Tyndall

Melissa Reneé Tyndall. Images of Savagery and the Justification for the Bush Presidents’ Iraq Wars. (Under the direction of Dr. Mike Gotcher) Department of Communication. Austin Peay State University, December 2007.

Abstract

Over time, American presidents have justified war using tactics that assimilate

savagery with those they wish to go to war against. In Robert L. Ivies Images of Savagery

in American Justifications for War, America is described as a peaceful, freedom-loving

nation spurred on to war by rhetoric that identifies a victim, identifies a scapegoat and

identifies a hero. Three main tactics are utilized when presidents present images of

savagery: the enemy is portrayed as an irrational, conquest-hungry aggressor; the enemy

is the brutal persecutor of innocent victims; and the enemy is so committed to

undermining freedom that the United States is forced to fight the enemy and preserve

peace. This research project will examine the images of savagery utilized in

contemporary presidential speeches by both George Bush and George W. Bush from

1991 to 2006 in conjunction with the Iraq wars, determine if there is a specific order in

which these tactics are used and assist Americans and politicians in identifying pro-war

rhetoric.

Tyndall

Images of Savagery and the Justification for the Bush Presidents’ Iraq Wars

A research project is presented to the graduate faculty of the

Department of Communication Austin Peay State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS

Corporate Communications

by MELISSA RENEÉ TYNDALL

December 2007

Tyndall

DEDICATION

This research paper is dedicated to the four most important people in my life.

First, there are my parents, who have taught me since childhood that any goal I set in

mind was achievable. I have succeeded at everything I set in mind as a goal because my

parents have encouraged me to live, think, and provide for myself in ways that were only

possible because they instilled in me the importance of dreams and education. Secondly,

this research project is dedicated to my brother Matthew, who reminds me that I need to

set an example for my younger sibling. Finally, I would like to dedicate this paper to

Martin, my wonderful and loving boyfriend who has encouraged me to finish this degree

and move onto the next step in life. I am thankful he believed in me, was infinitely

patient as I worked on this piece. I love and thank you all.

Tyndall

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

As I complete my master’s work at Austin Peay State University and look back

over my time in the program, I would like to acknowledge all those who have helped

make my academic progress possible: my project advisor Dr. Mike Gotcher, the graduate

school staff and my fellow graduate students. I extend my thanks to the Student

Government Association for allowing me to work as their graduate assistant.

Tyndall

Introduction

Americans are no stranger to presidential speeches during times of war, but some

may not realize or recognize the tactics used in such speeches. As events continue to

progress in Iraq, some Americans may forget the reasoning behind the United States

going to war. As a January 2007 CBS poll indicated, more than 60 percent of those

questioned did not want to send more troops to Iraq, disapproved of the way George W.

Bush was handling his job as president and felt that Bush did not share their priorities

(CBS, 2007). With opinions such as these, Americans may wonder how the United States

Congress and the United Nations remain convinced that Iraq is an enemy of the United

States of America. However, many Americans are not aware of the strategies used by

American, wartime presidents to project images of savagery onto potential enemies.

According to Images of Savagery in American Justifications for War, an essay by

Robert L. Ivie (1980), American wartime presidents assimilate savagery with those they

wish to go to war against. There are three main tactics that are utilized when presidents

present images of savagery: the enemy is portrayed as an irrational, conquest-hungry

aggressor; the enemy is the brutal persecutor of innocent victims; and the enemy is so

committed to undermining freedom that the United States is forced to become involved

through force.

According to Ivie’s the Images of Savagery theory, “wartime presidents have all

adopted this strategy. Examination of their efforts reveals the stability of the genre of

culpability appeals and provides better understanding of images of savagery in the

rhetoric of a nation that proclaims its commitment to peace” (1980, p. 284). Ivie’s study

Tyndall

was published in 1980, but the assertions made are just as pertinent when examining

modern-day rhetoric utilized by American presidents. The purpose of this study is to

examine six speeches (three per president) made by presidents George H.W. Bush and

George W. Bush for images of savagery that justify war to Congress, the United Nations

and the American people. The mix of televised addresses and speeches to Congress

announcing war, giving The State of the Union and updating America’s wartime status

will allow for an accurate and varied sample of language.

Secondly, this study examines whether or not images of savagery are used in a

specific order to better influence the political parties and American citizens toward

presidential agendas. In conjunction with this theory, this research project analyzes and

interprets the following research questions:

RQ1: Are similar images of savagery, as those examined in Ivie’s essay, utilized in

modern speech, such as in George W. Bush’s speeches about the war in Iraq?

RQ2: Can the same assimilation between Iraqis and savages be found in the rhetoric of

Bush’s father and presidential predecessor George H.W. Bush’s speeches about the first

conflict in the Middle East?

Tyndall

Literature Review George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, have used images of

savagery to justify going to war with Iraq after September 11, as well as for declaring war

in the 1990s. To analyze the speeches of these presidents however, one must first

understand the concepts and theories behind Robert Ivie’s essay.

Images of Savagery Theory

In Ivie’s essay theory, American wartime presidents are described as using a

three-prong “attack” when urging war against potential enemies. First, presidents use

“victim rituals” to identify victims and inspire sympathy for those victims. According to

Ivie:

the rhetoric of warfare is a natural extension of this tendency to promote ‘social cohesion through victimage.’ This is, a people strongly committed to the ideal of peace, but simultaneously faced with the reality of war, must believe that the fault for any such disruption of their ideal lies with others. (1980, p. 280)

Rhetoric such as this is effective because it identifies victims as a group of small,

isolated, innocent people that “suffer graphically” at the hand of a relentless aggressor.

The purpose for this, according to Ivie, is that Americans must be “strongly committed to

the ideal of peace, but simultaneously faced with the reality of war” while also believing

that the blame lies with an enemy who provoked the conflict (1980, p. 280).

These graphic depictions of victims are often followed by or combined with

images of savagery and “references to an antagonist driven by appetites rather than

guided by principles of civilized humanity” (Ivie, 1980, p. 290). In addition, the enemy-

to-be is often described a bully, an irrational force desperate in the pursuit of conquest

while paying no heed to the laws of man or morality. According to Ivie, “wartime

Tyndall

presidents repeatedly have drawn on this fearful image of cunning, but otherwise

irrational, enemies who are driven to circumvent all the restraints of international law and

of human principles in order to impose their will on others” (1980, p. 280). This method

is used to contrast those victimized against their will with those willingly committing acts

of aggression and murder.

In contrast to the victim, “the enemy is portrayed as a savage, i.e., as an aggressor,

driven by irrational desires for conquest, who is seeking to subjugate others by force of

arms. The image of the enemy is intensified by a contrasting image of the United States

as a representative of civilization who is rational, tolerant of diversity, and pacific” (1980,

p. 281). At times, presidents who have used these tactics not only focus on what

atrocities the aggressor has already committed, but those that the enemy could potentially

commit. This tactic manipulates the audience of the president by appealing to citizens’

moral values and desire to preserve freedom and peace. Though the American military

may take the offensive in a conflict and invade foreign territory, the other party is seen as

the aggressor. United States presidents have taken the same stance as a child on any

school playground – the country is defending a smaller, weaker child against a bully that

only we can defeat and “the enemy can justly be held responsible for the breach of peace”

(Ivie, 1980, p. 281).

Robert Ivie’s Force versus Freedom

American audiences are not naïve or unintelligent, but are ultimately convinced

by wartime presidents because they face three psychological battles during the course of

a speech of this magnitude. Audience members would first experience what Ivie calls the

Tyndall

“force vs. freedom” battle. This means that the “enemy was portrayed as savage because

of a stubborn commitment to violence and unwillingness to negotiate with the United

States” (Ivie, 1980, p. 284). This psychological tool allows presidents to place all

brutality and aggression on the enemy while the United States and the victim it fights for

remain free from blame of violence, destruction and negative connotations. Instead, the

United States is depicted as a body which preserves independence for the victimized

against a brutal adversary that gives no hope to those who desire liberty or the will to

think for themselves. Americans then feel need to act as a savior or otherwise be plagued

with guilt for not protecting the freedoms of the less fortunate.

Robert Ivie’s Rational versus Irrational

Another battle audiences face against a wartime president is the “rational vs.

irrational”. This tool allows presidents to assimilate the enemy with animals or beasts –

making them irrational, impulsive, unintelligent, chaotic, brutal and lawless in

comparison to the United States. The reverse anthropomorphism of the enemy is a foil for

how presidents describe America. America is depicted as a land of rationale and full of

people who dream of a peaceful and intelligent future for all of mankind – if only the

nation can first police the world and prevent saboteurs from eliminating “law and

reason”.

