CONTENTS

1 Introduction..............................................................................................2
2 Theoretical Part.......................................................................................4
2.1 ...................................................................................................Discours
e Analysis and Political Rhetoric...................................................4
2.2....................................................................................................Political
Speeches..........................................................................................6

3 Changes in the Threat to the United States...........................................12

3.1 ...................................................................................................New
International Environment after the Cold War...........................12
3.2 ...................................................................................................Significa
nt Events in International Relations Representing the
Threat to the United States............................................................14

4 Practical Part............................................................................................20
4.1 ...................................................................................................Corpus
under Investigation and Methods of Analysis..............................20
4.2 General Comparison of the Rhetorical Styles of George W. Bush
and Barack Obama.........................................................................22
4.2.1 Basic parameters....................................................................................22
4.2.2 Analysis of keywords.............................................................................28
4.3 Significant Aspects in the Speeches of George W. Bush and Barack
Obama.............................................................................................34
4.3.1 Rhetorical style of George W. Bush and the perception of threat...........34
4.3.1.1 Bush's Inaugural Address...................................................34
4.3.1.2 Bush's 9/11 Address...........................................................37
4.3.1.3 Bush's UN Address............................................................39
4.3.1.4 Bush's State of the Union Address.....................................42
4.3.2 Rhetorical style of Barack Obama and the perception of threat.............49
4.3.2.1 Obama's Inaugural Address...............................................49
4.3.2.2 Obama's 9/11 Address........................................................51
4.3.2.3 Obama's UN Address.........................................................52
4.3.2.4 Obama's State of the Union Address..................................56
4.4 ...................................................................................................Compari
son of Threat Perception by George W. Bush and Barack
Obama.............................................................................................59
4.4.1 Threat perception in the speeches of George W. Bush...........................59
4.4.2 Threat perception in the speeches of Barack Obama..............................62
4.4.3 Common characteristics.........................................................................64
4.4.4 Different characteristics.........................................................................65

5 Conclusion................................................................................................69

-1-
6 Abstract.....................................................................................................72
7 References.................................................................................................73
8 Appendices................................................................................................75
A. Speeches of G. W. Bush.........................................................................75
B. Speeches of Barack Obama..................................................................96
1 Introduction

Since the time the first languages have been created, language has been the most
important tool to express one's ideas and to influence others. The written form of a
language can never be as persuasive as its oral counterpart. This is particularly true in
politics - an ordinary voter does not spend hours and hours reading political programs;
however, he or she may accidentally see a politician talking about his or her beliefs, visions
or a political program on the television. This may have an impact on the voter and on
his/her decision during the elections. It is up to the speaker to choose words carefully and
to use body language to emphasize what is said. Although information about a forthcoming
peacekeeping mission in an African state for which a politician needs to obtain money
from a parliament may in itself be important and interesting, when told in a monotonous
voice without intonation the cause will hardly raise any interest and support. On the other
hand a speech delivered enthusiastically with an adequate use of gestures and facial
expressions, and also with appropriate intonation, may raise not only money for the cause,
but also new supporters for the particular politician.
There is also a difference between a speech delivered by a local politician talking
about sewerage repair in a city and a prime minister or a president talking about threat to
national security. The top politicians need to be very careful about what they say because
the whole world is listening and one incautious word may have disastrous consequences.
In this thesis I will focus on speeches delivered by two U.S. Presidents at the
beginning of their terms of office. However, as the focus is on the linguistic aspects of the
speeches I will not consider the use of gestures, facial expressions or intonation. Four types
of speeches will be analyzed - the Inaugural Address, speeches connected to the events of
September 11, 2001, the first UN Address and the State of the Union Address.
The main focus of the thesis is to analyze and compare how perception of threat is
expressed in the speeches of two American Presidents. Nevertheless, the main
characteristics of the speeches will also be analyzed with the aim to introduce their

-2-
rhetorical styles in general. The Presidents under examination are George W. Bush and
Barack Obama. The milestone for choosing the Presidents to be analyzed was the events of
September 11, 2001. The impact of these events on threat perception by George W. Bush
and Barack Obama will be discussed later.
With regard to the analytical approach used, I will apply different methods and then
compare their results. Comparison on the basis of keywords in the particular speeches will
be used, as well as comparison of the number of characters/words/sentences/paragraphs.
An analysis of threat perception will be made on the sentence-to-sentence basis.
As for the structure of the thesis, it consists of three main parts. The first part is
theoretical, i.e. it provides theoretical background for the analysis, the second part deals
with a description of change in the international relations, and change in the threat to the
United States with the end of the Cold War, as well as with the terrorist attacks on the
United States on September 11, 2010. The third part presents the practical analysis of the
material and a discussion of the results of the analyses.

-3-
 2 Theoretical Part

2.1 Discourse Analysis and Political Rhetoric

Until there is a new way of communication established in the world, politics is

inevitably bound up with language. As Fairclough (2000) put it, political differences have
always been constituted as differences in language, and political struggles have always
been partly struggles over the dominant language (p. 3). Although, if taken to the extreme,
the first part of the sentence may not be challenged, the second part invokes doubts. With
regard to the first part, if a person does not use a language similar to other person's
language (synonyms, etc.) it results in difference in opinion. A more extreme example
concerning a more specific meaning of the world 'language' may be a situation in which an
English speaking person meets a Czech speaking person and they do not understand each
other. Such inability to understand other person's opinion may evoke the feeling of
different opinions, although their opinions do not have to differ at all. As mentioned above,
the second part of the sentence is problematic. We may find an example supporting this
argument in language compromise in Austria-Hungary, where the struggle to equalize
Czech and German language for communication with offices was a part of a political
struggle not only for Czechs, but also for Austrians. Thus it is possible to agree with this
opinion where there is an inner-state struggle. Nevertheless, an international struggle, or
rather a conflict, is hardly a struggle for language dominance. More likely, projection of
power is the fundamental reason for international struggles. Still, we can state that
language in the general sense is an essential feature of politics.
To introduce political discourse we may start with defining the term 'discourse
analysis'. According to Wodak the term has recently penetrated various disciplines,
including for example history and linguistics. However, the meaning carried by this term is
different in every discipline (Wodak & Kryzyanowski, 2008, p. 4). Discourse is not an
object, but rather a set of relationships which exists between discoursive events (Ibid., p.
5). In discourse analysis external factors play the essential role, because texts1 are
considered to be a manifestation and result of particular combination of these factors (Ibid.,
p. 9). These factors influence formulation of a text, its nature and content. It is thus clear
that a text is not the only object discourse analysis focuses on.

1 According to Wodak, discourse is on a more abstract level described as text. Text is further defined as
'every type of communicative utterance' (Ibid., p. 6 - 7).

-4-
 On the basis of the above mentioned, speeches analyzed in this thesis are considered
to be discourses. For their analysis it is necessary, or rather essential, to analyze the
external factors affecting them. In this case the most important external factor is the
international context connected with a particular speech. Further, the analysis will deal
with events leading to a particular speech, reasons for the delivery of the speech and the
context of its formulation and presentation. This approach is also justified by the idea that
discourse production and comprehension is context-dependent (Van Dijk in Wodak &
Chilton, 2005, p. 71). We may understand from a speech given by a top energy analyst that
there is a need for energy security in many European countries. However, only when we
are aware of the fact that a fifth of gas supplies for European consumption is supplied from
Russia through the Ukraine and there is a dispute between the Ukraine and Russia about
the gas price, may we understand the danger of the situation. Nevertheless, we still need
more information, in particular information about relations between Russia and the
Ukraine in general, to wholly understand not only the dispute between the two countries,
but also the need for energy security in the future, in particular the need for independence
of the European countries on Russia's gas. In short, we must know at least something about
Russia's behavior, gas supplies to Europe and relationship between Russia and the Ukraine.
However, the top energy analyst has to be aware of knowledge his/her listeners have. As
van Dijk put it

(...) language users not only need to have general "knowledge of the
world", and not only knowledge about the current communicative
situation, but of course also mutual knowledge about each others'
knowledge.
(Van Dijk in Wodak & Chilton, 2005, p. 72)

As mentioned above, when analyzing political discourse we need to be aware of the

external factors. Nevertheless, there are also internal factors influencing the speaker's view
on an issue. Among the internal factors are values, customs, self image, but also an instant
state of mind, mood and physical state. To a certain degree, all these factors (and many
more) may influence for example a delivery of a speech or an interview. However, to
analyze psychological conditions of speakers exceeds the aim of the thesis and it will not
be considered in detail, particularly because of the fact that the speeches are analyzed on
the basis of their written form which partially eliminates the internal factors.

-5-
 To continue, according to Fairclough (2000) there are three analytically separable
areas in the analysis of political language. The first area deals with styles which are
connected to political identities and values, e.g. Blair's style. The second area is discourses
which deal with political representation. Example may be the discourse of the Democrats.
The third area is genres and their focus on how language figures as a means of
government. Nevertheless, these areas are only analytically separable, because together
they form the whole discourse (p. 14). Based on this separation the thesis will deal with the
second area - discourses, and thus political representation.
Before continuing with the analysis of political speech in general, let me briefly
address the question of political rhetoric. According to Riesigl (2008), rhetoric can be
defined as 'the practical science and art of effective or efficient speaking and writing in
public' (Reisigl in Wodak & Kryzyanowski, 2008, p. 96). It seems that efficiency is the key
goal of such an occasion. Yet, speaking and writing in public does not have to be efficient
in the way that it raises money for charity or gains votes for a politician. Efficiency could
also mean an increase in prestige or in support for one's project. Efficiency can be highly
subjective - success for one person does not always imply success for another.
Nevertheless, if we consider political rhetoric and political speaking and writing in public,
one can hardly imagine a speech with no clear goal. In politics success and efficiency is
even more subjective, because many of the situations in politics are considered to be a
zero-sum game, that is a victory for an actor A means a defeat for an actor B. Therefore
efficiency in political rhetoric may be defined as a victory in the zero-sum game.

2.2 Political Speeches

First, to define the term 'political speech' we need to look at the differences between
political language, political discourse and political text. According to Schäffner (1996),
linguistics sees the term political language to be used either to mean the use of language in
the context of politics (e.g. specific language use to achieve a specific, politically
motivated function), or to mean specific political vocabulary connected to the political
domain. Political discourse is connected to inner-state, as well as inter-state discourse. It is
implemented e.g. by bilateral or multilateral treaties, speeches during a campaign, political
debate, or newspaper language. Political texts are according to Schäffner a part of politics,
but they can be also a result of politics. Fulfilling different functions, they are historically
and culturally determined. The majority of political texts is for a wider public. Schäffner

-6-
considers political speeches to be a sub-genre of political texts (p. 202). Nevertheless, it is
possible to suggest an interconnection among the three terms. Political language is
undoubtedly included both in political discourse and political texts. At the same time,
political texts are a part of political discourse. Speeches during a campaign are political
texts, as political speeches are the sub-genre of political texts. Thus political speeches
might be considered to be a sub-genre of political discourse. Speeches analyzed in the
thesis are political speeches as a sub-group of political texts; they include political
language and have characteristics of political discourse. The thesis proceeds from defining
political discourse to the topic of political speeches.
Schäffner (1996) further divides political speeches according to their settings. The
speaker addresses either members of the same political or ideological group or the whole
nation (Ibid., p. 202). This thesis focuses on analysis of speeches addressing the whole
nation (Inaugural Address, State of the Union Address, 9/11 speech), but it also includes
speeches delivered at the United Nations aimed to address the whole world. Thus we may
add third settings - the international arena.
We have to bear in mind that politicians delivering a speech do not do it as individuals,
but rather as representatives of political parties, governments or nations. As Schäffner
points out, they are limited in what to say and how to say it (Ibid., p. 203). So although a
speech delivered during a presidential political campaign is intended to gain votes for the
particular politician, such a politician, e.g. in the United States, must express ideas which
are in agreement with ideas of a party which nominated this candidate. To a certain degree,
Chilton (2004) stands in opposition towards this position. He asserts that 'in principle’
(author’s italics) it is possible to use language creatively, independently of socio-political
and linguistic constraint (p. 27). Chilton does not develop the idea further, so it is not clear
what consequences this may involve; however, he puts the emphasis on the phrase 'in
principle'. By this he means that humans do not always, or are not always able to resist the
pressure of social conventions and political ideologies. Whereas Schäffner stresses what
speakers cannot do (they cannot "go against the crowd", the crowd being e.g. a political
party), Chilton stresses the humans' possibility to do so, although at the same time he
stresses the fact that people are probably afraid of it.
Although the following could be used generally to refer to linguistic expressions of
various types, it is useful to mention it at this place because of its interconnection with
political speeches. The idea is that linguistic expressions have strategic functions. Chilton
(2004) defines these functions based on an earlier work by Chilton and Schäffner. The first

