On the morning of May 1st, 2003 President George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, California, announcing from its deck that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” (George W. Bush, May 1st, 2003). On the prominent banner behind him, it said: “Mission Accomplished”. The war had only begun one and a half months prior to this event and currently (October, 2009) American troops are still deployed and involved in combat in Iraq. The mission of the Iraq war was certainly not accomplished on May 1, 2003. What the Bush Administration had accomplished, was something else, however: they convinced the majority of the American people of the necessity of this war, which was reflected in polls, at that time. According to the Gallup Poll, 75% of all Americans approved of sending American troops to Iraq in March, 2003 (Gallup, 2009).
Americans were told that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and, therefore, was a threat to the United States. However, to date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although their alleged existence was one of the main reasons for going to war. The Bush Administration managed to make the vast majority of Americans believe this false assumption. The goal of this paper is to explore how a U.S. president, who was not considered a good speaker, nevertheless succeeded in convincing the American citizens that going to war was the ‘right thing to do’.
In this paper, it will, first, be briefly outlined what role presidential rhetoric plays, then the post-9/11 rhetoric of the Bush Administration and its circumstances will be examined. An attempt will be made to prove that the rhetoric of the Bush Administration was the key to the high level of support from the U.S. population, for the invasion of Iraq. An analysis will be provided of speeches given by George W. Bush where it will be explored how exactly language and rhetoric was used to shape public opinion and therefore pave for this invasion and, subsequently, the war. This analysis is conducted, using a corpus that was created containing all presidential speeches given between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the beginning of the Iraq war in March, 2003. A conclusion will be drawn from this in the last section, explaining how the presidential rhetoric shaped public opinion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Relevance of Presidential Rhetoric
3. The Rhetoric of the Bush Administration and the Circumstances
3.1 The September 11, 2001, Connection
3.2 The President’s Discourse
4. Corpus-based Analysis of Post 9/11 Presidential Speeches
4.1 Speech Selection
4.2 Analysis of Terminology Occurrence
4.3 Concordance Analysis
5. Conclusion
6. References
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to examine how the Bush administration used rhetoric to shape public opinion and build support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by consistently linking the country and Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
- The rhetorical strategies of the George W. Bush administration.
- The role of presidential power in shaping political language.
- Corpus-based analysis of presidential speeches between 2001 and 2003.
- The construction of a 'good versus evil' dichotomy to justify military action.
- The impact of media coverage and the 'rally around the flag' effect on public opinion.
Excerpt from the Book
The President’s Discourse
On the evening of September 11, 2001, the President addressed the American people via television broadcast. He immediately spoke of evil and terror and labeled the innocent (American) people who had died as victims. He then attempted to make his listeners identify themselves with one or more of the seven groups (secretaries, businessmen and women, etc.) he mentioned. Almost every listener could be categorized into one of these groups. This way the listeners were made to sympathize, empathize and feel like victims themselves. It is worth noting, from a rhetorical point of view, that exactly seven groups are mentioned. David Crystal (2008) states that “psycholinguists once worked out a 'magic rule of seven, plus or minus two' - that most people find seven 'bits' of information the most they can handle at a time.” That is, the working memory of one’s brain is capable of processing seven pieces which makes it therefore easily to understandable to, and for, the listener.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the background of the Iraq War and outlines the paper's goal to explore how President Bush gained public support for the invasion despite the lack of evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction.
2. The Relevance of Presidential Rhetoric: Discusses the constitutional and political power of the U.S. President to influence public opinion and legislation through major speeches and media communication.
3. The Rhetoric of the Bush Administration and the Circumstances: Analyzes the national and global context following the 9/11 attacks and how the administration strategically linked Iraq to terrorism to build a case for war.
4. Corpus-based Analysis of Post 9/11 Presidential Speeches: Details the creation of a corpus of presidential speeches and uses linguistic analysis to demonstrate how specific terminology was used to build a narrative of threat.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, asserting that the rhetorical strategy of linking Iraq to 9/11 was fundamental in securing public approval for the invasion.
6. References: Provides a comprehensive list of sources, literature, and speech archives used for the analysis.
Keywords
Presidential rhetoric, George W. Bush, Iraq War, September 11, terrorism, Saddam Hussein, corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, public opinion, propaganda, war on terror, political communication, rhetoric, weapons of mass destruction, foreign policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
The thesis explores how George W. Bush's rhetorical strategies were instrumental in creating public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by linking the Iraqi regime to the events of September 11.
Which specific themes are addressed in the work?
Central themes include the 'good versus evil' dichotomy, the manipulation of fear, the 'rally around the flag' effect, and the linguistic simplification of complex political issues.
What is the main research question?
The study asks how a U.S. president not known for oratorical brilliance succeeded in convincing the American public that invading Iraq was the 'right thing to do'.
What methodology does the author use?
The author employs a corpus-based approach, analyzing 63 presidential speeches delivered between September 2001 and March 2003, using concordance software to track the frequency and association of key terms.
What content is covered in the main section?
The main section covers the institutional relevance of presidential rhetoric, the political atmosphere after 9/11, and a detailed linguistic analysis of how the administration bridged the gap between the terrorist attacks and the situation in Iraq.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
Key terms include presidential rhetoric, 9/11, Iraq War, Saddam Hussein, corpus linguistics, and public opinion shaping.
How did the author define the 'good versus evil' dichotomy in Bush's speeches?
The author argues that Bush cast the United States as the 'good' victim and labeled any nation or entity not aligning with American policy as 'evil', effectively removing any middle ground for political debate.
What significance does the 'magic rule of seven' have in the analysis?
The author cites this psycholinguistic rule to explain how Bush's speechwriters likely structured his rhetoric to ensure that the audience could easily process and retain his key messaging.
How does the author interpret the frequent use of the word 'peace' before the war?
The author suggests that using the word 'peace' in the immediate lead-up to the invasion functioned as a euphemism designed to distract the public from the negative associations typically linked to the word 'war'.
What does the concordance analysis reveal about the term 'weapons of mass destruction'?
The analysis indicates that the phrase was used with absolute certainty, rather than as a tentative claim, reinforcing the administration's misleading narrative that Iraq possessed illegal weapons.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Marc Weinrich (Autor:in), 2009, An Analysis of Post 9/11 Presidential Rhetoric - Lead-up to the Iraq War, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/154298
