Bachman 1

Jenna Bachman

Professor Valiavitcharska

ENGL488G

May 4, 2017

Rhetorical Style in Presidential Addresses:

George Bush’s Speech on Saddam Hussein’s Capture and Barack Obama’s on Osama bin
Laden’s Death

When presidents directly address their citizens to explain military decisions, their speech

must appear calm and well-reasoned in order to assure their citizens that they are in control. Both

President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama used these addresses to justify military

action against one individual person and explain why military action would still continue despite

the success of the military action—Bush to explain the capture of Saddam Hussein and Obama to

explain the killing of Osama bin Laden1. While these similar rhetorical situations result in some

similar stylistic choices—left branching syntax that gives the audience context, for example—the

different justifications for the respective wars are more heavily reflected in their choices. The

choices Bush makes—chiefly using brief syntactical structures, French-derived words, and

making the US military an active agent—serve to present him as a passionate wartime president

engaged in a humanitarian fight. Obama’s choices—more heavily modified syntactical

structures, Latin-derived words, and making the US military a recipient—present him as

thoughtful military leader reacting carefully to threats against his country’s security.

Though both presidents were justifying military action against one individual, the wars

that prompted these interventions were justified under much different pretenses. Iraq, the war

that saw the capture of Saddam Hussein that Bush’s speech addresses, was justified as necessary

1
Please see the appendices for the full texts.
 Bachman 2

for the protection of both the US and the Iraqi people. The most well-known justification is the

assertion that Bush had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), a claim later proven false

(MSNBC Staff). A secondary justification, however, was that Hussein was committing human

rights abuses against his people; the war was subsequently justified under the label of

“humanitarianism” for the Iraqi people (Human Rights Watch)—the war itself was called

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” until 2010 (CNN Library). Osama bin Laden, however, was killed in

the war in Afghanistan, launched after 9/11 in an attempt to bring down al-Qaeda, the terrorist

organization responsible for the attack (CNN Wire Staff). Obama’s speech is consequently

rooted in arguments about the benefits to America, whereas Bush’s is rooted in arguments about

the benefits to Iraqis. Bush was speaking only nine months into the Invasion of Iraq, when the

American public would be highly aware of Hussein (CNN Library); his sentences are

consequently less modified and briefer. Obama, by contrast, was speaking ten years after the US

first began the War in Afghanistan (CNN Wire Staff), and so his sentence structure is more

modified and lengthier to provide his audience with more context for the military’s action.

In order for a wartime president to have public support, the military action they order

must be rendered justifiable in the eyes of the public; one of the easiest ways to do so is to vilify

the group or person the military action is against. Both Bush and Obama were justifying military

action against one individual rather than a government, increasing the need to completely

demonize him in the eyes of the public. To do so, both Bush and Obama rename Hussein and bin

Laden (respectively) negatively:

(1) Now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions (Bush,
emphasis mine).
(2) Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the
murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children (Obama, emphasis mine).

Though Obama uses an appositive and Bush uses a noun phrase in the neighboring sentence, the
 Bachman 3

messages conveyed by both phrases create roughly the same rhetorical effect—demonizing the

men who they employed military strength for. Both presidents used words with highly negative

connotations—Bush dictator and Obama terrorist—in their renamings in order to evoke strong

resentment from their audience.

While both renamings achieve the same general effect of vilification, the differences in

how Bush and Obama employ them reflects their differing rhetorical situations. Obama’s use of

an appositive, a clause that renames the noun immediately preceding it, ensures that he

negatively renames bin Laden the first time he is mentioned, linking him to disagreeable things

immediately so that the audience has little time to consider him without the modifiers. Bush’s

noun phrase, on the other hand, occurs in the second sentence after Hussein is first mentioned,

giving the audience distance between the time they first hear his name and the time they hear

him renamed as someone negative. As Bush was speaking at the beginning of the Iraq war, the

latter’s name was highly recognizable as a negative one to the public, and so it was not necessary

to immediately rename Hussein. Though Bush would have emphasized Hussein’s negative

qualities by using two appositives like Obama, this likely would have struck many in his

audience as being superfluous—the national consciousness had already demonized him. By not

spending time reiterating what the large portion of his audience is already well aware of, Bush is

able to present himself more wisely, something essential to win public support during wartime.

While bin Laden was certainly not an unknown figure before his capture, it had been much

longer since the US invaded Afghanistan. Consequently, Obama’s use of appositives directly

following the first mention of bin Laden serves to refresh his listeners’ minds about the latter’s

negative attributes so that his description of military action is justified. Further, Bush was only

justifying Hussein’s capture, while Obama was justifying bin Laden’s death—a more extreme
 Bachman 4

military action that requires significantly more justification.