-7-
strategic function is coercion. Coercion can be expressed through language in situation
where the speaker sets agendas or makes assumption. In a political speech coercion may be
implemented by a speaker by selecting specific topics the speaker is addressing. The
hearers do not have the possibility to change what the speaker is talking about and thus the
speaker acts coercively towards the audience. The second strategic function deals with
legitimization and delegitimization. A politician needs to establish the right to be heard and
to be obeyed - he has to possess legitimacy. Legitimacy could be gained either by means of
power, or by means of addressing voters' needs and by positive self-representation. It is
thus clear that a politician would not speak about himself/herself negatively, (s)he would
not reveal any negative facts which would mean his/her loss of legitimacy. On the other
hand, the politician would do so towards his/her opposition. (S)he would try to
delegitimize the others by blaming, accusing, insulting, etc. (p. 46). Legitimization in a
political speech could be a phrase "I have been working on this bill for three years and
finally it has been ratified and it will increase your social security". Delegitimization could
be demonstrated for example by "Congressman Jackson wants to prolong the war thus
exposing our country and our brave soldiers to even grater danger". The third strategy is
representation and misrepresentation. As Chilton puts it, representing a reality is one of the
obvious functions of discourse. From his point of view the idea of representation and
misrepresentation is connected with the idea of telling the truth or telling lies. In the
political context it has to do with the control of information - a politician decides what
information to tell and whether the information told is true or whether the speaker is lying
(p. 46). In a political speech the speaker talks about his/her intention to increase the
defense budget, nevertheless, (s)he has decided not to say that increase in the defense
budget means decrease in budget for police which results in lower number of
policeman/policewoman in the streets and thus greater danger to the citizens.
However, these ideas are in contrast to claims by Grice and Habermas. Let us focus
on Grice first. Grice claims that there are four types of 'maxims' which reflect the
Cooperative principle in human communication. The 'Maxim of Quality' means that the
speaker makes his/her contributions as informative as required. In comparison to Chilton's
arguments, Grice's speaker is not independent of external factors and thus is led by an
authority defining what is required. Chilton's speaker, on the other hand, leads his/her
performance him/herself and uses coercion - he decides about what is to be said. The
second maxim - 'Maxim of Quality' - stands in opposition towards Chilton's idea of
representation and misrepresentation. Grice's speaker should make his/her contribution one

-8-
that is true and should not say what (s)he believes is false and for what (s)he does not have
adequate evidence. Chilton's speaker is free to say whatever (s)he wants, even though (s)he
knows (s)he is telling lies. 'Maxim of Relevance', the third Grice's maxim, requests the
speaker to be relevant. Again, Chilton's speaker may choose what to say and what to keep
hidden and the matter of relevance may or may not be a question. The fourth maxim,
'Maxim of Manner', asks the speaker to be perspicuous; however, Chilton's speaker would
probably avoid being clear and unambiguous because this may cost him his/her legitimacy.
To sum up, we may consider Grice's speaker to be an ideal speaker, and Chilton's speaker
to be a real speaker. As Chilton observes, one way of interpreting the maxims is to consider
them to be ethical norms, to be something expected and to be the social arrangement of
natural tendencies (as cited in Chilton, 2004, p. 34). Nevertheless, although the basic ideas
of Chilton and Grice may seem contradictory, Grice also mentions the fact that the maxims
may not be observed for the speaker to achieve his/her goal. In the case of political
speeches, debates, or any other political utterances, telling the truth, making relevant
comments, or being unambiguous is not the goal of the speaker, as (s)he wants to persuade
the hearers about some issue which is definitely not generally positive or does not contain
advantages for the people, although it may be something which is needed in order to e.g.
avoid the growing deficit of the state budget. The speaker may then intentionally act
contrary to the maxims. According to Grice, there are four ways how to do so. One may
violate a maxim, opt out from operation of the maxim and of the Cooperation Principle,
flout a maxim, or a clash may happen, e.g. the first maxim may not be fulfilled without
violating the second one. The speaker may thus intentionally refuse to give the hearer
certain information, lie, or exclude certain information from being given (Grice in Davis,
1991, p. 310). The speaker violating the maxims is thus closer to Chilton's speaker than the
speaker acting pursuant to the maxims.
Habermas's claims are to a certain degree similar to the Grice's. The four claims are
the following: the claim to 'understandability', which means that what the speaker says is
comprehensible; the claim to truth, meaning that the speaker truthfully asserts a
representation of a state of affairs; the claim to be telling the truth; and the claim to
'rightness', which is the claim to be normatively right to say what one is saying (as cited in
Chilton, 2004, p. 43). According to Chilton, Habermas observes that in practice most
communication is distorted by the interests of individuals or groups (Ibid., p. 43). Thus
Habermas is aware of the ideal frame of his claims. Of course, it is not possible to say that
none of the speakers observes the claims or the maxims defined by Grice and Habermas.

-9-
However, even if the speaker considers himself/herself to be independent of external
factors, authorities or any other person, his/her performance is based on his/her values and
maxims and it is only upon this speaker whether (s)he acts according to them or not.
This thesis will deal with four types of speeches. The first type is the Inaugural
Address delivered by a U.S. President on the Inauguration Day. It is the first speech
delivered by the U.S. President and we may thus expect it to give us general knowledge
about the President's ideas. The address is delivered to the whole nation, and also to the
whole world, as people all around the world are interested in ideas of the new American
leader, because a new path may influence their future. Whereas a political speech has as its
motive to persuade the audience to vote for the speaker or to support a particular policy,
with Inaugural Address the situation is different. The President has just been elected, thus
he2 does not have to fight for votes and his speech can thus be, in Trosborg's (2000) words,
'somewhat more subtle' (p. 121). It is the first time for the President when he does not
speak wholly for himself, but he speaks for his people (Ibid., p. 139).
Second, the State of the Union Address will be analyzed. In his contribution at the
2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Teten (2005) mentions
the function of the modern-day State of the Union Address. According to Teten, State of
the Union Address is a rhetorical tool used by presidents to express their thoughts, propose
their ideas and communicate with the public (p. 2-3). Teten quotes Tulis (Jeffrey, 1987) in
what Tulis sees are the changes in the modern rhetoric of the 20th century. The first change
is that presidential rhetoric is addressed less to the Congress and more to the people at
large, second, oral speech exceeds in its importance written messages, and third, the two
changes mentioned above would bring a change in structure of argument (Teten, 2005, p.
5). The State of the Union Address originally addresses the Congress; however, its live
broadcast means that the whole nation may watch it and may be addressed, too. The
obligation to deliver a State of the Union Address is set by the U.S. Constitution in Article
II, Section 3. Pursuant to the Constitution the President of the United States has to give the
Congress information about the state of the Union from time to time (Mount, n.d.). The
phrase 'from time to time' was later clarified and since 1790 the State of the Union Address
has been delivered once a year (Peters, n.d.). Nowadays, the State of the Union Address is
connected to an oral presentation; however, from 1801 to 1912, the State of the Union was
in the form of a written report sent to the Congress. This practice changed with President

2 As there were only male Presidents in the U.S. history, the pronoun “he” will be used instead of the
general “(s)he” pronoun.

- 10 -
Wilson who believed that presidency was more than an impersonal institution and started
delivering the speech orally. Presidents following Wilson chose between the oral and the
written form; however, the modern practice is that the State of the Union Address is
delivered orally (Peters, n.d.).
The third type of political speech analyzed in the thesis is the President's address
before the United Nations General Assembly. This type of speech is included in the
analysis because of its international range, as it is not intended only for American citizens.
The fourth type of speech is a speech by the U.S. President on the occasion of the
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 and their commemoration.
This type of speech was chosen also because of its international range, but in particular
because of the topic of the thesis, which is threat perception.
Before turning to the international events which might have an impact on the
speeches under analysis, and to the practical part of the thesis it is necessary to shortly
address the question of Who is really speaking? in the particular speeches. As Trosborg
points out, the President is seemingly a selector of the words, rather than the true
originator. The speeches (or rather not all of them) are written by the President.
Nevertheless, it is the President who chooses his speechwriters (Trosborg, 2000, p. 137). It
is understandable that a President would not choose someone who has completely different
opinions on various matters from the President. However, in the thesis we will consider the
analyzed speeches to be written by the Presidents and what the speeches imply will also be
regarded as having its origin in the President's mind.

- 11 -
3 Changes in the Threat to the United States

3.1 New International Environment after the Cold War

The planes attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Flight 93 which
crashed in Pennsylvania and whose target could have been the White House or the Capitol
- all of them have shown that the United States is not secure on its own soil anymore. Up to
September 11 the United States was not (with exceptions) a target for terrorist groups and
it was not forced to deal with imminent threat of international terrorism to the United
States and its citizens.
The events of 9/11 demonstrated that there have been major changes in the
international arena. These changes were brought with the end of the Cold War. During the
Cold War the world was a bipolar stage with two superpowers at each pole, the United
States and the Soviet Union. The threat to the United States was clear at that time - every
second it could expect a disastrous attack with nuclear weapons from the side of the Soviet
Union which would probably lead to the World War III as the United States did have
capabilities to survive a first attack and to counter-attack. At the same time, because the
opponents were aware of the fact that the other side had capabilities to survive the first
attack and to counter-attack, neither of them was prepared, or rather willing, to start a
nuclear war.
With the decline of the Soviet Union and its gradual dismantling the nature of the
international arena experienced a major change. There was only one superpower left and it
was the United States. Suddenly, the threat from the side of the Soviet Union was over.
Nevertheless, new states and non-state actors replaced the Soviet Union successfully. The
rogue states such as North Korea or Iran, as well as non-state actors, i.e. terrorist groups
constitute the major threat to the United States coming from the international arena today.
A symmetrical conflict of the Cold War was replaced by an asymmetric conflict of the 21st
century. The events of 9/11 have shown that the threat to the United States is real. It may
no longer count on the fact that it knows its enemy as it knew the Soviet Union to a certain
degree and that its capabilities prevent these enemies from attacking the U.S. soil.
However, the threat possessed by the terrorist groups has changed as well. As
Michael Hirsch and Rod Nordland (2002) noted the world is no more facing "a centrally
operated 'Terror Inc.', they face an even murkier network of enemies." The smaller terrorist
groups act on their own and are linked only by their common hatred of the United States

- 12 -
(Hirsch & Nordland, 2002). Thus although the United States completes a successful attack
on a terrorist cell in Pakistan, this success is only a precondition for the victory in the war
on terror.
In her 2001 article published in the Journal of Strategic Studies Emily O. Goldman
focuses on the issues of uncertainties in today's world. According to her, threat uncertainty
is the best way how to describe the current national security environment. In connection
with the end of the Cold War Goldman’s idea may be used which is that a rival may
implode, as was the case of the Soviet Union, or may transform into a partner. A state
formerly facing a clearly defined enemy may find itself facing several potential threats
over the horizon and unfamiliar threats in the near-term (Goldman, 2001, p. 46). This is
what happened in the international arena after the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union
imploded; however, its successor, the Russian Federation, has gradually transformed into a
U.S. partner, although definitely not in all issues, as there are still considerable differences
between the countries in their foreign policy. Also, the United States is uncertain about the
threat it is facing, although there are several areas in the world, which poses greater threat
than others to the United States. However, non-state actors and terrorist groups in
particular are an unknown target and threat.
The crucial aspect of the new threat is its capability to attack the United States in its
borders from a remote region. Such a capability was formerly connected in particular with
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) in the possession of the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the danger nowadays lies in the fact that the ICBMs could be acquired by the
terrorist groups and also by particular states which have resources and will to acquire them.
Terrorist groups are able to acquire these weapons because of their profit from illegal
weapons trade, drug trafficking, etc. Also, these groups are sponsored by rogue states
which cannot themselves perform an attack on the United States because of the
international consequences of such an act. The particular threats to the United States in the
21st century are described below.
Since the speeches under analysis were delivered in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2009
and 2010 (Bush's Inaugural Address, 9/11 speech and the first UN speech were delivered in
2001, Bush's State of the Union Address in 2003, Obama's Inaugural Address, 9/11 speech
and the first UN speech were delivered in 2009 and his State of the Union Address in
2010), the author considers it important to mention the most significant events connected
to the threat to which the United States is exposed which happened prior to these speeches
and which might have influenced the content of the speeches. The discussion of the

- 13 -
relevant events is based on the monthly journal Mezinárodní politika published by the
Institute of International Relations in Prague. Every month this journal offers a summary of
events which happened in the previous month3. The selected events are those connected
primarily with Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

3.2 Significant Events in International Relations Representing Threat to the

United States

The Soviet threat of the Cold war ceased to exist; nevertheless, there was a successor,
the Russian Federation, which remained in possession of the nuclear and conventional
weapons of the Soviet Union. The United States was not sure what to expect from this
newly born country and wanted to assure that former Soviet nuclear weapons would not
fall into the wrong hands. At the same time dialogue about disarmament continued between
the United States and Russia and resulted into two treaties reducing the number of strategic
weapons - START I and START II4. As Drulák and Kratochvíl (2007) mention in their
paper on the U.S.-Russian relations after the Cold war, “both countries shared their reading
of the relationship and of its dynamics until 1993” (p. 3). Thus it is possible to deduce that
their mutual understanding of their relationship was a result, or a cause, of their similar
viewing of the international situation. The U.S.-Russian relations worsened in years 1994-
1997 and the lowest point of their relationship appears to be the Kosovo war of 1999
(Ibid.). However, the authors state that after September 11, 2001 the United States and
Russia have perceived their alliance against terror very differently (Ibid.). According to
Andrew Kuchins from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace there was a brief
honeymoon after 9/11 characterized by Putin's full support for the U.S.-led coalition in
Afghanistan5. However, as he adds, the relationship has decreased from a point of
honeymoon to “a point of acrimony and distrust” (Kuchins, 2006). Tension between the
United States and Russia may be illustrated by a meeting between the Russian President
Vladimir Putin and the Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on December 14, 2000. In
their joint declaration they condemned U.S. sanctions against Cuba and invited the rest of
the world to face the “U.S. Hegemony”. Also, after the dismantling of the Soviet Union,
the United States was concerned over the future Russian nuclear program as it could not
expect that Russia would abandon it nuclear ideas.