Robert Ivie’s Aggression versus Defense

Finally, American wartime presidents rely on “aggression vs. defense”. While the

savage enemy commits voluntary acts of aggression, the United Sates maintains that it –

or the victim – was subjected to an unprovoked attack and has since been forced to

Tyndall

respond by defending itself as well as the victims of the tyrants. Through these tactics,

presidents convince American citizens and politicians that the country must pursue

conflict to the end in order to preserve our country’s “pledge and a destiny to defend

these attacks” (Ivie, 1980). These tactics can be seen during the speeches of George H.W.

Bush and George W. Bush as they gave speeches to defend the attacks on Kuwait in the

1990s and speeches which called for retribution against Iraq for the 9/11 attacks.

George H.W. Bush and Force versus Freedom

The 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, served America from

1989 to 1993 and utilized images of savagery as he gave speeches about Iraqi leaders and

conflict in the Middle East. On September 11, 1990, George H.W. Bush addressed a Joint

Session of Congress and opened his speech by justifying his attack on Saddam Hussein.

According to Bush, “Iraq’s dictator” Saddam Hussein had failed to uphold a promise to

avoid force against Kuwait. In contrast, Iraq was described a brutal force that attempted

to “swallow” or “devour” its “trusting and much weaker neighbor” until Kuwait was

wiped “off the face of the Earth” (1990). According to The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned

Lies, and the Mess in Iraq, “almost overnight, Hussein went from being an ally to ‘worse

than Hitler,’ and the United States led Operation Desert Storm to drive him out of

Kuwait” (Rampton & Stauber, 2006, p. 206). In addition to victimizing Kuwait, Bush

leaned heavily on language that would convince his audience of the enemy’s irrational

desire for conquest. Bush claimed the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was a tyrant unable

to reason, and used adjectives such as illegal, conquest, aggression, threats, powerful,

dictator, tragic, ruthless and dominating to describe Hussein’s forces.

Tyndall

Two weeks later, on January 29, 1991, George H.W. Bush gave a State of the

Union Address entitled “Envisioning One Thousand Points of Light.” In this speech he

justified the conflict in Iraq by describing Hussein as a savage. Bush used language such

as unprovoked, brutal, invasion, ruthless, systematic, violated, aggression, trap, cynicism

and tyrant to describe the actions of the Iraqi leader in the first few sentences of the

speech (January 29, 1991). These descriptors not only presented Hussein as a savage, but

were used to suggest that the enemy was more than a savage ungoverned by law or

morality. If Hussein were a mere savage, he may have been spurred on only by internal,

raw aggression without knowledge of right or wrong. However, by making Hussein’s

actions evil, cruel, aggressive and premeditated – or “systematic” – Bush painted a

picture of a man that had a moral compass, but simply chose to ignore it.

As in previous speeches, America remained a foil character to Iraq throughout the

State of the Union Address. While Hussein’s forces intentionally oppressed others, Bush

described Americans as people who attempt to avoid war. During the speech, Bush

addressed the United States’ desire to avoid war by saying that “the war in the Gulf was

not a war we wanted. We worked hard to avoid war . . . but time and again Saddam

Hussein flatly rejected the path of diplomacy and peace” (January 29, 1990). Bush,

however, claimed that despite the country’s adversity to war, Americans were forced to

go to battle with savages in order to preserve the “hard work of freedom”. America,

unlike Iraq, was comprised of selfless, resolute, resourceful, and powerful citizens that set

an “inspiring example of freedom and democracy” (January 29, 1990) and was only

moved to fight because freedom had been threatened. According to Bush, the Persian

Gulf Crisis was “a unique and extraordinary movement,” for Americans as well as “a rare

Tyndall

opportunity” and a “historic period” that allowed other parts of the world to be free “from

the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for

peace”. America had a responsibility it did not request, but the country’s “mettle” – or

courage to carry on – made it the United State’s duty to go to war in the 1990s in order to

“defend common vital interests,” “support the rule of law” and “stand up to aggression”

without being intimidated (September 11, 1990).

George H.W. Bush and Rational versus Irrational

The September 11, 1990 speech victimized Kuwait, barbarized Iraq and glorified

America. While Hussein was described as an irrational and impulsive dictator, Bush

contrasted the dictator with descriptions of American soldiers. Soldiers, people ready to

abandon their families for the sake of freedom, were described using adjectives such as

fine, brave, valiant, strong, well-trained and dedicated. It was through these rational and

moral soldiers that Bush claimed America could legitimize the government of Kuwait

and establish a new world order (1990). Bush claimed throughout the speech that

Hussein’s forces were entirely at fault for the acts of aggression – not America, those

from Kuwait, or those Iraqis not affiliated with Hussein. Instead, Bush depicted America

as a country governed with “credibility and rationality”, inspired by self-defense and

moved by the desire to promote peace worldwide.

Bush described the rational of the United States before a Joint Session of

Congress in September of 1990 by focusing on the prior actions of the nation – acts based

on purpose, potential and goals rather than on the blind desire to destroy and conquer.

According to the wartime president:

The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not

Tyndall

responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests -- and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law -- and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression -- and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated. Vital issues of principle are at stake. (1990)

When officially announcing the war in January, of 1991, Bush appealed to

American’s subconscious knowledge that their country was a place of rationality by

indicating the reasons for immediate entry into the Gulf War were clear. The American

military had a rational plan – it would remove Hussein’s ability to utilize artillery, tanks,

chemical weapons and nuclear explosives because the dictator had failed to comply with

previous sanctions. Bush said:

Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions, and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf. Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait. (January 16, 1991)

George H.W. Bush and Aggression versus Defense

On January 16, 1991, George H.W. Bush used similar methods as he continued to

describe the conflict with Iraq. He began his televised address by first describing Kuwait

as a helpless country being brutalized by Saddam Hussein and Hussein’s forces. In this

speech Bush claimed that, “While the world waited Saddam Hussein systematically

raped, pillaged and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He subjected the people

of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities – and among those maimed and murdered, innocent

Tyndall

children” (January 16, 1991). The disturbing portrait painted of maimed and murdered

children sets up more direct images of savagery, as the premeditated abuse of children is

generally associated with heartless deviants. By joining these two ideas together,

Americans would simultaneously feel pity for the victims, but also would feel anger

toward the tyrants responsible.

Hussein also was described as “stalling” the United Nations because he was a

man hopeful of war and a man that looked upon peace with contempt. This tactic allowed

Bush to blame Hussein for the misdeeds leading up to war because it focused on the

flaws of the enemy rather than focusing on the United Nations or the United States to

uphold and enforce the rules already given to Iraq. This supports Ivie’s theory that

American wartime presidents focus on the misdeeds of the enemy as opposed to the

killing and destruction done by American forces during war. America, however, is simply

acting as a defender of the weak.

As Ivie indicated in the 1980 study, American presidents fail to mention

casualties caused by United States soldiers. For example, Operation Desert Storm

veterans such as Leon Daniel remember that reporters had not been allowed to see

combat in the 1990s, nor were American actions mentioned in Bush’s speeches at the

time. America attacked more than 8,000 “Iraqi defenders with tanks, artillery, howitzers,

and rockets,” but “by the time the press pool was allowed on the scene…there were no

bodies, no blood, no body parts, and no other visible signs on carnage” because the dead

had been “plowed under” (Rampton & Stauber, 2006, p.161-162). As of 2003, a Project

on Defense Alternatives estimated that the number of Iraqi dead ranged from under

10,000 to more than 100,000. Rather than focusing on deaths – even civilian deaths –

Tyndall

caused by Americans, Bush focused on the successes of the United States. The president

spoke only of targeting weapons facilities, tanks and artillery in the Persian Gulf. Rather

than mentioning the casualties American air attacks would inflict (January 16, 1991),

Bush stuck to the attacks on inanimate objects and the preservation of Kuwait’s freedom,

peace and security:

We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for your safety. Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now, convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: "These are the times that try men's souls.'' Those well-known words are so very true today. But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united, no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor. (January 16, 1991)

Prior to America’s official entry into the war with Iraq, Bush sharply contrasted

the enemy and what the American soldiers did “together to defend civilized values

around the world (September 11, 1990). In early 1991, Bush said that America stood at a

“defining hour,” and was a land that preserved freedom, upheld liberty, assumed

leadership and inspired humanity through American sacrifices. It was because of that

ideal that Bush could convince Americans to prove that they were a part of something

larger than a country or individuals, but that they were the decision-makers for the world

when it came to preserving the “universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security,

freedom, and the rule of law” (January 29, 1991). Prior to Bush announcing the war in

Iraq, the president had addressed Congress about Iraqi aggression versus defense, but

indicates that it was not merely America that Hussein was fighting. Through this global

approach, Bush indicated “The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured.

