Rhetorical Criticism: Speakers of the Iraq War

Following the American invasion of Afghanistan to eliminate harbored terrorist groups, President Bush gave the order to engage in a preemptive strike against the country of Iraq. The allegations brought against Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, accuse him of committing various human rights violations as well as producing and possessing weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, President Bush claims America's mission in Iraq is and was to liberate and rebuild a corrupt nation. Whereas many question the President's judgment, most critics are divided on the issue of war. Pro-war activists believe in the liberation of Iraq while anti-war demonstrators consider the war a merciless attack on an innocent country for the economic benefit gained by obtaining the control of oil. Upon taking either stance, one also takes the task of manipulating language to build an argument and sway public opinion. Serving as a sample from each side, President Bush and Robert C. Byrd issued rhetorically charged statements following the ultimatum given to the Hussein Regime. In comparing the two through rhetorical analysis, Byrd's speech better utilizes a pathos-driven strategy to build a moving argument that cannot be ignored.

With any speech, one must direct his or her message to a specific audience. President Bush's speech, entitled "Address to the Peoples of Iraq," is no different. Gathered from the title, the President wishes to direct his message to the citizens of Iraq. However, an underlying, unintended audience is present as this statement was also viewed on American television. As the American people watched, the message was delivered to them as well.

From the beginning, President Bush's message seems clear and concise as he states, "At this moment, the regime of Saddam Hussein is being removed from power, and a long era of fear and cruelty is ending." As he explains the "clear and limited... goals of our coalition," he intends to assure to the innocent Iraqi civilians that "The government of Iraq, and the future of [their] country, will soon belong to [them]." The following paragraphs elaborate on that main idea and give more details on the reasons behind the invasion as well as the condition of the Iraqi people. However, beyond the intentions of explaining America's presence in Iraq, President Bush focuses on the brutality of Saddam Hussein as if to gain approval from the Iraqis to occupy their country. Furthermore, to the Americans watching, he maintains a sense of justification for the invasion as well. As he discusses the lives of Iraqis as being full of "tyranny and corruption and torture chambers," the American people become sympathetic and perhaps will create a rationalization for occupying a "captive" country.

The methods for delivering this message are based on rhetorical appeals and reminiscent of the logical fallacies discussed in "predictable patterns of war-time rhetoric" as laid out by Donald Lazere in chapters 12 and 14 of his book, Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy. First and foremost, the strongest aspect of President Bush's speech is noticeably pathos. He begins by evoking a frightened emotion as he appeals to fear by emphasizing on the assumption that the Hussein regime possesses "weapons of mass destruction" and present a "unique threat to the world." As Lazere predicts, the next half of the speech balances with an appeal to pity. President Bush describes the Iraqi people as "innocent," "in need," and "held captive" to arouse sympathy among the American viewers. Along with the previously mentioned appeal to fear, utilizing this technique is an effective way to sway his audience. Moreover, he uses unfavorable terms like "corrupt," "brutal," "nightmare," or "cruel" each time Hussein is mentioned and positive terms like "free," "security," "peaceful," and "unified" are associated with Iraq. This scheme is consistent throughout his speech and is a direct representation of the appeal to "cleans" and "dirties" that Lazere also notes. While these uses of pathos alone are effective, President Bush also demonstrates a use ethos as he infantilizes the American and Iraqi publics. Throughout the speech, he uses a rather narrow vocabulary and speaks as if he is a father figure rescuing his children. Together with the emotion aroused from pathos, this father character can indeed sway a public's opinion.

While these appeals work well with the intentions of President Bush's speech, kairos seems to be a debatable aspect. The announcement of the mission in Iraq was issued on March 18, 2003 while this message to the Iraqi people was not delivered until nearly three weeks later, on April 10, 2003. By this time, the coalition forces have already made their first impression on the Iraqi people and allowed them to perhaps disapprove. If the speech had been issued earlier, this problem could have been avoided and the Iraqi people already been persuaded with little resistance. Instead, kairos acts as an opposing force as the Iraqis learn of the intentions of the invasion three weeks later.

From the other end of the spectrum, Robert C. Byrd delivered a speech entitled "The Arrogance of Power" one day after President Bush announced the invasion. With his timely remarks, kairos is a definite strong point in regards to his intended message. This shows great judgment on his part and allows for an immediate impact on his audience. However, unlike with President Bush's speech, Byrd's audience is strictly the American people and his message is much more detailed and elaborate.

While the details in his speech obscure the intended message, its significance is presented in the question, "Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?" Although it is not asked until the end, this passage seems to be the central idea of the speech. Prior to that question, Byrd speaks of America's questionable intentions and points out that "our friends mistrust us." He claims "We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance," and gives many examples. In addition, he argues that Saddam Hussein is "the wrong villain," and "this is the wrong war." He believes Hussein acts as scapegoat to whom America has "directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and twisted metal of the Pentagon toward." Obviously, Byrd speaks out against this war and attempts to convince others of his principles and as illustrated by just these few quotes, he uses a powerful rhetorical approach to convey those ideas.

The basis of Byrd's rhetorical tactics focuses mainly on his use of pathos. First he entices his listeners with positive outlooks on America, and then quickly shifts to sorrowful statements like "Today I weep for my country" and "the image of America has changed." As he continues, his use of pathos strengthens. He claims because America "turns its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism... without the sanction of any international body," that, in turn, "the world has become a much more dangerous place." These comments not only entangle his listeners with pity, sympathy, or sorrow, but fear as well. The realization of the situation America has caused certainly invokes a sense of dismay among its people. Additionally, as his speech progresses, Byrd asks that his audience considers various unanswered questions such as "How long will we be in Iraq?" and "What is the ultimate mission?" The passion in these emotive questions beckons for concern as his listeners feel inadequately informed. As if that was not enough, the final blow comes as he hopes that "we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us." All of these passages mentioned are genuinely passionate and incredibly thought provoking. As a result, one could not possibly escape the emotions forced upon him as this speech is read or heard. This alone proves the effectiveness of Byrd's pathos and makes up for the somewhat absent use of ethos and logos.

With the two speeches juxtaposed, it is clear which is more compelling. President Bush's speech manipulates pathos to evoke fear, then pity. In regards to Lazere's work, this strategy is predictable and unjustified. However, Byrd's speech displays a much more powerful use of pathos and a strategy that does not rely on the "father-figure," ethos tactics. While they both are effective in their own ways, Byrd's kairos sets his speech off. In my opinion, his passion and timeliness prove his speech to be more effective.

In regards to the situation in Iraq, I whole-heartedly agree with Byrd. America must assess what it is doing and seek answers to the questions he proposes in his speech. Now, nearly two years after the ultimatum, America has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This proves there was not enough substantial evidence to initiate war. As Byrd says, we need to abandon our arrogance and radical approach and instead focus on peaceful diplomacy. Our troops need to come home.

Works Cited

1. Bush, George W. "Address to the People of Iraq." 2003. AmericanRhetoric.com. 16 Feb. 2006

2. Byrd, Robert C. "The Arrogance of Power." 2003. AmericanRhetoric.com. 16 Feb. 2006