3 Since the end of 2009 the summary starts in half of the last but one month and ends in the half of the
previous month (e.g. the 12/2009 issue covers events from October 16 to November 15).
4 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I in 1991 and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II in 1993.
5 Vladimir Putin repeatedly promised that Russia would help the United States in its fight against terrorism
(Mezinárodní politika, 10/2001).

- 14 -
 On January 4, 2001 a press release by ITAR-TASS News Agency6 stated that Russia
had developed a new technology enabling military planes to fully avoid being spotted by
radars or other localization systems (Mezinárodní politika, 2/2001). This could have also
been perceived as threat from the side of the United States, although there had not been a
clear plan for ballistic missile defense in the United States yet, because President Clinton
left the decision about its employment on his successor. George W. Bush took his
Presidential oath on January 20, 2001. On February 16, 2001 Russia launched ground and
sea based ballistic missiles during a test. This event happened in the period of mutual
insults between Moscow and Washington being a result of the U.S. plan on national missile
defense (hereinafter referred to as “NMD”). Probably as a result of a Russian proposal for
a European missile defense handed to NATO Secretary General Robertson, which would
be an alternative to the U.S. missile defense project, Colin Powell stated on February 27,
2001 that the United States felt responsible for the protection of itself and its allies against
a risk of a possible missile attack from the side of third countries and that it would discuss
technologies for which it would decide with its allies, as well as with Russia and China
(Mezinárodní politika, 3/2001).
One of the reasons for tension between the United States and Russia was also the link
between Russia and Iran. Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the Iranian
regime has represented threat to the United States with regard to its decision to pursue
nuclear weapons. On December 27, 2000 during his visit to Teheran the Russian Secretary
of Defense Igor Sergejev stated that Russia would sell Iran spare parts for their
conventional weapons of Soviet origin. According to Sergejev, a new phase of military and
technical cooperation between Russia and Iran had begun (Mezinárodní politika, 1/2001).
Following the Russian proposal on the sale of spare parts to Iran was another agreement
between Iran and Russia when the Iranian President Chatami and Putin agreed on the sale
of Russian conventional weapons to Iran in the amount of USD 7 billion. The United
States fiercely condemned this action (Mezinárodní politika, 4/2001). Iran has also been
repeatedly named to be the country which supports terrorism the most, e.g. the Secretary of
State Colin Powell stated this on April 30, 2001 in the annual report on terrorism
(Mezinárodní politika, 5/2001)7. The Iranian threat demonstrated itself in July 2008 when
Iran declared that in case of an attack on Iran which would be caused by Iranian nuclear
activities, Iran would attack Tel Aviv and the U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. The next day,

6 Russian News Agency.

7 Also, according to Powell, the number of terrorist attack has increased by eight per cent in comparison to
year 1999.

- 15 -
July 8, 2008, Iran tested nine long-range and middle-range missiles8. On July 22, the
director of the Missile Defense Agency of the United States Obering said that Iran is able
to hit most of Europe with its missiles (Mezinárodní politika, 8/2008). On November 12,
2008 Iranian capabilities were demonstrated when Iran successfully completed a test of a
new ground-to-ground missile with the range of 2000 km (Mezinárodní politika, 12/2008).
Another threat to the United States has come from North Korea. With the change in
the White House in 2001 there was also a change in policy toward North Korea. George W.
Bush did not continue in his predecessor's policy. On March 7, 2001 George W. Bush said
that the early reconstruction of talks between the United States and North Korea would not
happen and that the United States would divert from Clinton's strategy which had focused
on the talks with North Korea. The reason for this decision was the fact that the United
States regarded Pchojngjang to be dangerous and opaque (Mezinárodní politika, 4/2001).
In Bush's last year of Presidency, on June 26, 2008, North Korea gave China a list of its
nuclear facilities which was the reason why the United States finally withdrew North
Korea from the list9 of countries supporting terrorism (Mezinárodní politika, 7/2008).
The threat represented by Osama bin Laden was clear even before the events of 9/11.
The UN Security Council was active in the effort to get bin Laden extradited from
Afghanistan. On December 20, 2000 the Security Council strengthened its sanctions
against Taliban in Afghanistan which should have come into force if Taliban did not hand
over bin Laden10. With the attacks of 9/11 the U.S. attention turned to terrorism and
particularly al Qaeda. On the night of 9/11 Colin Powell declared that the response to the
attacks would not be an attack against one man, but a long-term conflict. Both Powell and
Bush considered the attacks to be a war act. On September 15, 2001 Bush said that the
United States is in war with terrorism and that it would respond fast and with military
action. Few days later Taliban threatened the United States with war in case the United
States attacked Afghanistan, but also offered Washington a discussion over extradition of
Osama bin Laden which was declined by Bush, who gave Taliban a last ultimatum to
extradite bin Laden, otherwise the same destiny would be there for Taliban. These threats
did not lead to a constructive solution. On September 24 Osama bin Laden asked Pakistani
to initiate fight against “American crusaders” (Mezinárodní politika, 10/2001). It can be
deduced that the main concern for the United States following the attacks of 9/11 was to

8 One of the missiles with the range of 2000 km.

9 According to the Department of State four countries are currently on the list: Cuba, Sudan, Iran and Syria
(“U.S. Department of State,” n.d.).
10 Information in this paragraph is based on Mezinárodní politika, 1/2001.

- 16 -
find bin Laden. Nevertheless, it is not clear even now, where bin Laden is, or whether he is
still alive or not. On November 8, 2001 Taliban approved suicidal attacks on targets in the
United States. Two days later a Pakistani journalist interviewed Osama bin Laden who said
that he had nuclear and chemical weapons and that he would use them against the United
States if the United States had used the same weapons in Afghanistan. At the end of the
month as a reaction to the U.S. offer of USD 25 mil. for any information which would help
to capture bin Laden, Taliban allegedly offered USD 50 mil. for Bush's head. On December
23, 2001 the influence of al Qaeda demonstrated itself in a terrorist attempt to destroy an
airplane going to Miami. The terrorist had al Qaeda training (Mezinárodní politika,
1/2002).
Probably the only way how to defend against the threat of ballistic missiles is the
ballistic missile defense aiming at locating the hostile missiles and destroying them. This
problem was also dealt with by the North Atlantic Alliance. In June 2001 at a NATO
Summit in Brussels Bush encouraged the U.S. allies to strengthen the Alliance to face new
challenges and advocated his national missile defense project. Nevertheless, opposition
toward this project arose between the U.S. allies, in particular from the side of France,
which wanted to maintain the strategic balance as set by the ABM Treaty11. Two days later,
on June 16, 2001 Putin and Bush met in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and agreed on initiation of a
dialogue including also the question of missile defense. Putin insisted on the ABM Treaty
and its validity, but he also stated that the United States and Russia could cooperate in
security issues (Mezinárodní politika, 7/2001).
In his first State of the Union Address on January 30, 2002 President Bush used the
term “axis of evil” and stated that the United States would develop and deploy efficient
missile defense against imminent attacks (Mezinárodní politika, 2/2002). The perception of
particular threat could have been the reason for the U.S. government order to the
Department of Defense to prepare plans for a possible use of nuclear weapons against
China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. On March 9 the New York Times
published this message which was based on a secret Pentagon report (Mezinárodní
politika, 4/2001). From this fact it results that the United States did not fear only countries
like Iran or North Korea, but still even Russia. Further, with regard to Iraq, Saddam
Hussein threatened with tough resistance against a possible U.S. invasion (Mezinárodní

11 The ABM Treaty was signed in 1972 and dealt with ballistic missile defense. Initially two systems
protecting the silos and the capital were permitted. A 1974 protocol permitted only one system. The U.S.
withdrew from the treaty in 2002 because of its intention to build NMD, which was in conflict with the
treaty.

- 17 -
politika, 9/2002) on August 8 and at the end of September 2002 according to the
Washington Post Hussein gave a permission to his commanders to use chemical and
biological weapons in case of a U.S. invasion (Mezinárodní politika, 10/2002).
To sum up, in his first years of Presidency George W. Bush faced the threat from al
Qaeda, as well as, in particular because of its nuclear programs, from North Korea, and
Iran, which was repeatedly named to be the most significant supporter of terrorism 12. Also,
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his threat of chemical and nuclear weapons in case of the U.S.
invasion can be considered to be a serious problem.
Although much hope had been put into the new administration of Barack Obama,
nothing fundamental happened with regard to countries possessing nuclear weapons, or
capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. On January 16, i.e. before Obama's inauguration,
North Korea informed that it would not allow control of its nuclear weapons (Mezinárodní
politika, 2/2009) and on February 17 North Korea even threatened with a new test of a
long-range missile Tepondong-2 able to reach the United States (Mezinárodní politika,
3/2009). At the end of May 2009, the threat from North Korea increased and led to alert
increase at the side of both South Korea and American forces. The Secretary of Defense
Gates warned North Korea at a conference in Singapore two days later that in case of a
North Korean action threatening the United States or its Asian allies it would react quickly.
On the next day, on May 31, the U.S. satellites detected transfer of components of ballistic
missiles to a launching base on the East coast of North Korea. These missiles can reach the
American territory - Hawaii, as well as Alaska (Mezinárodní politika, 6/2009).
However, a sign of a change in behavior was perceived on the side of Iran. On
February 10, 2009 President Ahmadinejad stated that Iran is ready to talk directly to the
United States. Nevertheless, two weeks later it announced completion of its first reactor of
the nuclear power plant in Bushehr (Mezinárodní politika, 3/2009) and on March 8 Teheran
said it had tested a long-range missile. This ambiguous position remained in the Iranian
foreign policy also in the following weeks. The United States might have been calmed by a
report by intelligence agencies in the U.S. Congress stating that Iran was not developing
material for a nuclear weapon. However, Iran practically refused the U.S. proposal that the
United States and Iran could try a new beginning if Iran showed initiative (Mezinárodní
politika, 4/2009). At the beginning of April 2009 President Ahmadinejad opened the first
Iranian plant for production of nuclear fuel and stated conditions for discussion with the

12 Even on 13 January 2008 Bush, during his visit to the United Arab Emirates, said that Iran is the leading
country supporting terrorism, the actions of which put security of the whole world into danger.
(Mezinárodní politika, 2/2008).

- 18 -
West. Moreover, in the annual report on terrorism, the Department of Defense declared that
Iran was still the strongest supporter of terrorism (Mezinárodní politika, 5/2009). At the
end of May Iran not only successfully tested a ground-to-ground missile Sadzil-2 with the
range of 2000 km, but also the Iranian President said that Iran considered the nuclear
program issue to be closed and would not discuss it with the five powers outside the
framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Mezinárodní politika,
6/2009). In August 2009 Iran showed willingness to allow IAEA inspectors to access the
nearly finished nuclear area and then asked the powers to revise their policy towards Iran
and initiate a dialogue with Teheran about its nuclear program (Mezinárodní politika,
9/2009). Thus Iran finally accepted the Western proposal for direct dialogue and later even
signaled that Iran would accept the proposal of the IAEA to enrich uranium abroad.
Nevertheless, Obama prolonged the U.S. economic sanctions toward Iran by a year
(Mezinárodní politika, 11-12/2009) and at the end of November the Iranian government
approved the construction of ten new facilities for uranium enrichment (Mezinárodní
politika, 1/2010) and the next month the Iranian President refused the deadline given to
Iran by the Western countries for answering the 2009 proposals regarding its nuclear
weapons (Mezinárodní politika, 2/2010).
The list of events which probably influenced American foreign policy and also the
speeches of Bush and Obama ends on December 25, 2009. On this day Abdul Mutallaba, a
Nigerian passenger, who had been instructed by former Guantanamo prisoners, tried to
launch a bomb on a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit. However, Mutallaba was not
successful and was neutralized by the passengers (Mezinárodní politika, 2/2010).
From the above mentioned it results that the Obama administration was, and still is,
facing the danger coming in particular from Iran and its impenetrable behavior, and from
North Korea, the actions of which cannot be estimated in advance.
With regard to these actors in the international arena and to the threat they poses for
the United States one part of the thesis will examine the keyword used in the speeches by
Obama and Bush and thus reflection of these actors and their perception by the United
States in the speeches.
The following practical section will consider the general characteristics of the
speeches and will in detail analyze connection between the threat to the United States and
the speeches and also compare the rhetorical style of Bush and Obama.
4 Practical Part

- 19 -
 4.1 Corpus Under Investigation and Methods of Analysis

The practical part of the thesis will deal with eight speeches, four by George W.
Bush, and four by Barack Obama:

George W. Bush
 Inaugural Address, January 20, 2001
 9/11 Address: Statement by the President in Address to the Nation, September 11,
2001
 UN Address: President Bush Speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001
 State of the Union Address: President Bush Discusses State of the Union, January
25, 2003

Barack Obama
 Inaugural Address, January 21, 2009
 9/11 Address: Remarks by the President at Wreath-Laying Ceremony at the
Pentagon Memorial, September 11, 2009
 UN Address: Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly,
September 23, 2009
 State of the Union Address, January 28, 2010

The aim was to choose speeches delivered on the same occasion. George W. Bush
delivered two Inaugural Addresses; however, the author chose his first Inaugural Address,
because at the time of its delivery Bush was as "unknown" as Obama, who has had only
one opportunity to deliver the Inaugural Address. With regard to the 9/11 speech it would
be more appropriate to use Bush's commemoration speech from later years of his
administration. On the other hand the aim was to find out whether there are differences or
similarities in threat perception in the speeches by Bush and Obama, and a comparison of a
speech delivered just few hours after the United States was attacked, and a speech
delivered eight years ago showed greater potential. The first UN Address was chosen
because the American Presidents deliver their speech in front of all members of the UN
General Assembly, and thus in front of almost the whole world, and they send their
message not only to their friends and allies, but also to their enemies and adversaries. In
case of the State of the Union Address and Barack Obama there was the only possibility -

- 20 -
Obama's first State of the Union Address13. In case of George W. Bush the aim was to
connect the speech with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and to find out whether Bush would try
to persuade Congress and to gain its support, and therefore the 2003 State of the Union
Address was chosen.
Graph 1 shows the length of the speeches. Concrete numbers will be introduced later.

