. About eight thousand families (the majority of the local population) are still employed to cultivate the estate's fourteen thousand hectares. The Prince was deigning to solicit "his" families for their vote so that he could become their deputy in parliament. The agents of the estate, who were working for the Prince, talked in impeccably liberal phrases: "Naturally," said they, "naturally, no one will be forced to vote for the Prince, that's understood; in the same way that no one, naturally, can force the Prince to allow people who don’t vote for him to work on his land. This is the period of real liberty for everybody; you’re free, and so is the Prince." The announcement of these "liberal" principles produced general and understandable consternation among the peasants. As may easily be guessed, the Prince was the most hated person in our part of the country.
The passage presents an argumentum ad hominem fallacy as they are attacking the Prince based on personal opinion rather than their argument or claim. " the Prince was the most hated person in our land." clearly,
—Ignazio Silone, The God That Failed, 1949
7. According to R. Grunberger, author of A Social History of the Third Reich, Nazi publishers sent the following notice to German readers who let their subscriptions lapse: "Our paper certainly deserves the support of every German. We shall continue to forward copies of it to you and hope you will not want to expose yourself to unfortunate consequences in the case of cancellation.”
The passage presents an appeal to emotion fallacy as it evokes emotions of pity. For instance, the author states that the paper needs the support of every German and hopes they won't expose themselves to the unfortunate consequences of the cancellation.
8. In While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within (2006), Bruce Bawer argues that "by appeasing a totalitarian [Muslim] ideology Europe is "imperiling its liberty.” Political correctness, he writes, is keeping Europeans from defending themselves, resulting in “its self-destructive passivity, softness toward tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease.” A review of the book in The Economist observes that Mr Bawer “weakens his argument by casting too wide a net,” and another reviewer, Imam Fatih Alev, says of Bawer’s view that “it is a constructed idea that there is this very severe difference between Western values and Muslim values.”
—“Clash Between European and Islamic Views,” in Books, 
The New York Times, February 8, 2007.
The passage presents an example of poisoning the well as one side is attacking the other, thus, creating an argument to attack the good faith. The passage presents an attack on religion and how it affects the west, simultaneously indicating they are self-destructing with or without religion. Thus, instead of presenting facts, Bawer seems interested in attacking the Muslim and their ideologies.
9. To know absolutely that there is no God, one must have infinite knowledge. But to have infinite knowledge, one would have to be God. It is impossible to be God and an atheist at the same time. Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.
—“Argument Against Atheism,” 
http://aaron_mp.tripod.com/id2.html (2007)