Tyndall

And American citizens abroad must be protected . . . This is not, as Saddam Hussein

would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world” (September 11,

1990).

George W. Bush and Force versus Freedom

Bush used graphic victimage rhetoric on September 11, 2002 to seek “redemption

through the identification of a suitable and plausible scapegoat” (1980, p.280) as he

described Iraq to the United Nations. In this case, the scapegoat could have been an

excuse to seek retribution for the 9/11 attacks and avoid future violence against the

United States, however the graphic imagery of the tortured Iraqi civilians allowed for

Bush to spur America on to war in defense of victims. According to Bush, in 2001:

. . . the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. (2002)

During the September 12 speech, George W. Bush also claimed that Saddam Hussein had

been stopped 12 years ago after Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, yet the Iraqi leader was

still committing horrible atrocities at the time of the speech. The descriptions within the

speech of civilian suffering in the Middle East, the potential for Saddam Hussein’s forces

to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and the threat that the September

11, 2001 attacks were a “prelude to far greater horrors” allowed for the Iraqi people to

serve as a scapegoat for the United States’ call-to-arms.

Tyndall

On the fifth anniversary of September 11, Bush gave a speech from the Oval

Office and claimed that the war in Iraq not only was to protect America from incidents

similar to 9/11, but to bring peace to the Middle East. However, the victim rituals Bush

used were slightly different that those in his previous speeches. Rather than focusing on

the Middle Eastern people oppressed by savages, Bush focused on something closer to

home – those killed on September 11, the victims’ “distinctly American…extraordinary

acts of courage” and the people that those deaths affected in the United States. Bush said:

On this day, we remember the innocent who've lost their lives, and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live. For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I have met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades. I have stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims and gave America our first victory in the war on terror. I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now 5 years old and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms. (2006)

Bush continued by calling the enemy evil, merciless and perverted religious

extremists. In addition, the enemy was depicted as hating freedom, hating tolerance and

as a force that would bring death and suffering to innocent people (2003). This is a clear

example of how American, wartime presidents intensify the image of the enemy by

contrasting it with an “image of the United States as a representative of civilization who

is rational, tolerant of diversity, and pacific” (Ivie, 1980). According to Bush, America

could spare:

innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. (2003)

Tyndall

Bush reaffirmed America’s identify as a tolerant, peaceful society by reminding

his audience that Americans did not provoke the war. Though citizens had expressed a

desire for the war to end, Bush maintained that Americans had a solemn duty to win the

war or face the potential consequences (not defeating the enemy would only cause the

number or terrorists and dictators in the Middle East to increase and cause problems for

future generations). George W. Bush indicated the only possible solution was for

Americans to continue because “We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by

free nations. And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the

Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity”

(2006).

George W. Bush and Aggression versus Defense

One year and one day after the infamous 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush urged the

United Nations to “turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion or

fear” (September 12, 2002). Though Bush described September 11, 2002 as a day to

remember the lives of the innocent victims killed the year before, he claimed September

12 was a day to recognize the need to protect lives and fight global terror (2002). In this

speech, George W. Bush described a savage enemy that was forceful, irrational and

aggressive while America maintained a standard of morality:

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. (2002)

Tyndall

This description of morality, patriotism and unspoken law (that it is the duty of

the American people to police the world) allowed for American forces to be depicted as

protecting the United States as well as other parts of the world. However, Iraq continued

to be described as a force that was continually aggressive, violent, destructive and

ambitious. The fear of these occurrences was a bargaining chip of sorts, as it seemed that

if the United States did not respond, these sorts of actions would continue. This was

further cemented as Bush described the Iraqi regime as invading Kuwait “without

provocation” while his father, George H.W. Bush was president. He also indicated that it

took defense tactics to stop the dictator as, “the regime's forces were poised to continue

their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been

appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the

world. Yet this aggression was stopped” (2002).

Bush began taking similar stances 2003 and, during a State of the Union address,

Bush alluded to the fact that America was responsible for the number of terrorists in

prisons across the world. Though direct credit was not taken, Bush’s American defense

rhetoric was a lie of omission that made America appear to be a world savior. Halfway

through the January 29, 2003 address, Bush stated that more than “3,000 suspected

terrorists have been arrested in many countries”. Rather than confirming if all those

people were terrorists rather than suspected, or who captured those terrorists, Bush said:

Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies . . .We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. We've got the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. As we fight this war, we will remember where it began: here, in our own country. (2003)

Tyndall

By reminding the country that the war began “in our own country” during 9/11,

Bush was still searching for “redemption through the identification of a suitable and

plausible scapegoat” (1980, p.280) as he did while utilizing force versus freedom tactics.

However, this instance labels the United States as the victim and scapegoat, therefore

justifying the reason to go to war to the American people, though they may be pacific and

wish to avoid conflict.

The rhetoric of the 2003 speech justifies war as a means to defend homeland

security. In addition to discussing prior instances of defense, Bush used the State of the

Union Address to strike fear of future aggression in the American people. According to

Bush, Iraqi “ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit”, but “once again, this nation

and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and

constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the

hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility”. In 2003, the American

president was calling America’s duty familiar, as the country was facing “outlaw regimes

that seek and possess, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons” that could be used for

“blackmail, terror and mass murder”. In terms of defending the defenseless against

aggression, Bush said America was the only country up to the task.

George W. Bush and Rational versus Irrational

Twelve years after his father, George W. Bush also gave a State of the Union

Address. In this January 29, 2003 speech, Bush spoke of duty, responsibility, “threats to

the civilized world” and free men making history. In contrast to the positive workings of

the United States, both related and non-related to war, Bush described Saddam Hussein

as a man with such an irrational desire for conquest that he “systematically violated”

Tyndall

agreements with the United States and the Unites Nations over a period of 12 years as “he

pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his

country” (2003).

Bush also described the enemy throughout the speech with adjectives such as

regime, blackmail, terror, mass murder, Hitlerism, militarism, communism, terrorists,

tyrants, brutal dictator and reckless aggression. However, this image was greatly

contrasted by what Americans had to offer. Bush said:

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America. (2003)

This comparison of aggression versus defense and force versus freedom allowed Bush to

lead into the savage concept of irrationality and rationality. Since Hussein had already

failed to comply with the United Nations’ previous demands, and since Bush argued

terrorists act without warning (2003), it allowed for the president to remind the nation

that the United States was “committed to the ideal of peace, but simultaneously faced

with the reality of war” (Ivie, 1980, p.280). In addition, the speech blamed Hussein for

the breach of peace by indicating the United States sought peace, but would strive to

protect the ideal at all costs. Bush said, “if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the

full force and might of the United States military and we will prevail” (2003), giving

America sole credit for maintaining a rational world of peace.

In 2002, Bush had attempted to convince the United Nations that war was the best

attempt at preserving a rational world of laws, morals and peace. According to the

president, American and world-wide “principles and our security are challenged today by

Tyndall

outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their

violent ambitions”. Bush also used victim rituals to further describe the irrantionality of

killing innocent civilians on 9/11. Bush said that “the destructive intentions of our

enemies. . .” hides within many nations” . . .”In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting

further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization”. It is in this

description that Bush suggests Hussein’s forces are not civilized, but savages irrational

with the hunger for power, for “our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to

their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill

on a massive scale. In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their

most lethal and aggressive forms” (2002).

Tyndall

Conclusion

The speeches of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush vary in terms of the way

the speeches begin (whether it first introduces the savage or the victim the savage is

persecuting), but ultimately, all six speeches have one thing in common – the end. It

seems that to successfully use images of savagery, a president’s last resort must be to

spur the nation on to war. In each speech, it is not until the presidents have described the

horrors of torture and the intentions of the enemy that fighting back is mentioned. In

terms of structure, it seems that presidents must give the reasons for going to war first, as

reversing the order may seem that presidents are simply making excuses to enter into a

war. It is not until later that Americans realize they have been manipulated by language.

According to The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, “By

the time President Bush declared an ‘end to major combat operations in Iraq’ on May 1,

2003, only 173 coalition troops had died – 140 Americans and 33 British” (Rampton &

Stauber, 2006, p.166). Iraqi civilians killed in the battle for Middle Eastern freedoms

were not mentioned, and the loss of troops was not mourned as much as victory and the

pursuit of freedom were glorified. In fact, it was not until “April 2004, a month that saw

the deaths of 140 soldiers” that America paid witness to the “flag-draped coffins

returning from Iraq” in photos taken by a civilian. However, instead of mentioning the

loss that walks hand-in-hand with fighting for freedom, Bush continued to focus on force

versus freedom, or “tyranny versus freedom,” as he closed his address in 2006.