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 George W. Bush

Barack Obama

3000

2000

1000

0
Inaugural Address 9/11 Address UN Address State of the Union

Graph 1 Length of the speeches under analysis

Graph 1 shows that the shortest speech is the 9/11 Address, followed by the
Inaugural Address, UN Address, and the State of the Union Address. Also, there are no
enormous differences in the length of the types of the speeches. The only difference is in
case of the UN Address, where Obama's speech is twice as long as Bush's. But generally it
is possible to state that the speeches are suitable for analysis.
With regard to the analysis, it will be carried out on the basis of both qualitative, and
quantitative methods. The quantitative method will be used in particular in the first part of
the analysis where the basic parameters of the speeches and keywords are compared. The
qualitative method will be used in the second part of the analysis where individual

13 In 2009 Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress; however, it was not an official State of
the Union Address.

- 21 -
 sentences will be analyzed on the basis of their content.

4.2 General Comparison of the Rhetorical Styles of George W. Bush and

Barack Obama

4.2.1 Basic parameters

The first step in the analysis of rhetorical styles of Bush and Obama was a basic
comparison of parameters of their speeches. Table 1 shows the first results.

N u m b e r o f p a r a g r aNpuhms b e r o f se n te nAc ve es ra g e se n te n c e / p a r a g r a p h
B us h In a u g u ra l 49 95 1.9
B us h 9/11 13 36 2.8
B us h UN 42 173 4.1
B us h S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 86 284 3.3

A v e r a g e B u sh 47 .5 147 3

O bam a In a u g u ra l 35 112 3.2

O bam a 9/11 14 41 2.9
O bam a UN 63 230 3.7
O bam a S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 111 421 3.8

A ve ra g e O b a m a 55 .8 201 3.4
Table 1 Comparison of the number of sentences and paragraphs

Table 1 indicates a pattern that can be found in the political speeches. The analysis of
the eight political speeches shows that every paragraph of a speech deals with a particular
topic. Also, one topic is usually discussed in more than one paragraph. Thus it is not
possible to state that the higher the number of paragraphs the higher the number of topics
discussed. What is more important is that the speeches follow a certain pattern with regard
to the number of paragraphs and a type of a speech. This will be dealt with in detail later.
Although the number of paragraphs does not indicate complexity of a speech, the number
of sentences does. It was already mentioned that a paragraph deals with a certain topic. The
important fact here is that the more sentences are there in a paragraph, the more complex is
the discussion about a particular topic. Although the number of paragraphs differs only
slightly in case of speeches of Bush and Obama, there is a wider difference in the ratio of

- 22 -
sentences per paragraph. Before discussing this issue in more detail, let us focus on the
specific numbers in Table 1.
The lowest number of paragraphs and sentences was counted in case of both Bush's
and Obama's 9/11 Address, despite the fact that Obama's 9/11 speech was delivered 8 years
later. While Bush reacted directly to the attacks of 9/11 on that evening, Obama's speech
was delivered on the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the attacks. Thus the message of
both the addresses is rather different. Further, from Table 1 it stems that the highest number
of paragraphs and sentences was counted in the State of the Union Address of both Bush
and Obama, although the number of sentences and paragraphs differs remarkably. Obama's
State of the Union Address consists of 111 paragraphs, which is by 26 more than Bush's,
and at the same time Obama used by 137 sentences more than Bush. Nevertheless, in both
cases the State of the Union Address is the most comprehensive speech, presumably due to
its function as a tool by which the President inform the Americans about what happened in
the United States the previous year and what will happen in the particular year in which the
speech is delivered. The issues discussed in the State of the Union Address will be
mentioned below.
The congruence of the order of the speeches with regard to the number of paragraphs
and sentences is almost total. The only difference is in the number of paragraphs in the
Inaugural Address and the UN Address. Bush's Inaugural has more paragraphs than his UN
Address (by 7), nevertheless, Obama's UN Address is 28 paragraphs longer than his
Inaugural. This is in compliance with the fact that during his campaign Obama focused
heavily at the U.S. position in the world and restoration of its position. The issues which
Obama considered to be essential for renewing the role of the United States in the world
included renewal of American alliances, dialogue with U.S. friend, as well as with U.S.
foes, expansion of U.S. diplomatic presence and to seek new partnerships in Asia
("Change.gov," n.d.). During his campaign Obama repeatedly declared that the aim of the
United States is not to isolate countries in the world, as the Bush administration did, but to
try to talk to everyone first. The UN soil is the best place to proclaim these ideas, because
there are 192 UN Member States, including e.g. Iran ("Member States," n.d.). Obama was
well aware of the fact that to renew American position in the world he had to focus on the
international arena and to persuade other states that the United States was prepared to
change its behavior in the world.
The content of Bush's and Obama's UN Address is also different. Whereas Bush
focuses on terrorism, Taliban, Afghanistan, Middle East, and cooperation with other UN

- 23 -
member states, Obama focuses on expectations, cooperation, environment, economy, and
future, but he also mentions nuclear weapons and world free of these weapons, conflict,
Middle East, and United Nations.
The number of sentences in Bush's and Obama's first UN Address is approximately
twice as high as the number of sentences in their Inaugural (1,8x in case of Bush and 2,0x
in case of Obama).
What is different in Bush's and Obama's speeches is the average of sentences per
paragraph. Bush's average is 3 sentences per paragraph, whereas Obama's 3.4. With regard
to the individual speeches the average of sentences per paragraph in Bush's Inaugural
Address is 1.9; in his first UN Address the number is higher by 2.2 - the average in this
speech is 4.1. On the other hand, in case of Obama the difference between the lowest
average and the highest average is only 0.9 sentences per paragraph. Thus Obama's
speeches give the impression to be more consistent than the speeches by Bush. Also, there
is no congruence in the average number of sentences per paragraph in the Inaugural by
Bush and Obama, or in the State of the Union Address. The numbers differ completely. The
only exception is the 9/11 speech, in which Bush's average is 2.8 sentences per paragraph
and Obama's average is 2.9 sentences per paragraph. Bush's 13 paragraphs and 36
sentences are very close to Obama's 14 paragraphs and 41 sentences.
It was already mentioned that although the number of paragraphs is somehow given
by the particular speech, the number of sentences is to a certain degree independent of this
number and reflects how much the President is concerned with the issues discussed. Thus
Obama's average 3.4 sentences per paragraph and Bush's average 3 sentences per
paragraph indicates that although the number of paragraphs is somehow corresponding in
case of the two Presidents, Obama focuses on the particular issues more that Bush, and
uses more sentences to describe a problem, or the solution to a problem. It would be
interesting to find out what issues are discussed the most, i.e. which paragraphs contain the
highest number of sentences; however, such an analysis would be beyond the focus of this
thesis.
To sum up, Obama's speeches are longer in both the number of paragraphs and the
number of sentences.
The next step in the analysis was to focus on the number of words and the average
number of words per sentence. The results are shown in Table 2. Based on the above
mentioned fact that the higher the number of sentences per paragraph the greater emphasis
on the particular issue, the number of words per sentence may also indicate a similar idea.

- 24 -
We may assume that more words in a sentence may indicate more information provided.
The basic rule for a sentence is that it is formed by the subject and the predicate. There
may be sentences, or rather phrases, which do not follow this rule. For example in prose or
poetry there may be a sentence: "I will never do it again. Never." where the second
sentence, "Never.", does not follow this rule. Nevertheless, although these sentences do
occur in language, and may even occur in speeches analyzed in this thesis, the basic rule
for a sentence will be considered to be the subject and the predicate structure. There are
five sentence elements in an English sentence - subject, verb, object, adverbial, and
complement. All of them may or may not occur in one sentence, but we may assume that
there is a difference in a sentence consisting of a subject and a verb, e.g. a sentence "He
left.", and a sentence consisting of four sentence elements, e.g. "The children are playing
with their dogs in the park." In the first example, we have just information about a man
leaving some place. However, we do not know why did he left, where was he, or if he left
alone or with someone. In the second example there is more information available to us -
we know about a park and about children and their dogs who are not just there in the park,
but who are actually playing with their dogs there. Even this sentence may be enlarged, e.g.
"Mary's four children are playing with their two small dogs in the park in the city center."
Thus the pattern is simple - the longer the sentence is, the more information is provided.
If we return to Table 2 below and compare the results with what was mentioned
above, Obama's average use of 20 words per sentence indicates that he gives the hearers
more information than Bush with his average 16.6 words per sentence.
Contrary to the average number of sentences per paragraph, which is more balanced
in Obama's speeches, in the category of average number of words per sentence the
difference between the lowest and the highest number in case of Obama's speeches is 5,
whereas in case of Bush's speeches it is 4.7. Nonetheless, in general Obama uses longer
sentences than Bush. Obama's lowest average number of words per sentence is 17.3 in the
State of the Union Address while Bush's is 14.3 in the UN Address (difference by 3), and
the highest average number of words per sentence by Obama is 22.3 in his UN Address
whereas Bush's 19 in the State of the Union Address (difference by 3.3).

- 25 -
 N u m b e r o f w o r d s N u m b e r o f se n te nAc ve es r a g e w o rd s/ se n te n c e
B ush In a u g u ra l 1585 95 1 6 .7
B ush 9 /1 1 593 36 1 6 .5
B ush UN 2479 173 1 4 .3
B ush S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 5391 284 19

A v e r a g e B u sh 2512 147 1 6 .6

O bam a In a u g u ra l 2399 112 2 1 .4

O bam a 9 /1 1 782 41 1 9 .1
O bam a UN 5135 230 2 2 .3
O bam a S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 7268 421 1 7 .3

A v e ra g e O b a m a 3896 201 20
Table 2 Comparison of the number of words per sentence

It was mentioned above that the higher number of words per sentence indicates that
the President is communicating more information. However, one may also look at this
problem differently. In the absolute sense it is so - more words naturally indicate more
information. But the information the President wants to communicate may be hidden in the
sentence. Thus even a sentence in which the President uses 3 words may contain more
important and more complex meaning than a sentence with 10 words. Thus the number of
words per sentences shows only the absolute quantities without a focus on the meaning
which is communicated.
On the other hand, we may use Rudolf Flesh's (n.d.) research on readability and plain
English to support the arguments about complexity of Bush's and Obama's language. He
argues that the higher number of words per sentences and the higher number of syllables
per words indicate more difficult readability for the reader (although his research focused
on written language, we may apply it to the speeches as well, as they were originally
written and only after that produced orally). According to the table available at University
of Canterbury web page, both Bush's and Obama's speeches are rather difficult to read. The
estimated readability score for Obama is 37, whereas for Bush approximately 45, which
makes Obama's speeches more difficult to read than Bush's speeches. For a comparison -
Flesch also mentions examples of reading material which he tested. Whereas standard auto
insurance policy text has the readability score 10, i.e. it is very difficult to read, readability
score for Reader's Digest is 65, i.e. it is the plain English. Both Bush's and Obama's results

- 26 -
are similar to the results for the New York Times, which scored 39, and also the Wall Street
Journal with the readability score of 43.
Table 3 shows the average number of characters per word. In all eight speeches the
number of characters per word oscillates between 5.3 characters per word in Obama's 9/11
Address and 6 characters per word in Bush's UN Address. More specifically, the average
number of characters per word in Bush's speeches is 5.9; whereas in Obama's speeches the
number is 5.7. It is possible to state that unlike the number of words per sentence or
number of sentences per paragraph, the number of characters per word is independent of
the speaker, but dependent on the language which is in case of both speakers English.