Though Bush’s overall speech tends to have less modified sentences, when describing the

details of the military action taken by US troops, Obama is the one using a more tightened

syntax. Below are the passages from both speeches that describe the military action:

(3) Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States
military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse
outside the city of Tikrit in a swift raid conducted without casualties (Bush).
(4) Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that
compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the
operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed.
They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin
Laden and took custody of his body (Obama).
Where these passages occur impacts their rhetorical effects. Bush’s passage is the first one in his

speech, while Obama’s is towards the middle and serves as the concluding paragraph to a

summary of the military action that led up to bin Laden’s death. Consequently, Bush’s passage

marks the first time his audience is being told of the military action, while Obama’s audience has

already been given contextual information. As such, Bush knew he could rely on an eagerly

attentive audience, giving him license to pack more information into individual sentences.

Obama, by contrast, had been using heavily modified sentences in the lead-up to his paragraph.

The short, less modified style of this passage consequently breaks the pattern and signals to the

audience that the information is important, likely recapturing the attention of those who may

have been overwhelmed by the lengthier sentences.

Despite the passages’ break from the general stylistic patterns of their respective

speeches, the words Bush and Obama employ reflect the overall effects they are trying to

convey. Bush’s use of raid, a word derived from French, gives the action a sense of glory that

heightens its emotional justification. Obama’s choice of operation, derived from Latin, evokes a

more academic register, presenting the action as more methodical one removed from emotions.
 Bachman 5

Both presidents rely on left-branching constructions for the sentences that include what

specifically happened to their target (Bush’s first sentence, Obama’s fifth). By delaying the main

clause, both speakers force their audience to listen to the entirety of the sentence intently, though

for different purposes. While both presidents use adverbial clauses, Bush’s gives temporal

context by explaining when the action took place. As the public was already aware of why the

government wanted to capture Hussein, they were likely more interested in understanding when

it happened, making it more important that that information come first. Obama’s modifier, by

contrast, explains to Americans why he decided to authorize military action against the man

many of them had likely forgotten. His adverbial clause justifies the decision to kill bin Laden—

he prefaces the statement of the killing with a description that reflects violent conflict, thereby

providing a rational explanation of why the military used deadly force.

Rather than restricting themselves to denigrating the military target, both presidents also

appeal to positive American ideals in order to evoke patriotic sentiments from their audience and

frame their actions in a positive light. When doing so, both presidents use series to emphasize

these values:

(5) All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our
coalition are the same as your goals: sovereignty for your country, dignity for your
great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life (Bush,
emphasis mine).
(6) But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our
mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our
people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up
for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place (Obama,
emphasis mine).

Though Bush is addressing Iraqis and Obama is addressing Americans, they employ their series

in much the same way. Both series can be classified as incrementums that reflect a chronological

series of steps that must be taken in order for Iraq to become a “democracy” (that is, in the

American sense of the word)—first, they much have political freedom (“sovereignty”), then they
 Bachman 6

must earn the respect of other nations (“dignity”), and then they must offer their citizens better

lives. Obama’s series, for American audiences, gradually increases from domestic to foreign

affairs, ending with “sacrifices to make the world a safer place,” a justification for continuing the

war on terror. All three of Bush’s main nouns—sovereignty, dignity, and opportunity—are all

derived from French, which gives the passage a sense of sophistication. This elegance would

likely give American audiences the impression that the changes Bush was trying to make in Iraq

were noble ones, something that supports the humanitarian explanation of the war and

consequently would increase public support of the action. Obama also relies on French-derived

words here—prosperity, equality, values, and sacrifices were each borrowed from French. While

Obama was not attempting to justify the war as a humanitarian effort for Afghani people, his use

of these more elegant words would boost the morale of his audience, something necessary to

convince war-weary Americans to continue supporting the campaign.

The pronouns Bush and Obama use also reflect the differing war pretexts (discussed

above) they are using to justify their actions. Bush begins his second sentence with an “our” that

distinguishes Americans from Iraqis, but not to divide them—rather, the purpose of the sentence

is to show how the two separate groups come together. This is reflected in Bush’s use of “your”

throughout his series—by keeping the groups distinct, Bush acknowledges that the benefits are

not for Americans, giving credibility to the humanitarian explanation for the war. Obama, by

contrast, relies on the inclusive “we” pronoun, speaking to Americans about the successes of

their collective history. This reflects the fact that the Afghanistan War had no humanitarian

pretext—it was justified as protection of Americans. Obama’s use of we subsequently appeals to

a sense of national unity, giving credence to his protection rationale and bolstering public

support for the war.

 Bachman 7

Though both presidents were reporting a successful military option, they also had to

rationalize why the war would continue:

(7) I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not
mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on
killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East
(Bush, emphasis mine).
(8) Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will
continue to pursue attacks against us (Obama, emphasis mine).