While wartime presidents present America as a promoter of freedom, the epitome

of rational and defender of the defenseless, all neglected to mention the cost of

maintaining those

Tyndall

qualities. Americans, it seems, are taken in by the thought of avenging victims at home

and abroad, and it is not until audiences evaluate the ratio of human lives lost against

freedom, defense and rationale that the popularity of the wartime president, the

confidence in the conflict and the desire to find a scapegoat decline. After 9/11, Bush’s

popularity shot up to 90 percent – similar to his father and predecessor, who gained an 89

percent approval rating after Operation Desert Storm. However, that popularity faded,

because “between April and July 2003, the number of Americans who believed that the

United States was in control in Iraq fell from 71 percent to 45 percent” (Rampton &

Stauber, 2006, p.30). This fall could be attributed to Americans realization that prior

speeches played to their emotions, even though they have no knowledge of Ivie’s theory.

Though Images of Savagery in American Justifications for War is not a new

theory, it is still pertinent to modern society and requires further investigation. There is

no way to educate all Americans on the tactics used by wartime presidents in speeches,

however, those tactics are still utilized. Americans must now hold presidents accountable

for manipulating audiences by using these tactics. To do this, Americans must be

educated, analyze political moves with their minds rather than emotions and hold

presidents and politicians accountable for their actions via their voices and their votes.

In the future, studies could be conducted by polling Americans reactions to

wartime speeches before and after studying Ivie’s theory. If the savagery tactics are less

successful on the group that has been educated about Images of Savagery in American

Justifications for War, Americans should examine the possibility of requiring members of

Tyndall

Congress to read the materials prior to serving as a political representative. This could

possibly prevent American disapproval of conflicts in the United States and overseas.

Until then, Americans must prepare themselves for the same old story they grew up

hearing: the knight in shining armor will always be there to slay the dragon and save the

damsel in distress. However, the American people will never hear about the innocent

bystanders killed in the process – nor will they hear stories of the knight’s fallen

comrades. Americans will hear of world freedom, ideals and principles until the end of

the story, but the cost of that glory will remain unmentioned.

Tyndall

References

Ivie, R. (1980, November). Images of Savagery in American Justifications for

War. Communication Monographs. 47, 279-294.

Rampton, & Stauber, Sheldon, John (2006). The best war ever - Lies, damned lies, and

the mess in Iraq. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

(1990, September 11). Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the

Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit. Retrieved November 6, 2006,

from George Bush Presidential Library and Museum Web site:

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90091101.html.

(1991, January 16). President George Bush Announcing the War Against Iraq.

Retrieved March 7, 2007, from The History Place Great Speech Collections Web

site: http://www.thehistoryplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm.

(1991, January 29). George H. W. Bush's State of the Union Address,

Envisioning One Thousand Points of Light. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from

Infoplease Web site: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0900156.html.

(2002, September 12). President's Remarks at the United Nations General

Assembly. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from The White House Web site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html.

(2003, January 29). Bush's State of the Union speech. Retrieved March 7, 2007,

from CNN.com Web site:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/.

(2006, September 11). Bush: A war unlike any we have fought before. Retrieved

Tyndall

March 7, 2007, from CNN.com Web site:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/bush.transcript/index.html.

CBS, (January 22, 2007). The President, the State of the Union and the Troop

Increase. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from CBS News Web site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ 012207_bush_poll.pdf.

Tyndall

APPENDIX A

DEFINITION OF TERMS: AMERICA’S WAR WITH IRAQ Aggression/Aggressor - 1: a forceful action or procedure behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration. One that commits or practices aggression. Communism - 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed Defense - 1 a: the act or action of defending 3 a: means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another; also: a defensive structure 5: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms production. Dictator- 1 a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially: one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b: one holding complete autocratic control c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively. Force - 2 a: military strength b (1): a assigned to a military purpose (2) plural: the whole military strength c: a body of persons or things available for a particular end d: an individual or group having the power of effective action. Freedom - 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another. Graphic - 3 usually graphic a: marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description b: vividly or plainly shown or described. Hitlerism - the principles and policies associated with Hitler Images/Imagery - (2): a mental conception held in common by members of a group and symbolic of a basic attitude and orientation 5 a (1): a mental picture or impression of something (2): a mental conception held in common by members of a group and symbolic of a basic attitude and orientation. Irrational - 1): not endowed with reason or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason. Law - a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs.

Tyndall

Militarism - 1 a: predominance of the military class or its ideals b: exaltation of military virtues and ideals 2: a policy of aggressive military preparedness Rational - 1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason. Reckless - 1: marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences Regime - 1 b: a regular pattern of occurrence or action c: the characteristic behavior or orderly procedure of a natural phenomenon or process 2 a: mode of rule or management b: a form of government c: a government in power d: a period of rule Rhetoric -1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion. Savagery - 1 a: the quality of being savage b: an act of cruelty or violence 2: an uncivilized state. Systematic - 3 a: methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar> b: marked by thoroughness and regularity. Tactics - 1 a: the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat b: the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end2: a system or mode of procedure3: the study of the grammatical relations within a language including morphology and syntax. Terror/Terrorist - 1: a state of intense fear 2 a: one that inspires fear b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of d: an appalling person or thing; 4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands Tyrant - 1 a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty2 a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power. Victim -: a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite2: one that is acted on and usu. adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1): one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions (2): one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment b: one that is tricked or duped All definitions provided by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary at www.m-w.com.

Tyndall

APPENDIX B

GEORGE H. W. BUSH ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression. At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well-trained, and dedicated. A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, ``I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.'' Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Powell; the Chiefs here tonight; our commander in the Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf; and the men and women of the Department of Defense. What a magnificent job you all are doing. And thank you very, very much from a grateful people. I wish I could say that their work is done. But we all know it's not. So, if there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the time is now. And let me thank all Americans, especially those here in this Chamber tonight, for your support for our armed forces and for their mission. That support will be even more important in the days to come. So, tonight I want to talk to you about what's at stake -- what we must do together to defend civilized values around the world and maintain our economic strength at home. Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected. These goals are not ours alone. They've been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world. As you know, I've just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet

Tyndall

President Gorbachev. And I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq's threat to peace. Let me quote: ``We are united in the belief that Iraq's aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.'' Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun. We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come. The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests -- and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law -- and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression -- and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated. Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't. Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability. Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this fundamental truth. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we've sought to fashion the broadest possible international response to Iraq's aggression. The level of world cooperation and condemnation of Iraq is unprecedented. Armed forces from countries spanning four continents are there at the request of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to deter and, if need be, to defend against attack. Moslems and non-Moslems, Arabs and non-Arabs, soldiers from many nations stand shoulder to shoulder,

Tyndall

resolute against Saddam Hussein's ambitions. We can now point to five United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemn Iraq's aggression. They call for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government, and categorically reject Iraq's cynical and self-serving attempt to annex Kuwait. Finally, the United Nations has demanded the release of all foreign nationals held hostage against their will and in contravention of international law. It is a mockery of human decency to call these people ``guests.'' They are hostages, and the whole world knows it. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dependable ally, said it all: ``We do not bargain over hostages. We will not stoop to the level of using human beings as bargaining chips ever.'' Of course, of course, our hearts go out to the hostages and to their families. But our policy cannot change, and it will not change. America and the world will not be blackmailed by this ruthless policy. We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. The Security Council has imposed mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq, designed to force Iraq to relinquish the spoils of its illegal conquest. The Security Council has also taken the decisive step of authorizing the use of all means necessary to ensure compliance with these sanctions. Together with our friends and allies, ships of the United States Navy are today patrolling Mideast waters. They've already intercepted more than 700 ships to enforce the sanctions. Three regional leaders I spoke with just yesterday told me that these sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. We continue to hope that Iraq's leaders will recalculate just what their aggression has cost them. They are cut off from world trade, unable to sell their oil. And only a tiny fraction of goods gets through. The communiqué with President Gorbachev made mention of what happens when the embargo is so effective that children of Iraq literally need milk or the sick truly need medicine. Then, under strict international supervision that guarantees the proper destination, then food will be permitted. At home, the material cost of our leadership can be steep. That's why Secretary of State Baker and Treasury Secretary Brady have met with many world leaders to underscore that the burden of this collective effort must be shared. We are prepared to do our share and more to help carry that load; we insist that others do their share as well. The response of most of our friends and allies has been good. To help defray costs, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE -- the United Arab Emirates -- have pledged to provide our deployed troops with all the food and fuel they need. Generous assistance will also be provided to stalwart front-line nations, such as Turkey and Egypt. I am also heartened to report that this international response extends to the neediest victims of this conflict -- those refugees. For our part, we've contributed $28 million for relief efforts. This is but a portion of what is needed. I commend, in particular, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and several European nations who have joined us in this purely humanitarian effort. There's an energy-related cost to be borne as well. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti output. More than half of what was lost has been made up. And we're getting superb cooperation. If producers, including the United States, continue steps to expand oil and gas production, we can stabilize prices and guarantee