N u m b e r o f ch a ra c N
teur m
s b e r o f w o r d s A v e r a g e c h a r a c te r s/ w o r d
B ush In a u g u ra l 8959 1585 5 .7
B ush 9/11 3479 593 5 .9
B ush UN 14873 2479 6
B ush S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 31923 5391 5 .9

A v e r a g e B u sh 14 808.5 2512 5 .9

O bam a In a u g u ra l 13594 2399 5 .7

O bam a 9/11 4159 782 5 .3
O bam a UN 29837 5135 5 .8
O bam a S t a t e o f t h e U n io n 42661 7268 5 .9

A ve ra g e O b a m a 22 562.8 3896 5 .7
Table 3 Comparison of the number of characters per word

With regard to English language, there are two categories of word classes - closed
which are finite, and open which can be extended. Among the closed word classes there are
pronouns, determiners, primary verbs, modal verbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, i.e.
generally shorter English words. The open word classes include nouns, adjectives, full
verbs, and adverbs, i.e. generally longer English words. Thus we may assume that the
higher number of characters per word would suggest that the particular Presidents uses
more nouns, adjectives, full verbs, and adverbs. Nevertheless, this conclusion is wrong in
the sense that determiners, primary verbs, and prepositions are widely used in English, and,
what is more, are its indispensable part. The results show that there is not a huge difference
between Bush's average 5.9 characters per word and Obama's average 5.7 characters. As

- 27 -
the thesis does not focus on the number of syllables it is not possible to apply Flesch's
readability formula here. Also, to find out more about the length of words and the
particular word classes used in the speeches would require a deeper analysis exceeding the
frame of this thesis.
To sum up the results from Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, the type of the speech
corresponds to the number of paragraphs, sentences and words. The results show that there
is a certain pattern with regard to length of the speeches, with only one exception which is
the case of Bush's Inaugural Address which has more paragraphs than his first UN
Address; nevertheless the number of sentences is higher in the UN Address when
compared to the Inaugural Address, and on the other hand Obama's Inaugural Address is
shorter than his UN Address in both the number of paragraphs and also sentences. In case
of the number of sentences, words and characters, the order of the speeches according to
their length is identical for both Presidents: 9/11 Address is the shortest, followed by the
Inaugural Address, UN Address and finally the State of the Union Address.
As mentioned above, the 9/11 Address and the Inaugural Address are rather focused
on the American nation, not on foreign countries, whereas the UN Address is clearly
focused on the international arena. Overall, it is not possible to state that more
internationally focused speech is more complex or much longer, because the longest
speech seems to be the State of the Union Address. On the other hand, the State of the
Union Address is originally intended for the U.S. Congress, but definitely has a message
for the international arena. There may be a pattern which the U.S. Presidents follow in the
length of speeches for different occasions; however, to analyze such a pattern is not the
primary focus of the thesis.

4.2.2 Analysis of keywords

Chapter three discusses the most important events for the United States from the
point of view of threat perception. This chapter will discuss keywords used by the
Presidents in their speeches. The aim of this analysis is to find out, whether there is a
connection between what is happening in the international arena and the words the
Presidents use in their speeches, and also whether the Presidents react directly to a sudden
event. The keywords are divided into three groups. The first group contains the words
representing the greatest threat to the United States as it results from the events described
in the third chapter of the thesis. The second group consists of words of positive value for

- 28 -
the United States (freedom, democracy, etc.). The third group, on the other hand, contains
words with negative connotations for the United States (war, terrorism, etc.).
Table 4 shows the results for the following keywords:
− Iran (or other forms of the word, e.g. Iranian)
− North Korea (or other forms),
− weapon
− weapons of mass destruction
Iran and North Korea are discussed in particular because of their significance with
regard to the U.S. safety, as these countries and their nuclear programs possess significant
threat to the United States as was shown by the events which were described above.
The author has decided to include the word weapon, as well as the phrase weapons
of mass destruction in the analysis. It is clear that occurrence of the phrase weapons of
mass destruction implies occurrences of the word weapon. However, weapons of mass
destruction is the term for nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons, which
are often referred to by these terms (biological weapons, etc.), and not only by the general
term weapons of mass destruction.
Table 4 Occurrence of keywords in the speeches - Group 1
I r a n ( a n d o t h e Nr of or trhm Ks )o r e a ( a n d owt he ea rp fowonrema sp ) o n s o f m a s s d e s
B ush In a u g u r a l 0 0 1 1
B ush 9 /1 1 0 0 0 0
B ush UN 0 0 3 1
B ush S t a t e o f t h e U n io n3 4 28 5

O bam a In a u g u r a l 0 0 0 0
O bam a 9 /1 1 0 0 0 0
O bam a UN 2 2 9 0
O bam a S t a t e o f t h e U n i3o n 1 3 0

As Table 4 shows, there is a total congruence in case of the 9/11 Addresses. Neither
Bush, nor Obama used any of the words in his speech. In case of Bush it can be induced by
the fact that the speech was delivered in the evening of the day the attacks occurred, thus it
was not completely clear who was behind these attacks and whether North Korea or Iran
had to do anything with it. It also was an attack with airplanes, not with conventional
weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Obama's speech had the form of commemoration
in which there is no place for discussion about politics or addressing the imminent threats

- 29 -
to the United States. Thus the circumstances in which the Obama's 9/11 Address was
delivered were less political and more memorial and emotive.
Almost identical number of keywords occurs in Bush's and Obama's Inaugural
Address, with the only exception being the phrase “weapons of mass destruction”, and thus
also the word “weapon”. This word occurs in the 26th paragraph of the Bush's Inaugural
Address in the following sentence: We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a
new century is spared new horrors. The sentence will be discussed later in detail as it
contains threat in itself. However, the use of the word “weapon” in the phrase “weapons of
mass destruction” indicates that conventional weapons are no longer the threat to the
United States and that in the 21st century the major threat are weapons of mass destruction.
The UN Address and the State of the Union Address differ considerably. Whereas in
Bush's UN Address there is no mention of Iran or North Korea, Obama refers to these
countries twice in his UN Address referring to both countries in one sentence in connection
with nuclear weapons and also with threats they possess. The difference is also in the use
of the word weapon. Whereas Bush uses the word three times (none of them in the phrase
weapons of mass destruction), Obama uses the word nine times. Bush once mentions
weapons of mass destruction, once he refers to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
and the third use is in the sentence We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists...,
which probably refers to the weapons of mass destruction. Seven times out of the total of
nine occurrences of this keyword Obama uses the word in the phrase nuclear weapons. A
conclusion can be made that nuclear weapons are currently perceived to be the most
dangerous in the international arena, as the speech in which it is included is the UN
Address which is delivered for the whole world. The eighth use of the word is in
connection with material for the production of weapons, namely: And we will call upon
countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile
material for weapons. Reference is also made to the weapons of mass destruction, or rather
to nuclear weapons, because nuclear weapons can be produced either by fusion, or by
fission. The sentence is in accord with Obama's campaign in which he called for a world
free of nuclear weapons that is for total disarmament in this field (“Change.gov,” n.d.). The
ninth use of the world weapon is in a metaphorical sense - For the most powerful weapon
in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who
would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can
begin. Obama puts into contrast weapons as military technologies and weapon as being the
inner hope of human beings and he thus implies that people's will and hope can be much

- 30 -
more powerful than the real weapons.
However, Obama's nine uses of the world weapons cannot be compared to Bush's 28
uses of this word in his State of the Union Address in 2003. Seven times the world was
used in the phrase nuclear weapons and five times in the phrase weapons of mass
destruction. The other uses included the phrases nuclear, biological and chemical weapons,
thus also weapons of mass destruction, the phrase the ultimate weapon of terror in
connection with ideology of power and domination and hidden and banned weapons in
connection with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In his State of the Union Address Bush also
mentions Iran three times and North Korea four times. In case of Iran the word is once
used in connection with weapons of mass destruction and two times in connection with
Iranians as citizens who seek freedom and democracy. North Korea is used only in
connection with nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction.
In comparison with Bush's State of the Union Address, Obama's use of the word
weapon is not that wide in his State of the Union Address; he uses it three times, each time
in connection with the phrase nuclear weapons, once even referring directly to the threat
nuclear weapons possess. There is one reference to North Korea and three references to
Iran; however, these countries are not directly connected to the threat of weapons of mass
destruction for the United States, but rather the reference is made to isolation they face
because of their behavior in the “nuclear” field.
Besides the words analyzed above, the author has also considered the use of other
keywords. Table 5 shows the results for keywords connected to the U.S. values (words like
freedom, democracy, etc.), whereas Table 6 shows the results for keywords connected to
threat to the United States (words like danger, terrorism, etc.).
Although being the ultimate principle of the United States in the past, as well as in
the present, the word democracy is used only scarcely. Both Presidents use the word in the
State of the Union Address; however, Bush uses it in connection with the Iranians seeking
liberty, human rights and democracy. Obama uses it in connection with the United States.
In one sentence the reference is made towards the fact that democracy means disagreement
about the role of the government, about national priorities and national security, in the
other he says that Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy
and complicated. However, Bush uses the word democracy in connection with the United
States in his Inaugural Address, once in a vague sense when speaking about the
responsibility of all people to pursue democracy, and secondly in a metaphor about the last
century in which America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea,

- 31 -
thus referring to the U.S. never-ending pursuit of democracy not only inside the United
States, but also outside in Europe and on other continents.

Table 5 Occurrence of keywords in the speeches - Group 2

freedom peace justice security democracy
Bush Inaugural 5 1 3 0 2
Bush 9/11 3 2 2 2 0
Bush UN 2 6 4 0 0
Bush State of the Union 4 9 1 4 1

Obama Inaugural 3 4 0 1 0
Obama 9/11 0 1 0 0 0
Obama UN 2 23 3 12 2
Obama State of the Union 1 2 0 9 2

Overall, it results from Table 5 that freedom and peace were the most important
values mentioned by Bush in his speeches, whereas Obama emphasized peace and security.
Moreover, peace is a highly discussed word in Obama's UN Address in which he used the
word 23 times (and 12 times the word security). Bush used peace nine times in the State of
the Union Address. The reason why Obama used the word peace 23 times may be found in
his presidential campaign. During the campaign he put himself into the position of a
candidate who wanted to end the war in Iraq and demanded withdrawal of the U.S. forces.
Thus peace is used as an opposition to war. Also, during his campaign he emphasized that
he wanted a world free of weapons of mass destruction which would result in peace as
well.
Bush's State of the Union Address focused primarily on what danger and threat the
United States is facing. Nevertheless, it is particularly the world peace what is Bush talking
about, although he mentions also peace between Israel and Palestine.
Obama's use of the word peace often collocates with the word security in the
phrase peace and security which is used four times in the UN Address, other collocations
used by Obama are phrases promote peace, lasting peace, enduring peace, the pursuit of
peace. Moreover, he used the word to refer to the particular countries of the world (Iran,
North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Sudan), and the world in general. Bush does not use the
phrase peace and security; the collocation used by Bush are seek peace (referring to the
peace between Israel and Palestine), but also collocations which may indicate use of force
to reach or maintain peace: defend the peace and the sentences: We seek peace. We strive

- 32 -
 for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. Thus peace is not only an abstract
notion, but also something which can be established paradoxically by force solution.

terrorism w ar attack danger evil Al Qaeda

Bush Inaugural 0 1 1 1 0 0
Bush 9/11 1 1 6 0 4 0
Bush UN 1 5 2 1 3 1
Bush State of the Union 3 (1 – bioterrorism) 11 6 5 4 8

Obama Inaugural 0 2 0 2 0 0
Obama 9/11 0 0 0 0 1 1
Obama UN 0 5 2 3 0 2
Obama State of the Union 1 (bioterrorism) 7 1 1 0 2
Table 6 Occurrence of keywords in the speeches - Group 3

Bush's inclination toward words with negative meaning is demonstrated in Table 6.

Although in his Inaugural Address he uses a minimum of these words (as well as Obama),
the 9/11 speech shows a wider use of the words attack and evil. There is of course a reason
for the use of the word attack, as the speech was delivered few hours after the attacks on
the World Trade Center and Pentagon. This action was immediately seen as an evil which
landed on the United States. The frequency of the word in the following speech remained
practically the same (3 times in the UN Address and 4 times in the State of the Union
Address). On the other hand, Obama used the word evil only once in the 9/11 speech where
he emphasized renewing the human capacity for good, not the human capacity for evil.
Generally speaking, as it results from Table 6 and also from Table 4, there is an inclination
by both Bush and Obama not to use negative words or phrases in the Inaugural Address
and also in the 9/11 speech (although this is not completely true in the Bush's 9/11 speech,
as was discussed above). Although, according to Table 5, in particular in the case of Bush,
the occurrence of positive words is higher than the occurrence of negative words in the
Inaugural Address and the 9/11 speech, it is still lower than in the UN Address and the
State of the Union Address. It can be concluded that the Inaugural Address and the 9/11
Address tend to be to a certain degree neutral in comparison to the UN Address and the
State of the Union Address which are delivered not only for the United States (although
State of the Union is originally intended for the U.S. Congress, it now has an international
range, as was mentioned above), but for the whole world. Thus the U.S. President must

- 33 -
have clear ideas and intentions which will not be confused.

4.3 Significant Aspects in the Speeches of Bush and Obama

4.3.1 Rhetorical style of George W. Bush and the perception of threat

4.3.1.1 Bush's Inaugural Address

Bush's Inaugural Address covers general topics, it proceeds from thanks to the
previous U.S. President Bill Clinton and Bush's opponent in the 2000 Campaign Al Gore
and history reference to a part where traditionally the U.S. heritage, values, ideals and
principles are discussed (nine paragraphs at the beginning). The speech then addresses the
U.S. duty and courage, one paragraph deals also with Social security, Medicare and
economy. Then the discussion involves defense, weapons and action in three paragraphs,
followed by the topics of poverty and family. Then five paragraphs follow which deal with
the U.S. responsibility and the rest of the speech discusses values and principles again, the
idea of U.S. citizenship, history and future. The speech ends with phrases normally used
(in different words) at the end of speeches of the U.S. presidents - God bless you all, and
God bless America.
Bush does not address any particular issue in his Inaugural Address. Nevertheless, it
seems that the stress is on the U.S. history, its continuation, and in particular on U.S.
values, ideals and responsibility toward others. Bush also addresses the idea of
Christianity. The Inaugural speech is full of alliteration - e.g. in the 9th paragraph which
says: “...America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea.” In the
same sentence he uses a metaphor - a rock in a raging sea. A part of the alliteration is the
word faith. This word has two meanings - it can be either defined as “great trust or
confidence in something or someone” (“Faith,” n.d.), or as a countable noun as “a
particular religion” (“Faith,” n.d.), or as uncountable noun as “strong belief in God or a
particular religion” (“Faith,” n.d.). Thus freedom is something the United States and its
citizens trust and believe in, and it is possible that Bush used the word faith here to
emphasize not only the importance of freedom for the United States, but also the
importance of faith in the religious sense. Here it is important that Bush's Inaugural
Address was his first official address and in its 9th paragraph he stresses tradition, which is
manifested in the word freedom, and also conservatism, which is manifested in the word
faith.

