Biggers, Cain 1

Sarah Biggers, Marissa Cain

Professor Blair
UWRT 1103-047
20 March 2016
We Misunderestimated Him
Rhetoric can be a very powerful tool, often used to persuade a given population of
individuals. Over the course of history many politicians have implemented the use of various
rhetorical devices in hopes of swaying their constituency on a variety of issues. In his Iraq Threat
speech, Former President Bush uses euphemisms, slippery slope fallacies, begging the question,
and glittering generalities to misrepresent information to the American people in order to justify
his actions.
According to William Lutz in his article Doubts about Doublespeak, euphemisms are
a word or phrase designed to avoid a harsh or distasteful reality (Lutz, 123).Throughout his
speech, Bush uses many euphemisms to portray a false reality and apply a more positive tone to
very negative actions. His purpose for using this form of rhetoric is to dissuade the American
people from questioning his executive decisions. Comedian George Carlin once said, The
government doesnt lie, it engages in disinformation (Reveur) and nowhere is this more
apparent than in Bushs speech and those like it. In one instance, Bush uses the phrase war
against terror, (Bush, par. 17) to describe the conflicts America was involved in at the time in
the Middle East. Instead of saying what was going on at face value, he uses less offensive
language to sway the peoples opinion, saying we are fighting against the bad guys and any

Biggers, Cain 2

deaths that come of this war against the terrorists are an unfortunate necessity of war. Later on in
his speech, he addresses the issue of Iraqs supposed weapons of mass destruction. After calling
on Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, to lay down any weapons stored, Bush declares that
for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him, (Bush, par. 32) if he does not
comply. This coalition is simply another name for full-scale invasion of Iraq, but again it makes
it sound more pleasant to the American people and therefore makes them less likely to question
exactly why they are sending soldiers overseas. Towards the very end of this address, Former
President Bush drops the age-old euphemism secure the peace (Bush, par. 47) to convince
America that they are doing a great thing by [leading] the world to a better day, (Bush, par.
47). This euphemism has been used throughout history as a way to convince the people that it is
their right to make sure that world politics are running smoothly by starting a war and that no
disaster would come to the world while they are protecting it.
In addition to his use of euphemisms, Former President George Bush also employs the
use of the slippery slope fallacy multiple times throughout the duration of his speech. Writer
Nancy Wood defines this type of fallacy as an emotional fallacy that is usually disguised as a
scare tactic that suggests if we allow one thing to happen, we will immediately be sliding down
the slippery slope to disaster, (Wood, 4). One of the first times we see this tactic used in the
speech is when Bush states: The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with
time, (Bush, par. 9). This quote implies and alludes to the fact that if Iraq is left alone by the
United States that its existence as a potential threat to America will continue to grow and become
an even bigger problem. His only point to support this claim is an ad hominem, stating that
Saddam Hussein poses a major threat because he is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to
weapons of mass destruction, (Bush, par. 8). He provides no substantial support or factual

Biggers, Cain 3

evidence that would lead the audience to believe that Saddam Hussein and/or the country of Iraq
are legitimate threats to our country. This doubles as a second form of rhetoric known as
begging the question.
Nancy Wood describes begging the question, one of the more widely used logical
fallacies, as when an arguer restates a claim repeatedly without providing any support for
his or her argument. This fallacy can be seen in the former presidents speech, where he says,
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist
group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack
America without leaving any finger prints (Bush, par. 16). He has zero evidence to show why
the Iraqi government would want to ally themselves with terrorists and there is no reasoning
behind him stating that if they do it will ultimately lead to an attack on America. Bush jumps
from one point to another in attempts to connect the two when in reality, he has no evidence that
supports any kind of correlation between the two events even potentially occurring. Bush repeats
this same form of rhetoric later on in his speech as well, stating, Failure to act would embolden
other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a
permanent feature of world events, (Bush, par. 38). In an attempt to frighten the American
people into supporting his stance to take action against Iraq, Bush once again uses begging the
question by trying to convince the audience that Americas lack of action will leave a
permanently negative effect on society and that its Americas obligation to stop terrorism for the
sake of the global community. At no point in his statement does he provide support to
substantiate his claim about why the lack of action on behalf of his country would result in
terrorists accessing new weapons or technology. This tool has become a favorite of many
politicians, such as Bill Clinton, who famously stated I did not have sexual relations with