Tyndall

against hardship. Additionally, we and several of our allies always have the option to extract oil from our strategic petroleum reserves if conditions warrant. As I've pointed out before, conservation efforts are essential to keep our energy needs as low as possible. And we must then take advantage of our energy sources across the board: coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear. Our failure to do these things has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Finally, let no one even contemplate profiteering from this crisis. We will not have it. I cannot predict just how long it will take to convince Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Sanctions will take time to have their full intended effect. We will continue to review all options with our allies, but let it be clear: we will not let this aggression stand. Our interest, our involvement in the Gulf is not transitory. It predated Saddam Hussein's aggression and will survive it. Long after all our troops come home -- and we all hope it's soon, very soon -- there will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role then: to deter future aggression. Our role is to help our friends in their own self-defense. And something else: to curb the proliferation of chemical, biological, ballistic missile and, above all, nuclear technologies. Let me also make clear that the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Iraq's dictator and with his aggression. Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. That's not a threat, that's not a boast, that's just the way it's going to be. Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our Armed Forces, our energy dependence, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up to our foes. For America to lead, America must remain strong and vital. Our world leadership and domestic strength are mutual and reinforcing; a woven piece, strongly bound as Old Glory. To revitalize our leadership, our leadership capacity, we must address our budget deficit -- not after election day, or next year, but now. Higher oil prices slow our growth, and higher defense costs would only make our fiscal deficit problem worse. That deficit was already greater than it should have been -- a projected $232 billion for the coming year. It must -- it will -- be reduced. To my friends in Congress, together we must act this very month -- before the next fiscal year begins on October 1st -- to get America's economic house in order. The Gulf situation helps us realize we are more economically vulnerable than we ever should be. Americans must never again enter any crisis, economic or military, with an excessive dependence on foreign oil and an excessive burden of Federal debt. Most Americans are sick and tired of endless battles in the Congress and between the branches over budget matters. It is high time we pulled together and get the job done right. It's up to us to straighten this out. This job has four basic parts. First, the Congress should, this month, within a budget agreement, enact growth-oriented tax measures -- to help avoid recession in the short term and to increase savings, investment, productivity, and competitiveness for the longer term. These measures include extending incentives for research and experimentation; expanding the use of IRA's for new homeowners; establishing tax-deferred family savings accounts; creating incentives for the creation of enterprise zones and initiatives to encourage more domestic drilling; and, yes, reducing the tax rate on capital gains.

And second, the Congress should, this month, enact a prudent multiyear defense program, one that reflects not only the improvement in East-West relations but our broader

Tyndall

responsibilities to deal with the continuing risks of outlaw action and regional conflict. Even with our obligations in the Gulf, a sound defense budget can have some reduction in real terms; and we're prepared to accept that. But to go beyond such levels, where cutting defense would threaten our vital margin of safety, is something I will never accept. The world is still dangerous. And surely, that is now clear. Stability's not secure. American interests are far reaching. Interdependence has increased. The consequences of regional instability can be global. This is no time to risk America's capacity to protect her vital interests. And third, the Congress should, this month, enact measures to increase domestic energy production and energy conservation in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. These measures should include my proposals to increase incentives for domestic oil and gas exploration, fuel-switching, and to accelerate the development of the Alaskan energy resources without damage to wildlife. As you know, when the oil embargo was imposed in the early 1970's, the United States imported almost 6 million barrels of oil a day. This year, before the Iraqi invasion, U.S. imports had risen to nearly 8 million barrels per day. And we'd moved in the wrong direction. And now we must act to correct that trend. And fourth, the Congress should, this month, enact a 5-year program to reduce the projected debt and deficits by $500 billion -- that's by half a trillion dollars. And if, with the Congress, we can develop a satisfactory program by the end of the month, we can avoid the ax of sequester -- deep across-the-board cuts that would threaten our military capacity and risk substantial domestic disruption. I want to be able to tell the American people that we have truly solved the deficit problem. And for me to do that, a budget agreement must meet these tests: It must include the measures I've recommended to increase economic growth and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It must be fair. All should contribute, but the burden should not be excessive for any one group of programs or people. It must address the growth of government's hidden liabilities. It must reform the budget process and, further, it must be real. I urge Congress to provide a comprehensive 5-year deficit reduction program to me as a complete legislative package, with measures to assure that it can be fully enforced. America is tired of phony deficit reduction or promise-now, save-later plans. It is time for a program that is credible and real. And finally, to the extent that the deficit reduction program includes new revenue measures, it must avoid any measure that would threaten economic growth or turn us back toward the days of punishing income tax rates. That is one path we should not head down again. I have been pleased with recent progress, although it has not always seemed so smooth. But now it's time to produce. I hope we can work out a responsible plan. But with or without agreement from the budget summit, I ask both Houses of the Congress to allow a straight up-or-down vote on a complete $500-billion deficit reduction package not later than September 28. If the Congress cannot get me a budget, then Americans will have to face a tough, mandated sequester. I'm hopeful, in fact, I'm confident that the Congress will do what it should. And I can assure you that we in the executive branch will do our part. In the final analysis, our ability to meet our responsibilities abroad depends upon political will and consensus at home. This is never easy in democracies, for we govern only with the consent of the governed. And although free people in a free society are bound to have their differences, Americans traditionally come together in times of

Tyndall

adversity and challenge. Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That's why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great Chamber -- Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- can come together to fulfill our responsibilities here. Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.

Tyndall

APPENDIX C

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH ANNOUNCING THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged. This conflict started August 2nd when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait -- a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations -- was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined. This military action, taken in accord with United Nations resolutions and with the consent of the United States Congress, follows months of constant and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the United Nations, the United States, and many, many other countries. Arab leaders sought what became known as an Arab solution, only to conclude that Saddam Hussein was unwilling to leave Kuwait. Others traveled to Baghdad in a variety of efforts to restore peace and justice. Our Secretary of State, James Baker, held an historic meeting in Geneva, only to be totally rebuffed. This past weekend, in a last-ditch effort, the Secretary-General of the United Nations went to the Middle East with peace in his heart -- his second such mission. And he came back from Baghdad with no progress at all in getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. Now the 28 countries with forces in the Gulf area have exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution -- have no choice but to drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will not fail. As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be destroyed. Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military arsenal. Initial reports from General Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to plan. Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions, and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf. Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait. While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities -- and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.

While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now possesses, an infinitely more dangerous weapon of mass destruction -- a nuclear weapon. And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.

Tyndall

While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world, including to our own economy. The United States, together with the United Nations, exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the forces arrayed against him. While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam prepared for war. I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nation resolutions. He did not do that. Instead, he remained intransigent, certain that time was on his side. Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America. Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations -- countries from 5 continents, Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League -- have forces in the Gulf area standing shoulder to shoulder against Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could be avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave. Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women. I've told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. I'm hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum. This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders. We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now, convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: "These are the times that try men's souls.'' Those well-known words are so very true today. But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united, no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor. No President can easily commit our sons and daughters to war. They are the

Tyndall

Nation's finest. Ours is an all-volunteer force, magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why they're there. And listen to what they say, for they've said it better than any President or Prime Minister ever could. Listen to Hollywood Huddleston, Marine lance corporal. He says, "Let's free these people, so we can go home and be free again.'' And he's right. The terrible crimes and tortures committed by Saddam's henchmen against the innocent people of Kuwait are an affront to mankind and a challenge to the freedom of all. Listen to one of our great officers out there, Marine Lieutenant General Walter Boomer. He said: "There are things worth fighting for. A world in which brutality and lawlessness are allowed to go unchecked isn't the kind of world we're going to want to live in.'' Listen to Master Sergeant J.P. Kendall of the 82nd Airborne: "We're here for more than just the price of a gallon of gas. What we're doing is going to chart the future of the world for the next 100 years. It's better to deal with this guy now than 5 years from now.'' And finally, we should all sit up and listen to Jackie Jones, an Army lieutenant, when she says, "If we let him get away with this, who knows what's going to be next?'' I have called upon Hollywood and Walter and J.P. and Jackie and all their courageous comrades-in-arms to do what must be done. Tonight, America and the world are deeply grateful to them and to their families. And let me say to everyone listening or watching tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am determined to bring them home as soon as possible. Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers. May God bless each and every one of them, and the coalition forces at our side in the Gulf, and may He continue to bless our nation, the United States of America.

