Bachelor Thesis from the year 2009 in the subject American Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,0, University of Hildesheim (English Department), language: English, abstract: 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. popula

Post-9/11 American Presidential Rhetoric examines the communication offensive orchestrated by George W. Bush and the members of his administration between the initial terrorism crisis of September 11, 2001, and the March 20, 2003, invasion of Iraq. Colleen Elizabeth Kelley argues that the president relied on a set of particular strategies that coalesced into protofascist talk in order to discursively manage the post-9/11 situation and justify the president's 2003 war against Iraq. This book suggests a framework for analyzing emergent fascist public discourse and its potential for producing additional substantial antidemocratic speech and action. Kelley further reviews the role of the media in conveying President Bush's rhetorical doctrine to the American public. The rhetoric of democratic discourse is presented as a firewall to guarantee that such speech-based behaviors, which are endorsed by willing publics and developed within democracies, fail to thrive and do not destroy the very systems that enabled them in the first place. Post-9/11 American Presidential Rhetoric is a stimulating text that will strike up discussion among scholars of political communication and those interested in cultural studies. Book jacket.

Through the analysis of eighteen years of presidential data, this book shows how Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump have conducted and framed the war on terror since its inception in 2001. Examining all presidential speeches about terrorism from George W. Bush’s two terms as President, Barack Obama’s two terms as President, and Donald Trump’s first year as President, this book is the first to compare the three post-9/11 presidents in how they have dealt with the terror threat. Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama, and Trump argues that when policies need to be “sold” to the public and Congress, presidents make their pertinent issues seem urgent through frequent speech-making and threat inflation. It further illustrates how after policies are sold, a new President’s reticence may signify quiet acceptance of the old regime’s approach. After examining the conduct of the war on terror to date, it concludes by posing policy suggestions for the future.

Throughout history and especially during contemporary times, presidential rhetoric sets the foreign policy tone not only for Congress but mainly for the American public. Consequently, US foreign policy is actively marketed and spun to the American public. This book describes the marketing strategy of the War on Terror and how that strategy compelled public opinion towards supporting the spread of the War on Terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. The author investigates how President George W. Bush's initial framing of the September 11th attacks provided the platform for the creation of long term public support for the War on Terror and established early public support for U.S. action in Iraq. Mining public opinion data and nearly 1500 presidential speeches over a four year period, the book argues that presidential framing of threats and losses, not gains, contributed to public support for war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, and President Bush's successful reelection campaign. President Bush's initial framing of the terrorist threat was introduced immediately after the September 11th attacks and reinforced throughout the Afghanistan invasion. During this time period, presidential threat framing established the broad parameters for the War on Terror and enabled the president to successfully market a punitive war in Afghanistan. Second, the president marketed the strategy of preemptive war and led the country into the more costly war in Iraq by focusing on the potentially global threat of terrorism and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. President Bush's previous war rhetoric was repackaged into a leaner, more focused format in which the Iraq war became part of the War on Terror, resulting in increased support for the president and a successful reelection campaign. Finally, the author examines the withdraw vs. surge in Iraq debate bringing the book up to date. The book shows the influencing potential of presidential spin and of risky foreign policy in the Middle East, and presents a systematic analysis of how a president effectively pursued a marketing strategy that continues to show an enduring ability to influence public support. Even two years after the Iraq invasion, 52% of Americans believed that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until it is stabilized. This finding bypasses agenda setting explanations, which prescribes issue salience amongst the public for only one year. The large speech database available with the study will also be an added benefit to scholars seeking to teach undergraduate and graduate level qualitative research methods.

The results of this study demonstrate that presidential rhetoric influences public opinion regarding key issues; in this instance, public opinion concerning invasion of a sovereign nation. Specifically, the results indicate that the volume of Bush administration rhetoric regarding Iraq increased after 9/11, and the tone of such rhetoric became more punitive and communitarian after 9/11, as expected. Also, increased volume of rhetoric from administrative sources (particularly President Bush) preceding Gallup Polls increased the likelihood of public support of invading Iraq. Certain rhetorically powerful words such as "evil" were shown to increase support of invasion.

