“What Bush Said: The War on Terror and the Rhetorical Situation”

Download PDF

About the Author

Ross Fitzpatrick is an undergraduate student at the University of Kansas, double majoring in English and Political Science. He is also a member of the university’s policy debate team and the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society.

Contents

Introduction

Methods: Rhetorical Analysis

Analysis/Results: Events Producing Speech

Analysis/Results: Speech Producing Action

Conclusion

References

Appendix A: Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework Graphic

Appendix B: Table of Speeches and Rhetorical Roles Identified

Methods: Rhetorical Analysis

In order to compile data for my analysis, I collected the transcripts of 31 speeches delivered by President Bush from September 11, 2001, to May 1, 2003. Of the 31 speeches analyzed, I identified 17 of them as having explicit references to either the attacks on September 11, the threat of terrorism as a whole, or the threat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Appendix B). I omitted speeches such as Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” signing address or the “Address on the 100th Anniversary of Cuban Independence,” which included no such references. After compiling a list of these references, I identified three primary tactics used by the Administration to justify its approach to terrorism. The first approach is the projection of future scenarios, primarily evident in the connections drawn between Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and Al-Qaeda, either through explicitly blaming Iraq for supporting Al-Qaeda’s efforts or by discussing both threats in close proximity, creating a perceived linkage between terrorism and Saddam Hussein. The second tactic, the extrapolation of an American identity crisis, is evidenced through references to traditional American values such as freedom, religion, and rule of law, opposed to the values of both Iraq’s government and Al-Qaeda. And the third approach is defining the Administration’s response to September 11 as a “War on Terror,” which includes the use of that particular phrase – or similarly militant language – in speeches.

I selected this particular date range because both September 11, 2001, and May 1, 2003, marked important milestones in the “War on Terror.” The attacks of September 11 prompted a massive military and legislative response from the American government, which eventually escalated to the invasion of two Middle Eastern countries. May 1 marks Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech in which he proclaimed an end to combat operations in Iraq. My analysis aims to both draw connections between delivery of a speech and initiation of military operations or policy enactment and to identify the rhetorical tropes Bush used in order to manipulate the political setting.