Bush’s Oval Office Address on Iraq – December 18, 2005

It’s a relatively small space, simple, almost austere. But Presidents know when they need to muster all the credibility of their position; an address from the Oval Office lends gravitas better than almost any other setting.

George W. Bush has been particularly restrained in his use of the Oval Office as platform. His last address to the nation from this location was when he announced the initiation of operations in Iraq almost two years ago in March of 2003. So it is doubly significant that he chose to present his case for US policy in Iraq from here. In a nutshell, Bush needed to pull out the heavy artillery for this one and the Oval Office was his chief weapon. And that was not the only extraordinary thing about this address. In many ways, it represents a radical departure from the communication strategy and style that this Administration has followed since it first entered to the White House.

To better understand what made this speech different and to ascertain it’s effectiveness in making his case, we’ll first look at what Bush did right, and there was much that was right. Then we’ll examine why ultimately even the exceptionalism of the speech was not enough to carry it to success.

In light of the above statement, it might be surprising to read that I feel this speech, in many ways, must rank as one of Bush’s best. It is a textbook piece of political apologia that also manages to avoid many of the rhetorical failings that have plagued Bush up to this point.

Apologia, in the classical sense, is not what the word implies today. It is not, as many observers seem to think, an “apology” in the sense of repentance or remorse for some action. Rather, apologia as defined by rhetorical scholars is a justification or defense. In this address, Bush, more clearly than ever before, laid out his case for why the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. Sadaam Hussein can never again harm innocent Iraqis, the terrorists know American will defend itself and the Iraqi people themselves will lead a better life in a stable, reconstructed and democratic Iraq.

This speech is also a textbook case of apologia as it is more conventionally understood. Bush admits his mistakes and takes full responsibility for them. This is a startling change of tactic. The Bush Administration was famous or perhaps infamous for its staunch refusal to own up to a mistake. I have always felt this was not a wise strategy. Ronald Reagan demonstrated that a President who takes full responsibility for mistakes and failures can be perceived as being stronger than ever. Katrina forced the Bush Administration to apologize for its slow response to the disaster in the Gulf Coast and since then, Bush has become increasingly open to apologizing for the faulty intelligence that helped make the case for war. This speech represented as clear an apology as we can expect from this Administration.

Equally as impressive was his logic. It was solid, clear and more important, heartfelt. There was no doubt he truly believed what he was saying. He made good use of the pronoun “I”. For example, after laying out what he feels is the crux of the opposition to the war, he immediately followed up with “This is not the threat I see”. The use of the pronoun “I” personalizes the case and equally as important, softens the implicit criticism – he is not saying “the opposition is wrong”, merely that he disagrees. Of course, we all know he feels very strongly that the opposition is wrongheaded but there is much to be gained from rhetorical niceties. Later he reprises this tactic: “Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe this.”

Bush’s language in this speech also represents a departure from his usual speech style. I have commented in several of my previous essays that Bush’s speeches are, almost without exception, beautifully written. Yet they are wrong for Bush, too grandiloquent, too literary. They don’t suit his simple, plainspoken style. In this address, we see word choices that suit him and it shows in his delivery. One of the ever present problems with Bush as a speaker is his lack of proper intonation. He never seems to emphasize the right syllables in the right words which makes him appear uncomfortable and at times, not too smart. In this speech, he finally takes a baby step towards a more conversational and effective intonation pattern. He hasn’t mastered emphasis yet. He fails to take advantage of many instances in which intonation can heighten the impact of a phrase but he no longer completely botches up a sentence by emphasizing the wrong word or syllable.

These are the reasons why this speech was one of Bush’s best. But all these improvements were not enough to battle the 800 pound gorilla sitting right in the middle of the Oval Office – Bush’s credibility.

Bush excelled in the use of two of Aristotle’s three required elements of persuasion, logos (logic) and pathos (emotion) with the requisite stories of jubilant Iraqis at the polls, military moms and letters from soldiers. But the address as a whole lacked Aristotle’s third element, ethos or credibility.

George W. Bush has always had a problem with credibility. The image of a prankster, frat boy, neer-do-well who sailed through life on daddy’s coat tails has haunted him for years. Whether or not this is an accurate portrait is a subject of debate. What can be said with more certainty is that there are several verbal and non-verbal cues in his delivery style that reinforce this impression.

His relatively high, thin voice is still a problem in a world where deeper voices simply carry more authority. And in spite of his improved comfort level, he wasn’t able to rid himself of his “deer in the headlights” look.

These may sound trivial but they are not. When you are battling the wide spread perceptions of callowness and stupidity, even the smallest things can torpedo your best efforts.

And then there was the timing. Shortly before Bush made his speech, the New York Times reported that he had authorized a secret wire tap program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans communicating to others outside the U.S. The furor surrounding this revelation which was confirmed by Bush both immediately before the speech and the morning after in a televised news conference dominated media coverage and left precious little space for the address from the Oval Office. Furthermore, Bush returned to a more combative stance in Monday's news conference all but obliterating the warm glow of his eloquent and conciliatory gestures to the opposition in the previous night's address.

The ultimate judge of whether or not a speech is successful is the reaction of the audience - do more American’s approve of the way Bush is handling the war. At the time of this writing, no polls have been released. There were several taken over the weekend which showed Bush still in the dog house but all of them were conducted before the speech.

But I predict right here and now that this speech will be applauded by those who continue to support him. And it should be for much of it is excellent. But in the final assessment, it is very probably not good enough to reassure the majority of Americans who continue to question the actions of the man in the Oval Office.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.