- 34 -
 As mentioned above the speech starts with thanks to Al Gore, Bush's opponent. The
words are as follows: And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit
and ended with grace. This sentence, in particular its ending ended with grace, can be
considered to be a reference to the unclear results of the elections in November 2000 in
Florida which ended at the U.S. Supreme Court which in the Bush v. Gore case decided in
favor of George W. Bush who thus won the election (“Bush v. Gore,” n.d.).
The sentences for analysis of perception of threat in Bush's Inaugural Address are the
following:

25 We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge.

26 We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.

27 The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: (...). We will meet aggression
and bad faith with resolve and strength. (...)
Table 7 "Threat sentences" in Bush's Inaugural Address

In the 25th paragraph the threat is considered to be “challenge”. The pronoun we in

this paragraph refers to the U.S. government who has the resources and authority to build
such defenses, but it may also include the American people whose support is needed to
confront the possible enemy and participation of the American people is thus indispensable
for the U.S. action. Bush himself is a part of the pronoun we as he has the ultimate right
and duty to sign laws in the United States, or to veto them. The plural in defenses indicates
that the intention is to build more than just a single defense, e.g. national missile defense
for the protection of U.S. territory and U.S. citizens, but that it includes also defense of
U.S. personnel abroad, as well as U.S. allies. The defense also has to be so highly
sophisticated to avoid any challenge from the outside. The use of the verb invite has two
significant characteristics. First, it is used in the subjunctive mood - weakness invite
challenge, thus emphasizing the necessity to build defenses, and secondly, the verb invite
in this clause has the meaning of the word encourage, and the Cambridge Dictionary
describes the verb in this meaning as “to act in a way which causes or encourages
something to happen or someone to believe or feel something” (“Invite,” n.d.). Thus the
United States has to build defenses if it does not want to be challenged. The sentence
includes a condition; it can be paraphrased in the following way: If we do not build our
defenses beyond challenge, it is more than probable that someone will try to challenge the

- 35 -
United States. Also, the sentence indicates, that It will be our fault if anyone challenges us
and we have no defenses. Further, the sentence also indicates that at the time when Bush
delivered his speech, the United States was not sufficiently protected against a possible
attack, which was to a certain degree confirmed by the 9/11 attacks, although these attacks
were not performed by weapons of mass destruction.
What is more, the threat of challenge, weapons of mass destruction, and aggression
and bad faith is interconnected by parallelism present in three out of the four sentences
analyzed in Bush's Inaugural Address:
 25th paragraph: We will build our defenses beyond challenge,...
 26th paragraph: We will confront weapons of mass destruction,...
 27th paragraph: We will meet aggression and bad faith...
Not only do these sentences include parallelism, but there is also escalation present
in the sentences. First, the United States will build defense, then confront weapons of mass
destruction, because it will be protected against these weapons (at least against nuclear
weapons), and finally there will be action on the side of the United States against
aggression and bad faith.
The 26th paragraph consists also of only one sentence. In this case the threat is the
weapons of mass destruction which must be confronted. It is not clear what the pronoun
we in this sentence refers to - it can be the U.S. government, but also international
community, which would mean that the United States does not want to face this threat
alone and demands involvement of other states as well. Nevertheless, if we stick to the fact
that the Inaugural Address is primarily delivered for the United States and its citizens, the
pronoun we probably refers to the government. The plan and determination to confront the
weapons of mass destruction is expressed by the future tense. The phrase new century is
spared new horrors implies two things. First, Bush refers to the 20th and the 21st century by
using the adjective new. Although he does not mention the adjective old, the idea of this is
hidden in the phrase new horrors. Secondly, Bush makes a distinction between old and
new horrors. We may think about the old horrors as the horrors of the 20th century, e.g. the
world wars, genocides, wars in general. As new horrors we can imagine new wars caused
by the weapons of mass destruction which no country, except for the United States, dared
to use in the 20th century. What is more, the phrase new horrors is the threat as well, but
rather for the international community, which experienced the old horrors of the 20 th
century. Also, the phrase new horrors may refer not to new horrors possessed by new
weapons or new threats, but it may also be the old horrors of war which reappear in the 21st

- 36 -
century in the same form with new strength. The passive voice in the second clause (is
spared) makes an impression that Bush is not sure about whether he, as the U.S. President,
the U.S. government, or the international society is able to prevent the new horrors from
happening.
In the 27th paragraph there are two sentences expressing the threat to the United
States. In the first sentence the threat is openly called the enemies of liberty and our
country. In comparison to the previous sentences in the 25th and the 26th paragraph, in this
case the threat is also the subject of the sentence. From the sentence it also results that an
action will follow if the United States is endangered, but also if liberty is threatened
anywhere in the world. This is evident from the modification of the word country by the
pronoun our; however, the word liberty is not modified in a similar way. Determination to
act if necessary is expressed in the last but one sentence in the 27th paragraph. Aggression
and bad faith is the threat, whereas we, i.e. probably the U.S. government is prepared to act
resolutely if such aggression or bad faith appears.
The three paragraphs containing threat sentences suggest that Bush's position
towards any threat to the United States is clear - he will try to protect the United States
against a possible attack, but in case an adversary attacks the United States he is
determined to react to it with all means necessary. This determination is interesting with
regard to the fact that the Inaugural Address was delivered prior to the 9/11 attacks. Thus
the determination seems to be more about words than deeds because of the fact that after
the 9/11 attacks the United States invaded Afghanistan and did not even threaten Taliban
with the use of weapons of mass destruction which would under these circumstances
correspond to Bush's determination to meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and
strength.

4.3.1.2 Bush's 9/11 Address

On September 11 the United States, in Bush's words, came under attack in a series
of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. What in the morning might have been seen as a
plane crash was in the evening without doubts addressed as terrorist acts. There had been
terrorist attacks on the United States even prior to the 9/11, e.g. the bombing of the World
Trade Center in 1993; however, the 9/11 attacks and the number of people killed are
incomparable to the 1993 bombing. In the evening of 9/11 the exact number of people who
lost their lives was not known, there were speculations reaching up to six thousands of

- 37 -
victims (Hirschkorn, 2003). George W. Bush was thus facing a shocked country, scared and
mourning people and those who planned the attacks. At the same time people were proud
of those who by paying with their lives prevented the Flight 93 to reach another target in
the United States and showed their courage while facing evil. Although there were
definitely some estimates about who stood behind the attacks, the investigation had only
been initiated and thus no one is directly mentioned in the 9/11 Address.
Table 7 shows sentences which mention the threat to the United States and are again
divided according to the paragraph in which they appear. The analyzed sentences are in
italics.

4 (America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and
opportunity in the world). And no one will keep that light from shining.

7 Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution
to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.

11 America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the
world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. (...)
Table 8 "Threat sentences" in Bush's 9/11 Address

The 9/11 Address by President Bush does not start with reference to American
values. Instead, the first two paragraphs react to the events which happened on the morning
of September 11. At that very moment it was necessary to refer to what exactly had
happened. The second paragraph ends with a strong belief that whatever had happened the
United States was still strong and united and would fight those responsible for the attacks.
Further, the speech shows the U.S. determination to react to these attacks; they show its
preparedness, and also gratitude to the members of the U.S. Congress and world leaders.
The speech ends with a focus on the unity of people of the United States and belief that the
U.S. enemies will be defeated once again.
Bush's perception of threat is evident in four paragraphs; however, it is not addressed
directly, i.e. Bush does not mention who stays behind the attacks. The speech is more
concerned with what happened than with the actual threat to the United States.
Threat is addressed for the first time in the fourth paragraph. Its agent is rather
generally described by the words no one. This suggests the lack of knowledge about the
authors of the attacks. It seems that the United States is standing alone against the evil rest
of the world. Bush uses metaphorical language when describing the United States as the

- 38 -
brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world in the previous sentence. He
makes sure that everyone understands that any further action against the United States
could result in serious consequences. Nevertheless, Bush does not mention what these
consequences might be. The sentence in the fourth paragraph expresses the United States
determination to face whoever may appear to be the enemy.
The sentence in the seventh paragraph expresses concerns about the threat of further
attacks. To a certain degree this sentence also indicates the possibility of a military action
in case the United States is positive about who stood behind the attacks. This possibility is
hidden in the words to take every precaution.
International dimension of the attacks is under discussion in the eleventh paragraph.
The threat is explicitly mentioned here as terrorism and the war against terrorism should
be, according to Bush, a higher principle leading the action of the United States, its friends
and allies and everyone seeking peace and security. It is clear that terrorism and its
consequences are opposed to the idea of security - if a country is under terrorist attacks, its
citizens feel insecure in such a country. However, there is a paradox in this sentence - if
one wants peace, they must go to war. It also indicates that Bush and the United States is
prepared to go to war, but not only for the United States to be secure, but for the whole
world in general. Thus the Untied States takes over the burden to ensure peace and security
in the whole world; however, at the same time it would be grateful for any help coming
from its friends and allies.

4.3.1.3 Bush's UN Address

Bush's UN Address was delivered on November 10 2001, i.e. several weeks after the
terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the beginning of October 2001 the United States initiated the
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. At that time the United States has already
linked the attacks with the terrorist group al Qaeda and the reason for the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan was to fight al Qaeda and its bases in Afghanistan. Thus the body of the
speech is formed by Bush's remarks to Afghanistan, Taliban and terrorism in general.
The speech starts with reference to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and to people who
died on this day. Bush continues with a part discussing terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction before expressing thanks to the United Nations and Arab Islamic countries that
have condemned terrorism. Then the issue of Afghanistan is discussed, followed by the
lines about the need for cooperation and obligations of countries of the world. At the end of

- 39 -
the speech U.S. values are mentioned, as well as the hope and belief in the long-term, but
successful fight against evil.
The UN Address is delivered for the UN General Assembly, thus the target of the
speech is the international community, and not only the United States and its citizens.
Table 9 summarizes sentences from Bush's UN Address which reflect threat to the United
States, but also for the international community in general.

1 (...) We will defend ourselves and our future against terror and lawless defense
violence. THREAT

2 (...) That evil has returned, and that cause is renewed. history
THREAT
9 (...) As we meet, the terrorists are planning more murder -- perhaps in my terrorism
country, or perhaps in yours. (...) THREAT

11 (...) These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, weapons of
the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust. They can be expected to use mass
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of destruction
doing so.(...) THREAT

37 (...) We face enemies that hate not our policies, but our existence; the future victory
tolerance of openness and creative culture that defines us. (...) of freedom
THREAT
Table 9 "Threat sentences" in Bush's UN Address

From the beginning Bush makes it clear that action is necessary when the
international community or the United States faces terror or violence. In this case the
pronoun we in the sentence from the first paragraph, as well as the pronouns ourselves and
our, refers no only to George W. Bush and the U.S. government, but also to the world
governments present in the UN General Assembly. Also, the multiple use of the pronouns
mentioned above indicates a strong emphasis on international community and suggests that
Bush does not want only the United States to face terror and violence and demands
international participation. The United States initiated the Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan together with the British military and later on many more countries joined the
Operation. Nevertheless, the remark in the sentence is about defense, not offense. In this
case it is possible that Bush means ballistic missile defense, although the problem of
ballistic missile defense is not present in the speech. On the other hand, if he was talking
about ballistic missile defense, he would not use the pronoun we when talking to the UN
General Assembly, as ballistic missile defense was originally a purely American project. In

- 40 -
this sentence the threat is seen in terror and lawless violence. However, Bush does not use
the word terrorism; the use of the word terror to a certain degree implies terrorism as such,
moreover after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The phrase lawless violence may include anything
from drug trafficking to trade with weapons. Nevertheless, as the events of 9/11 were still
fresh not only on minds of the people of the United States, but also of the people of the
international community, we may assume that these words had in many minds the form of
the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The reason for not mentioning the 9/11 attacks at the beginning
of the UN speech may be the fact that as it is an international speech, the U.S. President is
not expected to speak about the United States in the first place.
In the second paragraph Bush talks about the fact that there is no isolation from evil
and that aggressions and ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively and
collectively, before they threaten us all. Bush does not give any examples illustrating this
experience; however, as connection with the World War II is mentioned, we may assume
that Bush speaks about Adolf Hitler, his ambitious plans for "Mitteleuropa", racial policy,
and literally no scruple. As the evil in Hitler was not discovered in time, millions of people
died. The sentence under analysis in the second paragraph says that The evil has returned,
and that cause is renewed. The threat - the evil - is the phenomenon of terrorism, and Bush
calls for decisive and collective action to suppress it. Although the death toll of the 9/11
attacks and the death toll of holocaust cannot be compared, as the later reaches to millions,
the idea of terrorism, particularly suicidal terrorism, is as deadly as the idea of holocaust.
Neither holocaust, nor suicidal terrorism is based on rational thinking, or rather on the
Western rational thinking, as rationality is perceived differently in different parts of the
world.
In the sentence from the ninth paragraph Bush raises concerns by saying that the
terrorists, who are the threat in this sentence, are planning more murder -- perhaps in my
country, or perhaps in yours. The aim of this sentence may be to get international support
for the U.S. actions against terrorism by raising concerns about internal security of other
states. To a certain degree it seems that Bush has the feeling that he, as the leader of the
world power who has experienced the 9/11 attacks, wants to lead action against terrorism,
but at the same time he needs international support.
The idea of holocaust is mentioned later in the eleventh paragraph. In the first
sentence analyzed in the eleventh paragraph the threat is described as terrorists searching
for weapons of mass destruction to turn their hatred into holocaust. The world holocaust
may be used in this sense because the whole world knows its meaning. With weapons of