Tyndall

APPENDIX D

GEORGE H. W. BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS ENVISIONING ONE THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the United States Congress. I come to this house of the people to speak to you and all Americans, certain we stand at a defining hour. Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we're there. We are Americans—part of something larger than ourselves. For two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future. The community of nations has resolutely gathered to condemn and repel lawless aggression. Saddam Hussein's unprovoked invasion—his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor—violated everything the community of nations holds dear. The world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand. Together, we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants. The world has answered Saddam's invasion with 12 United Nations resolutions, starting with a demand for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal, and backed up by forces from 28 countries of six continents. With few exceptions, the world now stands as one. The end of the cold war has been a victory for all humanity. A year and a half ago, in Germany, I said our goal was a Europe whole and free. Tonight, Germany is united. Europe has become whole and free, and America's leadership was instrumental in making it possible. The principle that has guided us is simple: our objective is to help the Baltic peoples achieve their aspirations, not to punish the Soviet Union. In our recent discussions with the Soviet leadership we have been given representations, which, if fulfilled, would result in the withdrawal of some Soviet forces, a reopening of dialogue with the republics, and a move away from violence. We will watch carefully as the situation develops. And we will maintain our contact with the Soviet leadership to encourage continued commitment to democratization and reform. If it is possible, I want to continue to build a lasting basis for U.S.-Soviet cooperation, for a more peaceful future for all mankind. The triumph of democratic ideas in Eastern Europe and Latin America, and the continuing struggle for freedom elsewhere around the world all confirm the wisdom of our nation's founders. Tonight, we work to achieve another victory, a victory over tyranny and savage aggression. We in this Union enter the last decade of the 20th Century thankful for all our blessings, steadfast in our purpose, aware of our difficulties and responsive to our duties at home and around the world. For two centuries, America has served the world as an inspiring example of

Tyndall

freedom and democracy. For generations, America has led the struggle to preserve and extend the blessings of liberty. And today, in a rapidly changing world, American leadership is indispensable. Americans know that leadership brings burdens, and requires sacrifice. But we also know why the hopes of humanity turn to us. We are Americans; we have a unique responsibility to do the hard work of freedom. And when we do, freedom works. The conviction and courage we see in the Persian Gulf today is simply the American character in action. The indomitable spirit that is contributing to this victory for world peace and justice is the same spirit that gives us the power and the potential to meet our challenges at home. We are resolute and resourceful. If we can selflessly confront evil for the sake of good in a land so far away, then surely we can make this land all it should be. If anyone tells you America's best days are behind her, they're looking the wrong way. Tonight, I come before this house, and the American people, with an appeal for renewal. This is not merely a call for new government initiatives, it is a call for new initiative in government, in our communities, and from every American—to prepare for the next American century. America has always led by example. So who among us will set this example? Which of our citizens will lead us in this next American century? Everyone who steps forward today, to get one addict off drugs; to convince one troubled teen-ager not to give up on life; to comfort one AIDS patient; to help one hungry child. We have within our reach the promise of renewed America. We can find meaning and reward by serving some purpose higher than ourselves—a shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light. It is expressed by all who know the irresistible force of a child's hand, of a friend who stands by you and stays there—a volunteer's generous gesture, an idea that is simply right. The problems before us may be different, but the key to solving them remains the same: it is the individual—the individual who steps forward. And the state of our Union is the union of each of us, one to the other: the sum of our friendships, marriages, families and communities. We all have something to give. So if you know how to read, find someone who can't. If you've got a hammer, find a nail. If you're not hungry, not lonely, not in trouble—seek out someone who is. Join the community of conscience. Do the hard work of freedom. That will define the state of our Union. Since the birth of our nation, “we the people” has been the source of our strength. What government can do alone is limited, but the potential of the American people knows no limits. We are a nation of rock-solid realism and clear-eyed idealism. We are Americans. We are the nation that believes in the future. We are the nation that can shape the future. And we've begun to do just that, by strengthening the power and choice of individuals and families. Together, these last two years, we've put dollars for child care directly in the hands of parents instead of bureaucracies, unshackled the potential of Americans with disabilities, applied the creativity of the marketplace in the service of the environment, for clean air, and made homeownership possible for more Americans. The strength of a democracy is not in bureaucracy, it is in the people and their communities. In everything we do, let us unleash the potential of our most precious

Tyndall

resource—our citizens. We must return to families, communities, counties, cities, states and institutions of every kind, the power to chart their own destiny, and the freedom and opportunity provided by strong economic growth. That's what America is all about. I know, tonight, in some regions of our country, people are in genuine economic distress. I hear them. Earlier this month Kathy Blackwell of Massachusetts wrote me about what can happen when the economy slows down, saying, “My heart is aching, and I think that you should know—your people out here are hurting badly.” I understand. And I'm not unrealistic about the future. But there are reasons to be optimistic about our economy. First, we don't have to fight double-digit inflation. Second, most industries won't have to make big cuts in production because they don't have big inventories piled up. And third, our exports are running solid and strong. In fact, American businesses are exporting at a record rate. So let's put these times in perspective. Together, since 1981, we've created almost 20 million jobs, cut inflation in half and cut interest rates in half. Yes, the largest peacetime economic expansion in history has been temporarily interrupted. But our economy is still over twice as large as our closest competitor. We will get this recession behind us and return to growth soon. We will get on our way to a new record of expansion, and achieve the competitive strength that will carry us into the next American century. We should focus our efforts today on encouraging economic growth, investing in the future and giving power and opportunity to the individual. We must begin with control of federal spending. That's why I'm submitting a budget that holds the growth in spending to less than the rate of inflation. And that's why, amid all the sound and fury of last year's budget debate, we put into law new, enforceable spending caps so that future spending debates will mean a battle of ideas, not a bidding war. Though controversial, the budget agreement finally put the federal government on a pay-as-you-go basis, and cut the growth of debt by nearly $500 billion. And that frees funds for saving and job-creating investment. Now, let's do more. My budget again includes tax-free family savings accounts; penalty-free withdrawals from I. R. A.'s for first-time homebuyers; and, to increase jobs and growth, a reduced tax for long-term capital gains. I know there are differences among us about the impact and the effects of a capital gains incentive. So tonight I am asking the congressional leaders and the Federal Reserve to cooperate with us in a study, led by Chairman Alan Greenspan, to sort out our technical differences so that we can avoid a return to unproductive partisan bickering. But just as our efforts will bring economic growth now and in the future, they must also be matched by long-term investments for the next American century.

That requires a forward-looking plan of action, and that's exactly what we will be sending to the Congress. We have prepared a detailed series of proposals that include:

• A budget that promotes investment in America's future—in children, education, infrastructure, space and high technology.

Tyndall

• Legislation to achieve excellence in education, building on the partnership forged with the 50 governors at the education summit, enabling parents to choose their children's schools and helping to make America No. 1 in math and science.

• A blueprint for a new national highway system, a critical investment in our transportation infrastructure.

• A research and development agenda that includes record levels of federal investment and a permanent tax credit to strengthen private R and D and create jobs.

• A comprehensive national energy strategy that calls for energy conservation and efficiency, increased development and greater use of alternative fuels.

• A banking reform plan to bring America's financial system into the 21st century, so that our banks remain safe and secure and can continue to make job-creating loans for our factories, businesses, and homebuyers. I do think there has been too much pessimism. Sound banks should be making more sound loans, now. And interest rates should be lower, now.

In addition to these proposals, we must recognize that our economic strength depends upon being competitive in world markets. We must continue to expand America's exports. A successful Uruguay round of world trade negotiations will create more real jobs, and more real growth, for all nations. You and I know that if the playing field is level, America's workers and farmers can outwork and outproduce anyone, anytime, anywhere. And with the Mexican free trade agreement and our Enterprise for the Americas Initiative we can help our partners strengthen their economies and move toward a free trade zone throughout this entire hemisphere. The budget also includes a plan of action right here at home to put more power and opportunity in the hands of the individual. That means new incentives to create jobs in our inner cities by encouraging investment through enterprise zones. It also means tenant control and ownership of public housing. Freedom and the power to choose should not be the privilege of wealth. They are the birthright of every American. Civil rights are also crucial to protecting equal opportunity. Every one of us has a responsibility to speak out against racism, bigotry, and hate. We will continue our vigorous enforcement of existing statutes, and I will once again press the Congress to strengthen the laws against employment discrimination without resorting to the use of unfair preferences. We're determined to protect another fundamental civil right: freedom from crime and the fear that stalks our cities. The Attorney General will soon convene a crime summit of the nation's law-enforcement officials. And to help us support them we need a tough crime control legislation, and we need it now. As we fight crime, we will fully implement our national strategy for combatting drug abuse. Recent data show we are making progress, but much remains to be done. We will not rest until the day of the dealer is over, forever. Good health care is every American's right and every American's responsibility. So we are proposing an aggression program of new prevention initiatives—for infants,

Tyndall

for children, for adults, and for the elderly—to promote a healthier America and to help keep costs from spiraling.

