George W.

Bush’s Ultimatum to Saddam

On March 17th, 2003, George W. Bush delivered his ultimatum to the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
Viewers from across the World had their eyes glued to the President as he made it clear that Saddam
Hussein and his sons had forty-eight hours to leave Iraq, or deal with a coalition response. This speech is a
classic example of rhetoric being used to possibly justify a war. How he would construct his speech would
be key in persuading his multiple audiences to agree with his stance. His address can be seen as
constructing an argument with certain components of the Toulmin Model. An argument is the foundation
of this model and is, “a reasoned discourse that seeks to persuade by presenting support for a position”
(Palczewski, Fritch, and Ice 91). Therefore, an argument is a way of making an audience believe your
position based on the evidence you have collected. Philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed the Toulmin
Model to more accurately construct an argument that gives an, “explanation of the relationship between
the data and the conclusion” (99). Essentially this means that the evidence needs to tie in directly and
match with what you are arguing for. This analysis will focus on some of the components of the Toulmin
Model that Bush’s uses in his speech as well as the missing components that could have made it more
effective. Finally, the analysis will show how Bush constructs the speech as a narrative and uses visual
elements to make it more effective.

Before analyzing the way the Toulmin Model lines up with Bush’s speech, there needs to be some context
as to why the speech was given in the first place. The rhetorical situation is a, “complex of persons, events,
objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially
removed if the exigence can be modified by discourse” (203). The rhetorical situation can be better
understood by its structure which contains an exigence, audience, and constraints. An exigence is a
conflicting situation that requires a response from society (203). Bush’s speech was given due to the
perceived exigence of Iraq containing Weapons of Mass Destruction and its history of refusing U.N.
inspectors. Of course every speech needs an audience which is people that can make a change to the
exigence (205). In this particular case, Bush was addressing three different audiences, America, the
International community, and Iraq. Each of these audiences was capable of bringing about change to the
exigence. Finally, with every rhetorical situation there are constraints which are elements of the rhetorical
situation that get in the way of bringing about overall change to the problem that needs addressing (206).
The possible constraints to responding to the possible WMD’s from Iraq would be directly coming from the
audience. For example, Americans may have mixed emotions about going to war in Iraq for a second time
which would impact public opinion as well as enlistments into the military. Also as far as the availability,
Iraqis may not be able to receive the message on TV due to the Iraqi government’s tight control over
media.

Now that the rhetorical situation has been established, it is important to determine how the President used
the Toulmin Model in order to try and make a change in the exigence. The speech as some of the elements
of the model such as the claim, “a conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish” (100). A claim is an
assertion that the rhetor is making towards an audience. It can only have weight if there is sufficient data to
back the claim up. Data can be seen as the, “information on which the claim is based” (101). This
information is evidence as to why the claim is being made. It is further connected with the claim by the use
of warrants, or “bridges, the generalizable rules and principles that link data to a claim” (102). You can’t
make a strong argument if the data doesn’t match the claim you’re making. Finally, backing describes,
“assurances that the warrants are authoritative and or current” (103). This means any evidence that can
further support the claim you’re making by backing up the warrants.

In this speech, one can see two claims that are being made in order to justify Saddam’s removal from
power. The first claim is a claim of fact which is, “a claim that advances empirically verifiable data” (100). A
claim of fact is a statement about a subject that the rhetoric is trying to back up with facts. According to
Bush, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” (Bush). This claim also has within it
a qualifier since Bush uses the word “no doubt” to measure the level of certainty. If the rhetor is not going
to leave any doubt about his claim it needs to be backed up with strong data. Bush uses vague data within
his first claim to show that intelligence gathered by the U.S. and other governments has shown that
Saddam possesses WMDs. It continues to get more generalized when he states that, “This regime has
already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people” (Bush).
Although he is referring to the use of biological weapons against the Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s and
early 1990’s, he doesn’t directly say it (Central). Perhaps, he assumed his audience already knows this
information, but it also weakens his claim because he doesn’t go in to any details for those that may not
understand what he’s talking about. Although the unspecific data doesn’t totally defeat his efforts, he
doesn’t have a strong warrant, or strong connection to link the data to the claim. The claim of course is that
Iraq has WMD’s, but their past history of using them against the Iranians and Kurds doesn’t necessarily
mean that they still had them. This is where the warrant is faulty because the data doesn’t necessarily show
that Iraq still has the WMD’s.

The other claim is a claim of policy or, “a claim that addresses what should be done” (Palczewski, Fritch,
and Ice 100). After Bush makes the claim that Iraq has WMD’s, his policy on how to handle this is through
war by stating, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will
result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing” (Bush). The claim of policy is also
supported by more data. To justify a war with Iraq Bush makes clear that, “U.N. weapon inspectors have
been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived and the Security
Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations (Bush). So
how does this relate to the conclusion that the U.S. should go to war with Iraq? Bush draws a connection
with the data by stating, that the U.S. and its allies under, “Resolutions 678 and 687authorized to use force
in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction” (Bush). Therefore due to Iraq’s refusal to comply with
inspectors and disarmament, the U.S. and its allies are allowed to take action without it being illegal.

The speech is also constructed in the format of a narrative or, “the representation of at least two real or
fictive events in a time sequence” (Palczewski, Fritch, and Ice 118). A narration helps provide a history of
events in a story like format. This is effective for Bush’s speech because he can go back and talk about Iraq’s
past which can be used to justify conflict. The beginning of the speech starts off like a story with Bush
stating, “That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for
ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have
passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council” (Bush). Bush can then show
how despite all of these events in the past, Iraq still continues to be a problem for the International
community. Furthermore, he constructs Saddam’s regime as an “apparatus of terror” and Saddam as being
a “tyrant” (Bush). These words relate to the public vocabulary of the speech or, “culturally established and
sanctioned terms that compose people taken for granted understanding of the world” (Palczewski, Fritch,
and Ice 41). In other words Bush is using words that the U.S. and other cultures are aware of. For example,
he states, “we will tear down the apparatus of terror” (Bush). The key word here is terror and after 9/11 it
became a word that exclusively meant Islamic extremists. It is also an example of an ideograph which
basically means that a word has a specific role in political discourse and is used to warrant the need for
action (Palczewski, Fritch, and Ice 42). Bush is using the term in his speech to justify military intervention
and violence.

Finally, the decision on where to make the speech gave a sense of importance to the matter Bush would
discuss. The importance of visuals is more important than ever in today’s societies and relates to our visual
culture. A visual culture is, “a culture distinguished by the ubiquity of visual forms of communication that
appear in multiple media outlets” (Palczewski, Fritch, and Ice 63). It is basically a culture that receives
different forms of information and rhetoric through technological means. Television gives Bush the ability
to spread his rhetoric to more people and more so to the American people in which a total of 98.9 percent
owned televisions (Stelter).

In conclusion, the speech by George W. Bush obviously had no effect on Saddam and the U.S. would begin
war on March 19, 2003. Although there is still controversy over whether Saddam truly had WMD’s, the
analysis’s aim was to focus on the rhetorical tools that Bush used at his disposal. Bush would structure his
speech around certain components of the Toulmin Model as well as following a narrative structure in the
beginning to show his audience the past efforts of trying to disarm Iraq.