- 41 -
mass destruction and their use by the terrorist the death tolls would definitely approach the
death tolls of holocaust. Also, Bush might raise support for a collective action when using
words which entails painful memories for many European nations which definitely do not
wish something like holocaust to happen again. The second analyzed sentence in the
eleventh paragraph specifies the weapons of mass destruction and makes the threat more
real by stating that once the terrorists have the capability to use chemical, biological, or
nuclear weapons, they can be expected to do so. This threat seems real even though, or
maybe because, the international community does not have information about whether the
terrorist groups have the capability to obtain any weapons of mass destruction.
The last sentence in Bush's UN Address which deals with threat is in the 37th
paragraph. In this sentence Bush uses the pronoun we; however, in this case it is more
probable that he does not mean international community in general, but the United States
as such. He talks about enemies who hate our existence; the tolerance of openness and
creative culture that defines us. As the terrorist have attacked only the United States on
9/11 and not any other country in the world, it is clear that the United States presents the
greatest danger to their survival, because it is the United States that is trying to export
democracy through the world and also to places which are not prepared for it, either
culturally, or politically, and which see the U.S. action as interference into their internal
affairs. No other country in the world is more determined in its support for democracy and
freedom than the United States, and because of this fact the United States is the greatest
danger not only for undemocratic countries, but also for non-state actors who are
endangered by the spread of democratic ideas in countries in which they operate or have
their bases.
During his UN Address Bush creates two units in the world. He refers to the first unit
as to "we" - we will defend ourselves and our future, as we meet, we face enemies. This
unit consists of the member state of the UN General Assembly. The other unit is “they” -
evil, the terrorists, enemies. The overall impression is that they are the danger to us, and we
need to face them before they gain advantage of us and prevail in the world. Thus we must
cooperate and protect ourselves from their hostile and dangerous behavior.

4.3.1.4 Bush's State of the Union Address

In comparison to the three previous speeches, Bush's State of the Union Address is
quite different, not only in the issues addressed but also in the number of paragraphs

- 42 -
devoted to threat to the United States. In the first half of the speech Bush speaks about U.S.
traditions, responsibility, strength and faith. Large part of the speech is devoted to
economic issues, in particular to taxation. Further, Bush addresses health care, Medicare
and environment issues and social problems the United States needs to solve, and also
AIDS. The major part of the speech deals with terrorism, al Qaeda, war on terror, threats to
the United States, Iran, North Korea, Iraq and in particular Saddam Hussein and his
regime. The last part of the speech mentions peace, freedom and characters of the
American people. Also, in comparison to the previous speeches, the State of the Union
Address follows a clear pattern and it is much easier to define what the ideas of the
paragraphs are. Table 10 lists the passages referring to threats (in italics) discussed by Bush
in his speech.

2 (...) We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will responsibility
answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. THREAT

5 (...) To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created achievement in
the Department of Homeland Security, which is mobilizing against the the last two years
threats of a new era. (...) THREAT

42 (...). And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the terrorism
man-made evil of international terrorism. THREAT

43 (...) There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive war on terror
reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war THREAT
against a scattered network of killers. (...)

47 (...) We've intensified security at the borders and ports of entry, posted protection of the
more than 50,000 newly-trained federal screeners in airports, begun United States
inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are THREAT
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.

48 (...). I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research bioterrorism
and production effort to guard our people against bioterrorism, called THREAT
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.

49 Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies intelligence
have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The THREAT
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,

- 43 -
 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. (...)

51 Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing threat
America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, THREAT
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.

52 This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. (...) threat in the

history
THREAT
53 Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared 21st century
again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. (...) threats
THREAT
54 America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers
dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and THREAT
stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the
International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control
nuclear materials around the world. We're 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.

56 Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a threats and
government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass strategies
destruction, and supports terror. (...) THREAT

57 (...) We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and North Korea
developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is THREAT
using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. (...)
59 Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula Iraq
and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, THREAT
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.

70 (...) The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for Saddam Hussein
those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. and WMD
THREAT
71 (...) Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and Saddam Hussein
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and and WMD
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without THREAT
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help them develop their own.

72 (...) It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country threat

- 44 -
 to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. (...) THREAT

76 (...) America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, request for action
and our friends and our allies. (...) THREAT
Table 10 "Threat sentences" in Bush's State of the Union Address

From the number of paragraphs listed in Table 10 it stems that discussion over threat
toms a major part of the second half of the speech. In the second paragraph Bush addresses
general threat to the United States by saying that we will answer every danger and every
enemy that threatens the American people. The repetition of the word every suggests an
emphasis given to the words danger and enemy. On the other hand, Bush does not specify
what he means by these words. It also suggests that whatever action the United States takes
against a danger or an enemy, Bush's answer could be “I said so”. Thus the U.S. enemies
are intentionally kept in the dark and to a certain degree deterred, as to every action they
choose against the United States the reaction may be radical. Moreover, the enemies are
unsure about not only whether the United States would really react, but also about the form
and extent of such a reaction. The sentence is even more deterrent thanks to the fact that
the United States possesses nuclear weapons and thus its reaction may not be just
conventional. The State of the Union Address is primarily delivered for the U.S. Congress,
and thus for the American people who voted for their Congresspersons, and Bush
acknowledges this fact by menace to everyone threatening the American people.
In the fifth paragraph Bush openly admits that the threat of the 21st century are
completely different from those of the earlier time and that there is a need to face these
threats by all means. Thus the Department of Homeland Security was created and has been
mobilizing against the threats of a new era with a direct goal - to protect the United States.
Bush does not develop this idea further by saying what these threats are and what the
Department's domains are; however, the Department's web page offers links to four main
areas: counterterrorism; border security; preparedness, response, recovery; and
immigration (“Department of Homeland Security,” n.d.). As border security is concerned
primarily with preventing any danger coming to the United States, and preparedness,
response, recovery with information how to behave in case of a disaster, we may consider
terrorism and immigration as the greatest threats to the United States these days.
After a section where Bush discusses taxation, environment, etc., he talks about what
is threatening the United States. In the 42nd paragraph the threat is addressed as the man-
made evil of international terrorism. At the beginning of the sentence Bush emphasizes the

- 45 -
leading role of the United States in the war on terror. The world man-made means
“artificial rather than natural” (“Man-made in Cambridge,” n.d.), or “made by people,
rather than by natural processes” (“Man-made in Longman,” n.d.). Thus we may assume
that terrorism is a product of people and as it is not natural and thus not perfect, it can also
be destroyed. This assumption is based on the fact that natural processes created the state
of world as we know it today, e.g. today's continents, and people are generally not able to
do anything about it, they cannot reverse it or change it. On the other hand, everything that
was created by a man can be destroyed by a man while using sufficient measures.
However, as the adjective man-made is connected with the noun evil, we may also assume
that the world man-made is used in the sense that this evil is created by people, not by any
supernatural processes, and thus people can eventually destroy it, as it is not covered or
protected by any unknown forces.
In the 43rd paragraph Bush to a certain degree shows that he is more powerful than
any other U.S. citizen; however, as the President of the United States he should give that
impression. He says that there's never a day when he does not learn of another threat, (...),
or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. He actually gives
an impression that he is more powerful than any other world leader, because he gives
orders in a global war. The world global in the phrase global war means cooperation of
many world nations in the war on terror; however, it is Bush who gives orders. Threat in
this sentence is seen in a scattered network of killers. These do not have to be only terrorist
groups or individuals, but also e.g. troops fighting the U.S. forces in the Middle East.
In the 47th paragraph the important information is the last clause of the first analyzed
sentence. Bush talks about deployment of nation's first early warning network of sensors
to detect biological attack. It is clear that if a possible biological attack evoke deployment
of warning network of sensors, it is seen as a great danger to the security of the United
States and its people. In the following sentence ballistic missile defense is mentioned as a
possible protection against the threat of ballistic missiles. Here the crucial idea is that the
United States must defend its territory and must not allow anybody to threaten either the
territory or its people, as happened in September 2001. This sentence also puts emphasis
on the phrase for the first time thus implying that at that specific time, for the first time in
the history of the United States, there is actually someone in the world who is capable of
attacking the United States on its soil and the United States is forced to protect itself.
Biological attack was mentioned earlier in the speech; however, Bush returns to the
topic in the 48th paragraph. He promotes Project Bioshield which should protect the U.S.

- 46 -
citizens against bioterrorism. He repeatedly uses the pronoun our thus emphasizing that he
is asking Congress for money not only for someone's sake, but that he is asking Congress
for money for the sake of all the U.S. citizens, and thus also the Congresspersons. In the
next sentence Bush stresses the agents - anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. With
regard to these agents he urges the Congress and the people of the United States to take the
threat seriously as the U.S. enemies would use these diseases as weapons. Would in this
context expresses Bush's opinion, not the possibility or probability. On the other hand Bush
was at that time the most powerful person in the world, as the role and position of the U.S.
President is perceived, and thus his opinion is not just an opinion of an ordinary politician,
but is supported by intelligence, analyses, etc. Thus the use of would in this sentence
somehow suggests high probability of such an event. The next part of the sentence implies
that the evidence is not as strong as if there was actual intelligence supporting the argument
of imminent threat. Bush just bids for action until it is too late. Thus bioterrorism is not
considered to be as major threat as e.g. ballistic missiles carrying a nuclear warhead.
In the 49th paragraph Bush mentions the events of 9/11 and the effect they have on
the U.S. agencies which since 9/11 has worked more closely together, thus addressing
terrorism not only as threat, but also as a common cause for cooperation. Bush mentions
the transformation of FBI to meet new threats; however, as elsewhere in the text he does
not specify the new threat, but with regard to the previous sentence he probably means
terrorism as such. In the next sentence shapes of the common cause do appear in a plan for
a Terrorist Threat Integration Center (Aftergood, 2005) which should assemble the
intelligence for counterterrorism on one place.
The 51st paragraph highlights as the gravest danger facing America and the world the
outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The next
sentence even specifies the danger these weapons represent by stating that their purpose
could be blackmail, terror, and mass murder, i.e. that threat may be aimed at both U.S.
government (blackmail), and U.S. population (terror and mass murder). The threat the
United States seriously fear is the spread of these weapons among the terrorist allies.
The unspecified "new" threat appears again in the 52nd paragraph. The 53rd
paragraph slightly specifies it as the ideology of power and domination which seeks to gain
the ultimate weapons of terror. Here Bush probably interconnects the events of the 20th
century and the struggle of Hitler for domination, and the threat of the 21st century which
are the weapons of mass destruction. The message is clear, one just has to imagine what
would have happened if Hitler had had weapons of mass destruction and had used them.

- 47 -
 According to the 54th paragraph, among the dangers the United States faces is armed
Iraq, loose nuclear material around the world, nuclear material on the area of the former
Soviet Union, and production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass
destruction. In connection with these dangers Bush mentions the United Nations, but also
the International Atomic Energy Agency, thus making sure that the world knows the United
States is not going to face the danger alone, and that not only the United States is facing
threat, but also the rest of the world.
The threats are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. According to the 56 th
paragraph, in Iran the threat is the government that represses its people, pursues weapons
of mass destruction, and supports terror. This is in accordance with what was mentioned
above - that Iran was repeatedly titled as the strongest supporter of terrorism. In the 57th
paragraph Bush talks about North Korea and its development of weapons of mass
destruction which North Korea further uses to deter, or rather blackmail, the United States
and the international community. Nevertheless, the greatest threat Bush addresses is the
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Nine paragraphs deal with Saddam Hussein but actually
only two of them address directly the threat Hussein represents. In the 70th paragraph Bush
sees as the only purpose for Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction to dominate,
intimidate, or attack both the United States, and Iraqis.
In the 71st paragraph Bush connects Hussein with al Qaeda by saying that Hussein
aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Thus Hussein represents the
major threat to the United States as he is not acting “unilaterally”, but he actually supports
terrorists and multiplies the threat to the United States. What is more, Bush assumes
cooperation between Hussein and terrorists even in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
In the 72nd paragraph Bush notices the danger new weapons can bring. By saying it
would take one vial, one canister, one crate he to a certain degree describes the desperate
state of things and even asks every U.S. citizen to pay attention to what is going on. The
threat is enhanced in this sentence by putting one vial, one canister, and one crate next to a
day of horror like none we have ever known. That is to say, although the 9/11 attacks were
carried out by huge airplanes, even a tiny box may cause widespread devastation.
The last paragraph dealing with the threat in Bush's State of the Union Address Bush
ends the issue of threat to the United states by saying that the United States will not accept
a serious and mounting threat, both to the United States, and its friends and allies.
To sum up Bush's State of the Union Address, although much space is devoted to the

- 48 -
issue of threat to the United States, Bush repeatedly addresses the same things - terrorism,
bioterrorism, outlaw regimes, new threats, North Korea, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and
weapons of mass destruction. However, there may be a reason for Bush to address the issue
so broadly. The State of the Union Address was delivered in January 2003 and what is
important here is the fact that the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Thus the
reason for such an emphasis on the threat may be Bush's need for support from the side of
the U.S. Congresspersons, as well as from the American people.
The overall evaluation of Bush's speeches and threat perception will be discussed in
chapter 4.4.

