: Campaign speech update…The speech, first thoughts…
I did not watch the President’s UN address on television because I am at work. But I have read the transcript. This is an initial response; I will post a more detailed analysis to Presidential Campaign Rhetoric 2004 later this week.
Earlier today I suggested Bush should show a little contrition as a way to bolster his ethos in the face of a tough rhetorical situation. He did not do this. But he did something else that may have been as effective (perhaps more so): Bush presented the situation in Iraq as part of several challenges facing the world (UN) and conflated them all into a common defense of civilization and a promotion of democratic institutions. This is an interesting maneuver.
I was troubled by this assertion, however:
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.
I consider this an artful blend of truth and dubious implications that, at this point, fools no one. Considering the skill of the aforementioned maneuver, leaving this statement in the speech seems merely perverse.
UPDATE (3:15 p.m.): I often give my students this statement to ponder: Any rhetoric that works is good rhetoric. Was Bush’s rhetoric good? That remains to be seen. But his reception at the UN was, according to press accounts, “cool.” Here’s a short round-up of coverage: Washington Post, The New York Times.
Time Warp
Because I was preparing for class, I didn’t have the opportunity to hear the president’s address to the UN this
I don’t understand what troubles you about GWB’s assertion. Considering the media hysteria surrounding the “16 words”, I’m sure every word of this speech was vetted. You are most certainly in the majority when it comes to disappointment that GWB didn’t grovel before the UN – 8 years of the Clinton World Wide Apology Tour has conditioned many to expect no less from POTUS.
I’m not anxious for the US to grovel to anyone.
Your word was “contrition”. My ancient Webster’s 7th defines contrite as “grieving and penitent for sin or shortcoming”. Was that your meaning? Also, you didn’t explain your problem with Bush’s quote. That’s what I really wanted to know.
“contrition” is the right word. “grovel” is not.
My problems with the quote are these:
1- This whole thing started with 9/11. Any reference to “terrorists” is understood in that context.
2- Iraq accounted for its WMDs prior to the invasion.
Thanks for the link to the transcript. My initial reaction is that once again, the speech was crafted to remain, to the greatest extent possible, within the parameters of historical discourse at the UN with regard to Iraq — the idea of course being to emphasize that the US was doing what the UN ought to have wanted, whether its members actually wanted it or not.
I found the conflation you noted to be jaw-dropping, myself, not because I don’t think we’re in a world war (I recently wrote that as far as I’m concerned, it started 35 years ago with the RFK assassination), but because casting such a wide net is, to my mind, profoundly at odds with coddling the Pakistanis and Saudis, as I believe Bush has done. The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban and the Saudis financed and manned 9/11. Significant elements in both countries continue to pursue and fund related activities. Pakistan has the Bomb, may have helped North Korea get it, and may be helping Iran get it. The Saudis spend billions propagating an ideology whose goals include the destruction of the West. But they’re our “allies.”
It appears that Bush hopes to avoid direct confrontation with the Saudis, at any rate, by incubating democracy in Iraq and thereby, somehow, facilitating its spread through the region. I have, to be polite, a greater sense of urgency about the risks of the spread of Wahhabi fundamentalism than does this Administration.
The WMD thing didn’t bother me, though, probably because I can accept a good deal of murkiness about that whole issue; I don’t find it necessary to insist that there were — or were not — WMDs in Iraq. Possible non-binary-valued answers to the WMD question I’ve read include:
1. Small actual volume of alleged WMDs (a couple of semi-trailers in a country the size of California [but possibly better governed, heh]) make them effectively impossible to find.
2. Internal deception by Iraqi technical personnel, who promised Saddam WMDs but deliberately worked on relatively ineffective concepts.
3. Risk-avoidance management of storage risks by having production facilities, but not stockpiles.
4. Processes in place to quickly destroy WMDs to prevent their discovery.
None of the above, especially the first two, are easily appreciated by innumerate or non-technical journalists.
To your ultimate question, I don’t expect anything Bush ever says to the UN to constitute “good rhetoric” in the sense of “effective as intended.” They just don’t like him. Which is unfortunate, not because the world would somehow be better if there were less anti-Americanism in it, but because established hostility prevents effective negative feedback loops from forming. The Administration is getting away with a tremendously dubious alliance with the Pakistanis and Saudis largely because its opposition, domestic and foreign, has rendered itself ineffective by reflexive, insubstantial arguments.