Biggers, Cain 4

that woman, Ms. Lewinsky(Clinton). This line was repeatedly fed to the American people
and restated in many different ways regardless of the lack of evidence he had to support his
case.
Throughout Former President Bushs speech he also uses the glittering generalities to
appeal to the public. Glittering generalities, a type of propaganda technique, are defined by Ann
McClintock as vague terms that are difficult to define and that may have different meanings to
different people, (McClintock, 306). This technique is demonstrated in the statement made by
Bush towards the end of his speech, where he states, Freed from the weight of oppression,
Iraqs people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time, (Bush, par. 43).
Bushs flagrant use of glittering generalities is clearly shown in this statement by observing his
use of the words freed, oppression, progress, and prosperity. All of these terms are
extremely subjective and hold different meanings in varying contexts. These words typically
have very strong connotations associated with them and are typically used to strike a chord with
the intended audience. Bush then goes on to use the technique of glittering generalities a
multitude of times throughout the rest of his address. For example when he states, we will meet
the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression, (Bush, par. 47)
he once again uses ambiguous terms and phrases that have a myriad of meanings. The term
responsibility as well as the phrase defending human liberty are both very open to
interpretation and are typically used to denote very powerful subject matters, thus allowing
people to associate strong personal feelings with each. Bush closes his speech with one final
glittering generality; May God bless America, (Bush, par. 48). By utilizing the words God and
bless, both of which have strong religious connotations, the former President was implying the
generalization that all of America believes in the same god. This same concept is in something as

Biggers, Cain 5

simple as the Pledge of Allegiance which is said every day in schools across the nation ("Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag."), which once again assumes that this general religious concept applies
to a large audience. Because most individuals have an unwavering view on religion, his
application of this glittering generality allows for him to appeal to the masses.
In summation, this speech serves as just a small example of how powerful rhetoric can
be. Former President George Bushs speech is littered with emotional fallacies, propaganda
techniques, and doublespeak. It also demonstrates how these deceiving language techniques have
become such a large part of our culture and can influence decisions of life or death such as
whether or not to enter a war with another country. Not only does rhetoric occur on such a large
scale with government, but people also experience it on a much more personal level when having
conversations with their peers or even watching an advertisement on television. It is because of
the powerful nature of these tools that we must continue to analyze the language used in our
everyday lives and be able to perceive deceptive language when it is set before us. This is
especially important to remember in settings such our current one, where we are entering
election season and a great deal of rhetoric is being used when discussing extremely
complex issues such as international diplomacy and national security.

Biggers, Cain 6

Works Cited
Bush, George W. "The Iraq Threat." Cincinnati, OH. 7 Oct. 2002. PresidentialRhetoric.com. Web. 23
Feb. 2016. <http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/10.7.02.html>.
Clinton, William J. President Bill Clinton's Response to the Lewinsky Allegations. 26 Jan. 1998.
YouTube. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <https://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc>.
Lutz, William. Doubts about Doublespeak. Models for Writers. Eds. Alfred Rosa and Paul
Eschholz. New York: Bedford / St. Martins, 2004. 122-126. Print.
McClintok, Ann. Propaganda Techniques in Todays Advertising. The Longman Reader. Ed.
Judith Nadell. New York: Longman, 2003. 304-311. Print.
"Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag." Publications.US.gov. US Government, n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
<https://publications.usa.gov/epublications/ourflag/pledge.htm>.
Reveur, Tristan. "George Carlin on Language." Scribd. N.p., 13 Apr. 2008. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/2525803/George-Carlin-On-Language#scribd>.
Wood, Nancy. Essentials of Argument. Upper Saddle River: Pearson / Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

Biggers, Cain 7