The attacks of 9/11 led to a war on Iraq, although there was neither tangible evidence that the nation's leader, Saddam Hussein, was linked to Osama bin Laden nor proof of weapons of mass destruction. Why, then, did the Iraq war garner so much acceptance in the United States during its primary stages? Mass Deception argues that the George W. Bush administration manufactured public support for the war on Iraq. Scott A. Bonn introduces a unique, integrated, and interdisciplinary theory called "critical communication" to explain how and why political elites and the news media periodically create public panics that benefit both parties. Using quantitative analysis of public opinion polls and presidential rhetoric pre- and post-9/11 in the news media, Bonn applies the moral panic concept to the Iraq war. He critiques the war and occupation of Iraq as violations of domestic and international law. Finally, Mass Deception connects propaganda and distortion efforts by the Bush administration to more general theories of elite deviance and state crime.

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Other, grade: 1,7, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald (Anglistik), course: Discourse Analysis, language: English, abstract: [...] The discourse he (re)started, continued or resumed on “shaped public discussion and debate surrounding terrorism worldwide”. '9/11' has become a term everybody understands “in its conventional sense, as a realm of creative expression” as Daniel J. Sherman and Terry Nardin point out in their book Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking 9/11. Also Shana Kushner and Amy Gershkoff say that '9/11' has become an “ideograph in the sense that the historical event represents an attack on the beliefs, values, attitudes and “way of life” within the United States”. Not only in the English language '9/11' has become a “dictum” but in many others, too. In this term paper I want to take a closer look on the speech President Bush delivered on September 20, 2001 as State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. In my analysis I will go through the speech step by step in order to figure out the main points Bush is making. From there I want to continue with its effects and influence on the discourse about 'war on terror'. I am mainly referring to Norman Fairclough and his interpretations in Language and Globalization and also to Kevin Coe et al. and their study No Shades of Gray. With the help of these publications I want to emphasize the impact and the aftermath of Bush's discourse as well in media as in society.

Situating Obama’s end-of-war discourse in the historical context of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Obama, the Media, and Framing the U.S. Exit from Iraq and Afghanistan begins with a detailed comparison with the Bush war-on-terror security narrative before examining elements of continuity and change in post-9/11 elite rhetoric. Erika King deftly employs two case studies of presidential and media framing - the weeks surrounding the formal announcements of Obama’s December 2009 'surge-then-exit' strategy from Afghanistan and the end of combat operations in Iraq in August 2010 - to explore the role of mass media in presenting presidential narratives of war and finds evidence of an interpretive disconnect between the media and a president seeking to present a more nuanced approach to keeping America safe. Eloquently scrutinizing Obama’s discourse on the U.S. exit from two post-9/11 wars and contrasting the presidential endgame frame with the U.S. mainstream media’s narratives of the wars’ meaning, accomplishments, and denouement provides a unique combination of qualitative content analysis and topical case studies and makes this volume an ideal resource for scholars and researchers grappling with the complicated and ever-evolving nexus of war, the president, and the media.

Denial and Deception: A Study of the Bush Administration's Rhetorical Case for Invading Iraq delivers a refreshingly objective snapshot of the relationship between President George W. Bush's misleading statements, public opinion, and the war in Iraq. Using statistical analysis, Alan Kennedy-Shaffer presents the first academic study of President Bush's efforts to bully the nation into invading Iraq and why the White House no longer controls public opinion. By mapping the major rhetorical and military developments in the war in Iraq, Kennedy-Shaffer paint a contextual picture of the Administration's rhetoric and the impact of casualty rates on public opinion. This book is essential reading for every scholar of presidential rhetoric and public opinion in an era of denial and deception by the President of the United States.

The George W. Bush Presidency: A Rhetorical Perspective, edited by Robert E. Denton, Jr., examines the rhetoric of former president George W. Bush across contexts of domestic policy, foreign policy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and politics in general. The contributors to this volume variously analyze Bush's inaugural and State of the Union addresses, as well as his political philosophy, policy issues, and the rocky relationship with the news media. Collectively, they provide insight into the role of public discourse in the campaigning and governing of the George W. Bush presidency.