It's time to give people more choice in government by reviving the ideal of the citizen politician who comes not to stay, but to serve. One of the reasons there is so much support for term limitations is that the American people are increasingly concerned about big-money influence in politics. We must look beyond the next election, to the next generation. The time has come to put the national interest ahead of the special interest—and totally eliminate political action committees. That would truly put more competition in elections and more power in the hands of individuals. And where power cannot be put directly into the hands of the individual, it should be moved closer to the people—away from Washington. The federal government too often treats government programs as if they are of Washington, by Washington, and for Washington. Once established, federal programs seem to become immortal. It's time for a more dynamic program life cycle. Some programs should increase. Some should decrease. Some should be terminated. And some should be consolidated and turned over to the states. My budget includes a list of programs for potential turnover totaling more than $20 billion. Working with Congress and the governors, I propose we select at least $15 billion in such programs and turn them over to the states in a single consolidated grant, fully funded, for flexible management by the states. The value of this turnover approach is straightforward. It allows the federal government to reduce overhead. It allows states to manage more flexibly and more efficiently. It moves power and decision-making closer to the people. And it reinforces a theme of this administration: appreciation and encouragement of the innovative power of “states as laboratories.” This nation was founded by leaders who understood that power belongs in the hands of the people. They planned for the future. And so must we—here and around the world. As Americans, we know there are times when we must step forward and accept our responsibility to lead the world away from the dark chaos of dictators, toward the bright promise of a better day. Almost 50 years ago, we began a long struggle against aggressive totalitarianism. Now we face another defining hour for America and the world. There is no one more devoted, more committed to the hard work of freedom, than every soldier and sailor, every marine, airman and coastguardsman—every man and every woman now serving in the Persian Gulf. Each of them has volunteered to provide for this nation's defense. And now they bravely struggle to earn for America and for the world and for future generations, a just and lasting peace. Our commitment to them must be equal of their commitment to our country. They are truly America's finest. The war in the Gulf is not a war we wanted. We worked hard to avoid war. For more than five months we, along with the Arab League, the European Community and the United Nations, tried every diplomatic avenue. UN secretary general Perez de Cuellar; presidents Gorbachev, Mitterand, Ozal, Mubarak, and Bendjedid; kings Fahd and Hassan; prime minsters Major and Andreotti—just to name a few—all worked for a solution. But time and again Saddam Hussein flatly rejected the path of diplomacy and

Tyndall

peace. The world well knows how this conflict began, and when: it began on August 2nd, when Saddam invaded and sacked a small, defenseless neighbor. And I am certain of how it will end. So that peace can prevail, we will prevail. Tonight I'm pleased to report that we are on course. Iraq's capacity to sustain war is being destroyed. Our investment, our training, our planning—all are paying off. Time will not be Saddam's salvation. Our purpose in the Persian Gulf remains constant: to drive Iraq out from Kuwait, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government, and to insure the stability and security of this critical region. Let me make clear what I mean by the region's stability and security. We do not seek the destruction of Iraq, its culture or its people. Rather, we seek an Iraq that uses its great resources not to destroy, not to serve the ambitions of a tyrant, but to build a better life for itself and its neighbors. We seek a Persian Gulf where conflict is no longer the rule, where the strong are neither tempted nor able to intimidate the weak. Most Americans know instinctively why we are in the Gulf. They know we had to stop Saddam now, not later. They know this brutal dictator will do anything, will use any weapon, will commit any outrage, no matter how many innocents must suffer. They know we must make sure that control of the world's oil resources does not fall into his hands only to finance further aggression. They know that we need to build a new, enduring peace—based not on arms races and confrontation, but on shared principles and the rule of law. And we all realize that our responsibility to be the catalyst for peace in the region does not end with the successful conclusion of this war. Democracy brings the undeniable value of thoughtful dissent, and we have heard some dissenting voices here at home, some reckless, most responsible. But the fact that all the voices have the right to speak out is one of the reasons we've been united in principle and purpose for 200 years. Our progress in this great struggle is the result of years of vigilance and a steadfast commitment to a strong defense. Now, with remarkable technological advances like the Patriot missile, we can defend the ballistic missile attacks aimed at innocent civilians. Looking forward, I have directed that the S.D.I. program be refocused on providing protection from limited ballistic missile strikes, whatever their source. Let us pursue an S.D.I. program that can deal with any future threat to the United States, to our forces overseas and to our friends and allies. The quality of American technology, thanks to the American worker, has enabled us to successfully deal with difficult military conditions, and help minimize the loss of life. We have given our men and women the very best. And they deserve it. We all have a special place in our hearts for the families of men and women serving in the Gulf. They are represented here tonight, by Mrs. Norman Schwarzkopf. We are all very grateful to General Schwarzkopf and to all those serving with him. And I might also recognize one who came with Mrs. Schwarzkopf: Alma Powell, the wife of the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And to the families, let me say, our forces in the Gulf will not stay there one day longer than is necessary to complete their mission. The courage and success of the R.A.F. pilots—of the Kuwaiti, Saudi,

Tyndall

French, Canadians, Italians, the pilots of Qatar and Bahrain—all are proof that for the first time since World War II, the international community is united. The leadership of the United Nations, once only a hoped-for ideal, is now confirming its founders' vision. I am heartened that we are not being asked to bear alone the financial burden of this struggle. Last year, our friends and allies provided the bulk of the economic costs of Desert Shield, and having now received commitments of over $40 billion for the first three months of 1991, I am confident they will do no less as we move through Desert Storm. But the world has to wonder what the dictator of Iraq is thinking. If he thinks that by targeting innocent civilians in Israel and Saudi Arabia, that he will gain an advantage—he is dead wrong. If he thinks that he will advance his cause through tragic and despicable environmental terrorism—he is dead wrong. And if he thinks that by abusing coalition P.O.W.s, he will benefit—he is dead wrong. We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order—where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance. Yes, the United States bears a major share of leadership in this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States of America has had both the moral standing, and the means to back it up. We are the only nation on this earth that could assemble the forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership—and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world. This nation has never found glory in war. Our people have never wanted to abandon the blessings of home and work, for distant lands and deadly conflict. If we fight in anger, it is only because we have to fight at all. And all of us yearn for a world where we will never have to fight again. Each of us will measure, within ourselves, the value of this great struggle. Any cost in lives is beyond our power to measure. But the cost of closing our eyes to aggression is beyond mankind's power to imagine. This we do know: Our cause is just. Our cause is moral. Our cause is right. Let future generations understand the burden and the blessings of freedom. Let them say, we stood where duty required us to stand. Let them know that together, we affirmed America, and the world, as a community of conscience. The winds of change are with us now. The forces of freedom are united. We move toward the next century, more confident than ever, that we have the will at home and abroad, to do what must be done—the hard work of freedom. May God bless the United States of America.

Tyndall

APPENDIX E

PRESIDENT'S REMARKS AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful. The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed. As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning. Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict. Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to

Tyndall

confront. Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce

Tyndall

biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region. In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To

Tyndall

assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming. The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Tyndall

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages. My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power. Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors. If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well. Thank you very much.

Tyndall

APPENDIX F

BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens, every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead. You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country, we have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease. We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. In all these days of promise and days of reckoning, we can be confident. During the last two years we have seen what can be accomplished when we work together. To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom so that every child in American can read and learn and succeed in life. To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security, which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era. To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation. To insist on integrity in American business, we passed tough reforms, and we are holding corporate criminals to account. Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start. Tonight I ask the House and the Senate to join me in the next bold steps to serve our fellow citizens. Our first goal is clear: We must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job. After recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and stock market declines, our economy is recovering. Yet it is not growing fast enough, or strongly enough. With unemployment rising, our nation needs more small businesses to open, more companies to invest and expand, more employers to put up the sign that says, "Help Wanted." Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place. I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year. And under my plan, as soon as I've signed the bill, this extra money will start showing up in workers' paychecks. Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now. Instead of slowly raising the child credit to $1,000, we should send the checks to American families now. This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes, and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year. And our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small

Tyndall

businesses. You, the Congress, have already passed all these reductions, and promised them for future years. If this tax relief is good for Americans three or five or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today. We should also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax laws. It's fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends. Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs mean more taxpayers and higher revenues to our government. The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us: Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families. A growing economy and a focus on essential priorities will be crucial to the future of Social Security. As we continue to work together to keep Social Security sound and reliable, we must offer younger workers a chance to invest in retirement accounts that they will control and they will own. Our second goal is high quality, affordable health for all Americans. The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation, with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many people, medical care costs too much, and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care. Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine. Health care reform must begin with Medicare; Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America. Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is. And just like you, the members of Congress, and your staffs and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs. My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Leaders of both political parties have talked for years about strengthening Medicare. I urge the members of this new Congress to act this year. To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost: the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued. Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care, and many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit; I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform. Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and