The italicized sentences above are the ones where the president directly states that the war is not

ending for the first time; Bush and Obama rely on remarkably similar syntaxes for them. Both

sentences perform stative functions, respectively denying the subject complements “the end of

violence in Iraq” and “the end of our effort.” This makes them appear statements of fact rather

than the presidents’ opinions, thus requiring less justification. Further, both sentences employ

polyptoton in order to make their subjects nominalizations, invoking a more formal tone that

emphasizes both presidents’ competence—by being able to discuss such recent military victories

as formal noun phrases, they appear able to immediately move current events into the context of

larger wars, rather than dwelling in the fervor of an accomplishment. The words they use to

describe the continuation of the conflict differs significantly—Bush uses violence, a more

graphic term that acknowledges the bloodshed, while Obama opts for effort, a more euphemistic

term that hides the actual implications of a continued fight. These choices are reflective of the

differing lengths of the respective wars they were justifying. Bush’s audience, nine months into

the Iraq war, was still hopeful about the United States’ prospects for success, while Obama’s

audience, ten years into the War in Afghanistan, was much more war-weary, and likely would

have been incensed by mentions of further violence.

These tones are reflected in the next sentences, which serve to explain what kind of

conflict the US will face going forward. Here, Bush and Obama use sentences with opposite
 Bachman 8

agents, conveying different effects about the cause of the war. Bush makes the US military

(“we”) the agent of the sentence, relegating the action of the “terrorists” he describes to the noun

phrase. This presents the US military as an active force, emphasizing their persistence in the

fight. Obama, in making al-Qaeda the agent, however, relegates the military to the semantic role

of recipient, creating the sense that al-Qaeda are the ones who prolonged the fight, not the US.

As such, he makes the United States’ involvement a necessary reaction, justifying not only the

conflict, but also its length. This is in contrast to Bush’s portrayal of an active military operating

in another country, which is justified as a defense of “liberty.” Hence, while both presidents find

it necessary to formally portray the continuation of the war as an uncontestable fact, they differ

on how to present the military—Bush, just nine months into the invasion of Iraq, creates an

active military engaged in protecting others, while Obama creates a reactionary military

protecting the United States.

In 2003, President Bush employed a direct presidential address to inform the American

public about the capture of Saddam Hussein. Nearly ten years later, President Obama, his

successor, found himself using the same genre for a different military action against a different

man—this time, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. While both men found

themselves having to justify both the action against an individual person and the continuation of

the war, the different justifications for the war and the difference in the war’s length impacted

their stylistic choices more heavily. Bush, in making the United States military an active agent,

using less modified syntax, and using French-derived words, reflects the humanitarian

justification for the Iraq war and its relatively short length, while Obama’s choice to make the

military a recipient of action, use of highly modified syntax, and use of Latin-derived words,

reflects the reactionary justification of the war and its considerably longer duration.
 Bachman 9

Appendix A—George W. Bush Speech Transcript

Good afternoon.

Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces
captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit in a
swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice
he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him
and for all who bullied and killed in his name.

For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to
the corrupt power and privilege they once held.

For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings
further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of
Saddam Hussein ever again.

All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition
are the same as your goals: sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for
every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can
now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The
operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's
footprints in a vast country.

The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our service men
and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the
fallen regime and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.

Their work continues, and so do the risks.

Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our armed forces, and I congratulate
them.

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end
of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than
accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the
American people, and they will be defeated.
 Bachman 10

We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action, and that is our
strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture,
cell by cell and victory by victory.

Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sheer belief in the success of liberty. And
the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America.
 Bachman 11

Appendix B—Barack Obama Speech Transcript

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United
States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a
terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the
American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory --
hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the
ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat
at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father.
Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken
from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered
our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each
other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from,
what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American
family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this
vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda --
an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United
States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we
went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our
counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist
attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban
government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the
globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists,
including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its
affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the
killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued
our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed
on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this
 Bachman 12

thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more
information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep
inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take
action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in
Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary
courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties.
After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to
plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the
most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue
to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with
Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against
Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al
Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise
should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew
where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our
counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where
he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks
against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani
counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going
forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its
affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the
senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we
know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief,
have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service
member who’s been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security
being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in
defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who
we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al
Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
 Bachman 13

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve
worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know
their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of
justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the
professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they
are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your
loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another
attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at
times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the
determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that
America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the
pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our
commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer
place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of
who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
 Bachman 14

Works Cited

Bush, George W. “Speech on Saddam Hussein’s Capture.” CNN, 13 December 2003. Web. 20

April 2017.

CNN Library. “Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn Fast Facts.” CNN, 10 April

2017. Web. 2 May 2017.

CNN Wire Staff. “Timeline: Osama bin Laden, Over the Years.” CNN, 2 May 2011. Web. 2 May

2017.

Humans Rights Watch. “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention.” Human Rights Watch,

25 January 2004. Web. 2 May 2017.

MSNBC Documentaries. “How the Bush administration Sold the Iraq War.” MSNBC, 22 March

2013. Web. 2 May 2017.

Obama, Barack. “Osama Bin Laden Dead.” The White House: President Barack Obama. 2 May

2011. Web. 20 April 2017.

Bachman 15