Tyndall

conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you clear skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I have sent you a healthy forest initiative to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy. Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car, producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Our fourth goal is to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems of America. For so many in our country -- the homeless, and the fatherless, the addicted -- the need is great. Yet there is power -- wonder-working power -- in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people. Americans are doing the work of compassion every day: visiting prisoners, providing shelter for battered women, bringing companionship to lonely seniors. These good works deserve our praise, they deserve our personal support and, when appropriate, they deserve the assistance of the federal government. I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America one heart and one soul at a time. Last year, I called on my fellow citizens to participate in the USA Freedom Corps, which is enlisting tens of thousands of new volunteers across America. Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens: boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention, and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad. I propose a $450 million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Government will support the training and recruiting of mentors, yet it is the men and women of America who will fill the need. One mentor, one person, can change a life forever, and I urge you to be that one person. Another cause of hopelessness is addiction to drugs. Addiction crowds out friendship, ambition, moral conviction, and reduces all the richness of life to a single destructive desire. As a government, we are fighting illegal drugs by cutting off supplies and reducing demand through anti-drug education programs. Yet for those already addicted, the fight against drugs is a fight for their own lives. Too many Americans in search of

Tyndall

treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new $600 million program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years.

Our nation is blessed with recovery programs that do amazing work. One of them is found at the Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A man in the program said, "God does miracles in people's lives, and you never think it could be you." Tonight, let us bring to all Americans who struggle with drug addiction this message of hope: The miracle of recovery is possible, and it could be you. By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society, a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning. The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men. In Afghanistan, we helped to liberate an oppressed people, and we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society and educate all their children, boys and girls. In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine. Across the Earth, America is feeding the hungry. More than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States. As our nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better. Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus, including 3 million children under the age of 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need. Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines, many hospitals tell people, 'You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die’.” In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year, which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many. We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS.

Tyndall

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. To date we have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaida. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks, the chief of Al Qaida operations in the Persian Gulf who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, an Al Qaida operations chief from Southeast Asia, a former director of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan, a key Al Qaida operative in Europe, a major Al Qaida leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Gibraltar. We've broken Al Qaida cells in Hamburg and Milan and Madrid and London and Paris -- as well as Buffalo, New York. We've got the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. As we fight this war, we will remember where it began: here, in our own country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and ports of entry, posted more than 50,000 newly trained federal screeners in airports, begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are deploying the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles. I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send you will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, ebola and plague. We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us. Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The FBI is improving its ability to analyze intelligence, and is transforming itself to meet new threats. Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location.

Tyndall

Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens. Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men; free people will set the course of history. Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We are strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction. In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process. It is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks, and we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was

Tyndall

deceiving the world and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and

Tyndall

can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have

Tyndall

catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you. Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom. Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves. America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity. We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you.

Tyndall

APPENDIX G

Bush: A war unlike any we have fought before

Five years ago, this date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds and nationalities, and made war upon the entire free world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before. Today we are safer, but we are not yet safe. On this solemn night, I have asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world. On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil. Yet, on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high floors of burning skyscrapers, and called home so that their last words to their families would be of comfort and love. We saw courage in passengers aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm and then charged the cockpit. And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and smoke and ran back in to answer cries for help. On this day, we remember the innocent who've lost their lives, and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live. For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I have met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades. I have stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims and gave America our first victory in the war on terror. I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now 5 years old and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms. Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world. Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy, but not without purpose.We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam: a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation. Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War. We saw what a handful of our enemies can do with box-cutters and plane tickets. We hear their threats to launch even more terrible attacks on our people. And we know that, if they were able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against us. We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes. America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do

Tyndall

I. But the war is not over, and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world. For America, 9/11 was more than a tragedy; it changed the way we look at the world. On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. We put al Qaeda on the run and killed or captured most of those who planned the 9/11 attacks, including the man believed to be the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He and other suspected terrorists have been questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, and they have provided valuable information that has helped stop attacks in America and across the world. Now these men have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, so they can be held to account for their actions. Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores; whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states. I am often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress and the United Nations saw the threat. And, after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December. Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East. They have joined the remnants of Saddam's regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out. Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed, but so are Iraqi and coalition forces. We are adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds. We are training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation. We are helping Iraq's unity government grow in strength and serve its people. We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone.They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight "The Third World War," and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened. They will gain a new safe haven. They will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the war on terror. We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence. And we can be confident in victory because of the skill and resolve of America's armed forces. Every one of our

Tyndall

troops is a volunteer. And since the attacks of September the 11th, more than 1.6 million Americans have stepped forward to put on our nation's uniform. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror, the men and women of our military are making great sacrifices to keep us safe. Some have suffered terrible injuries, and nearly 3,000 have given their lives. America cherishes their memory. We pray for their families. And we will never back down from the work they have begun. We also honor those who toil day and night to keep our homeland safe, and we are giving them the tools they need to protect our people. We have created the Department of Homeland Security; we have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information; we have tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders; and we've created new programs to monitor enemy bank records and phone calls. Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives. Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they have not been idle. Al Qaeda, and those inspired by its hateful ideology, have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And, just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens, and we are determined to stop them. We will continue to give the men and women who protect us every resource and legal authority they need to do their jobs. In the first days after the 9/11 attacks, I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower. They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever, girls enrolling in schools, or families worshiping God in their own traditions. They know that, given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation. This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity. We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom. Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom and whether the forces of moderation can prevail. For 60 years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East. And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom. From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And they have one question for us: Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia? By standing with democratic leaders and reformers,

Tyndall

by giving voice to the hopes of decent men and women, we are offering a path away from radicalism. And we are enlisting the most powerful force for peace and moderation in the Middle East: the desire of millions to be free. Across the broader Middle East, the extremists are fighting to prevent such a future. Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it; sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima, but he would not have been surprised at the outcome. When Harry Truman promised American support for free peoples resisting Soviet aggression, he could not have foreseen the rise of the Berlin Wall, but he would not have been surprised to see it brought down. Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged. And, every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination. At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity. We look to the day when the nations of that region recognize their greatest resource is not the oil in the ground, but the talent and creativity of their people. We look to the day when moms and dads throughout the Middle East see a future of hope and opportunity for their children. And when that good day comes, the clouds of war will part, the appeal of radicalism will decline, and we will leave our children with a better and safer world. On this solemn anniversary, we re-dedicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. And we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies, we will protect our people, and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty. Earlier this year, I traveled to the United States Military Academy. I was there to deliver the commencement address to the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th. That day, I met a proud mom named RoseEllen Dowdell. She was there to watch her son, Patrick, accept his commission in the finest army the world has ever known. A few weeks earlier, RoseEllen had watched her other son, James, graduate from the Fire Academy in New York City. On both these days, her thoughts turned to someone who was not there to share the moment: her husband, Kevin Dowdell. Kevin was one of the 343 firefighters who rushed to the burning towers of the World Trade Center on September the 11th and never came home. His sons lost their father that day, but not the passion for service he instilled in them. Here's what RoseEllen says about her boys: "As a mother, I cross my fingers and pray all the time for their safety. But, as worried as I am, I am also proud. And I know their dad would be too." Our nation is blessed to have young Americans like these, and we will need them. Dangerous enemies have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. They're not the first to try, and their fate will be the same as those who tried before.9/11 showed us why. The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did; but not in the way the terrorists intended. Americans united in prayer, came to the aid of neighbors in need, and resolved that our enemies would not have the last word. The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free. Thank you, and may God bless you.

Tyndall

VITA

Melissa Tyndall was born in Fort McClellan, Alabama on February 17, 1982. She graduated from Clarksville High School in the year 2000 with Distinguished Honors. She received her Bachelor of Science degree in the field of English and creative writing from Austin Peay State University in May of 2004. She received several scholarships during her undergraduate career, including the Multi-Cultural Scholarship, a tutoring scholarship and an OWC scholarship. Ms. Tyndall earned her Masters of Art degree in Corporate Communications from Austin Peay State University in 2007.

During her time in graduate school, she tutored her peers, worked as a reporter for

The Leaf-Chronicle, assisted in the advisement of the Austin Peay State University Student Government Association and was Chief Copy Editor of the student newspaper, The All-State. Tyndall is also a published poet and was honored by the Tennessee Press Association as a first place-award winner in investigative reporting in 2007.