4.3.2 Rhetorical Style of Barack Obama and the perception of threat

4.3.2.1 Obama's Inaugural Address

At the beginning of his Inaugural Address Obama gives thanks to George W. Bush.
When talking about the presidential oath he uses the words we, the people, thus reminding
the U.S. citizens of the U.S. constitution and its initial words. Further Obama discusses the
economic crisis and challenges the United States faces. Also, Obama mentions the U.S.
ancestors and their heritage, and the U.S. values, believe in justice, power and humanity.
Then he speaks about threats to the United States and aggressors, but also about the U.S.
Armed Forces. The last paragraphs are again devoted to the U.S. values, liberty, freedom
and Thomas Paine's words.
Table 11 shows sentences of Obama's Inaugural Address where threat is addressed.

5 (...) Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and crisis
hatred. (...) Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many -- and THREAT
each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen
our adversaries and threaten our planet.
20 (...) Guided by these principles once more we can meet those new threats new action
that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and THREAT
understanding between nations. (....) With old friends and former foes,
we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter
of a warming planet.
21 (...) And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and will and strength
slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and THREAT
cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Table 11 "Threat sentences" in Obama's Inaugural Address

- 49 -
 Similarly to Bush, Obama addresses threat in three paragraphs in the Inaugural
Address, but he uses longer and more complex sentences. In the firth paragraph the threat
and the enemy is addressed as a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. The far-
reaching network may indicate terrorist networks not limited by territory of a single state.
Threat is emphasized here by the fact that even the U.S. President is unable to target the
particular terrorist groups and that no one can be sure about whether (s)he is safe or not.
Further, violence and hatred are connected with terrorists more than with any particular
state. Although there are states in the international arena which use violence and are full of
hatred towards other actor in the international arena, violence is usually targeted at the
citizens or ethnic groups of the particular state, not against the United States, because these
states do not have the capabilities and international support to oppose or confront the
United States. Thus threat in this sentence is terrorism and terrorist groups which use not
only violence to direct attention to themselves, but are also not withholding their hatred
towards the United States. The next sentence shows the complexity of Obama's speech - he
uses words as health care, schools, energy, adversaries, threaten, and planet in one
sentence. Here the threat is seen in the U.S. dependency on foreign energy which
strengthens the U.S. adversaries. The concrete examples are not mentioned, nevertheless,
we may assume that if the United States is dependent of the wrong country it may have
disastrous consequences.
In the 20th paragraph Obama demonstrates that he wants to act multilaterally, he
emphasizes greater effort and even greater cooperation and understanding between
nations to meet new threats. The cooperation is stressed even in the last sentence of the 20 th
paragraph where Obama speaks not only about cooperation with the U.S. friends, but also
about cooperation with former U.S. foes. The threat in this case is the nuclear threat and a
warming planet, again two aspects one would not expect to appear in one sentence.
Nevertheless, Obama made it clear during his campaign that although the he would focus
on multilateral cooperation, he would not abandon unilateral acting in case there was no
support for the action of the United States which the United States regarded as vital for its
national security, or for security of the world.
The U.S. strength and determination to react to those inducing terror and
slaughtering innocent is even emphasized by a kind of immortality of the United States
with the words that the enemy cannot outlast the United States, and that the United States
will defeat the enemy. The 21st paragraph is also interesting because of the fact that
although the Inaugural Address is delivered for the American people, Obama addresses

- 50 -
directly the enemies, and he also uses the pronoun you when addressing them - you cannot
outlast us, and we will defeat you. With this he takes the American people to his side and
together they address the enemies. Also, by this sentence Obama makes it clear that he
knows that the U.S. enemies are listening to him at that very moment and are also
concerned about the next U.S. President and his actions. By addressing the enemies
directly Obama makes the impression that he is not afraid of these enemies, and neither are
the American people. The psychological message here is clear - Obama is also not afraid of
addressing the threat directly, he knows about it, and he wants to act against it.
Apart from this message for the U.S. enemies the Inaugural Address is rather vague
as Obama does not specify who the U.S. enemies are, and who “you” is. Obama's 9/11
Address does not clarify it either, except the remark about al Qaeda.

4.3.2.2 Obama's 9/11 Address

In his 9/11 Address Obama talks in particular about the victims of 9/11, about prayers
they deserve and about scripture. He also mentions the U.S. Armed Forces and their role
for the United States, and unity of the American people.
Threat is mentioned only in the eighth paragraph (see Table 12). Here Obama
directly addresses al Qaeda and the fact that the U.S. fight against al Qaeda and its
extremist allies will never be forgotten and will never end. Obama may fear stagnation in
the nations' will to fight the terrorists, as he starts the paragraph with the words Let us
renew our resolve... . It is clear that during the years the United States was fighting Taliban
or al Qaeda people became resistant toward what the United States is doing, and more and
more demanded the end of the war. Obama is trying to remind the U.S. people about the
fact that the 9/11 attacks were probably not the last one - he says that those who
perpetrated the barbaric act are still plotting against the United States.

8 Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this al Qaeda and enemies
barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation THREAT
we will never waver; in pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies,
we will never falter.

Table 12 "Threat sentences" in Obama's 9/11 Address

Although he only addresses the threat in one sentence, he uses linguistic devices for

- 51 -
emphasizing the meaning of his words. There is a repetition in the second sentence: we
will never waver ..., (...), we will never falter. Also, the use of the world waver has a literary
meaning, too. One of its meanings is to “move gently in several different directions”
(“Waver,” n.d.). Thus this implies that the United States will be firm in its determination to
fight its enemies until one they these enemies will be defeated and the United States will be
free of any danger.

4.3.2.3 Obama's UN Address

At the beginning of his UN Address Obama mentions the observation that the world
is becoming anti-American, that the United States is viewed with skepticism and distrust.
Nevertheless, he states that he wants to renew the U.S. position in the world, and to foster
cooperation among the countries of the world based on common interest of the states. After
the introductory thoughts he addresses the question of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Middle East, and the world free of nuclear weapons. He also focuses on the economic
crisis and the need for multilateral action to meet global challenges. The next part focuses
in particular on cooperation and future. In the middle of the speech the threats possessed by
the weapons of mass destruction are addressed once again. Further, conflicts and pursuit of
peace are mentioned, in particular in connection to Middle East. The speech also mentions
energy, environment and climate change. Then Obama returns to the question of the
economic crisis and the necessity to help underdeveloped and developing countries. The
ending part mentions U.S. values, hope in the future, but also the ideas that stood at the
creation of the United Nations and problems this organization is facing, emphasizing the
hope in better future.
Table 13 summarizes threat sentences used in Obama's UN Address (in italics).

8 We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this al Qaeda,
body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies -- Afghanistan,
a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, Pakistan
and that plotted to blow up this very building. (...) THREAT
16 (...) (Consider the course that we're on if we fail to confront the status threat
quo:) Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world; protracted THREAT
conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations
with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations;
persistent poverty and pandemic disease. (...)
25 (...) But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and proliferation
complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every THREAT

- 52 -
 region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can
hardly imagine.
29 (...) Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the NPT
United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and THREAT
all nations less secure.
30 In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran North Korea,
threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. (...) Iran
THREAT
34 (...) In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target conflict,
terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect determination
our people. (...) THREAT
43 The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility climate change
to meet it must not be deferred. (...) Our efforts to end conflicts will be THREAT
eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. (...)
Table 13 "Threat sentences" in Obama's UN Address

Obama's UN Address mentions threat in seven paragraphs, mostly in connection with

nuclear weapons. In the eighth paragraph Obama names the threat to be al Qaeda and its
extremist allies. He even specifies this and tries to emphasize emotions by describing the
extremist allies as a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and
nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. Being in the place which might
have not existed because of someone who killed thousands of people arose emotions which
Obama needs to get international support and cooperation. The cooperation is seen also in
the fact that Obama calls for a work with all members of this body to face the evil. The
third part where cooperation appears in this sentence is in the phrase people of many faiths
and nations. Although the 9/11 attacks were directed at the United States, not only
Americans died during the attacks. Thus the fight against terrorists is not only
responsibility of the United States, but also a responsibility of all the nations whose
citizens were killed during the attacks, and all others who are sympathetic toward the loss
of these nations. Obama puts pressure on conscious of these countries and calls for their
responsibility and participation in the fight to ensure peace on the Earth.
In the 16th paragraph Obama describes status quo in an unusual way - extremists,
conflicts, genocide, atrocities, nuclear weapons. Normally one would not expect the use of
the phrase status quo on that occasion. The impression the sentence creates is that the
extremists, conflict, genocide, etc., are a standard state of events, rather than something
which is regarded as being something socially and humanly unacceptable. This provokes
the emotions of the need for a revolution, or for an action against the status quo. History

- 53 -
has shown us that if people are not content with a certain state of events, they say so and
they try to act to reverse the situation (e.g. the French Revolution). Thus Obama calls for a
certain type of peaceful “revolution” - an action against this status quo, which should
actually not be status quo. When talking about the threat Obama uses metaphorical
language to emphasize his words - extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world, and
also alliteration serving the same purpose - persistent poverty and pandemic disease. To
say that Obama is calling for revolution would be a strong statement; however, it is
possible to state that Obama is calling for action.
In the 25th paragraph Obama mentions threat which has not appeared in Bush's
speeches - the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is growing in
scope and complexity. Both words, scope and complexity, indicate that the U.S., or the
world's, fight against nuclear weapons is not easy, actually the fight is getting more and
more complicated as the terrorists' methods and networks are becoming more and more
complicated. Also, the word proliferation means not only an increase in something, but “a
sudden increase in the amount or number of something” (“Proliferation,” n.d.). The
keyword here is sudden - this may be the reason why Bush did not use the word
proliferation in his speeches. The threat of a rapid increase in weapons of mass destruction
was not that explicit. On the other hand, the events of the last years with North Korea
testing ballistic missiles and Iran with his uranium enrichment program indicate the threat
of such proliferation and the need for Obama to mention it in his UN Address. The next
sentence is to a certain degree similar to Bush's sentence in his Inaugural Address (We will
build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge). Obama says that if
we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, etc. Thus it is the U.S.
responsibility, or with regard to the fact that Obama is talking to the United Nations
General Assembly, the responsibility of the states of the world, to act against proliferation,
otherwise it would be easy for the enemies to gain advantage and to pursue nuclear
weapons with even more enthusiasm because of the worlds' inaction to their action.
Moreover, inaction could lead to war and acts of terror hard to imagine.
In the 29th paragraph Obama talks about those who avoid IAEA inspections and
ignore the United Nation's demands. With regard to the fact that in the next paragraph he
talks about North Korea and Iran, we may assume that also in this case he means North
Korea and Iran. If we recollect that it was North Korea and Iran that was immune towards
demands and request of the international community, Obama is for sure talking about these
two countries. Their failure to cooperate with the international community causes fear

- 54 -
among the people of the world, as no one can be sure about their next action. The only
thing people may count on for sure is in Obama's word that “the governments of North
Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope”. As he is addressing the
General Assembly, with the pronoun us he probably means the whole world whose
representatives are present in the General Assembly. On the other hand the threats coming
from North Korea and Iran were in particular addressed to the United States. But again,
Obama is probably trying to encourage international cooperation by frightening the
international community with what North Korea and Iran are capable of.
In the 34th paragraph Obama talks about confrontation of the violent extremists
mentioned in the previous sentences. Again, Obama calls for cooperation with the words
that America will forge lasting partnership to target terrorists, share intelligence, and
coordinate law enforcement and protect our people. Nevertheless, he is not addressing any
particular states or allies. At this place he could have mentioned the U.S. allies, the new
ones, as well as the old ones, to give his words grater weight. He could have also addressed
specific countries with regard to his use of the phrase our people. To a certain degree,
while not addressing specific countries, this phrase gives an impression that the United
States needs help to protect its people, and that it is not really bothered by the people of
other nations. On the other hand, the pronoun our could be related to the phrase lasting
partnerships which includes any country willing to help the United States, and thus this
country's people would be protected as well.
The last paragraph mentioning the threat in Obama's UN Address is the 43rd
paragraph. Here Obama interconnects climate change and conflicts, thus two phenomena
one would not expect to occur next to each other. Obama claims that the international
community is facing a danger possessed by climate change which must not be denied. He
continues with a statement that if it be for the current course, the members of the General
Assembly would see irreversible changes within their borders. The following sentence
interconnects climate change and conflict by saying that there could be wars over refugees
and resources. Although the idea of a war over resources is clear as the conflict among
people over resources is as old as the human race itself, the war over refugees would need
an explanation, which Obama does not offer. It is also not clear whether the war will be
fought to get refugees back, or to resist the pressure of other countries wanting other states'
refugees to return to their country of origin. Also, it is not clear what is the connection
between climate change and refugees. One connection may be the fact that climate change
will result in scarce resources on certain parts of the planet, which will result in migration

- 55 -
of the people and will actually create a huge problem of refugees, as the immigrants will
not be accepted in their “new” country because of the scarcity of the resources.
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Obama does not give explanation of the interconnection
of the two phenomena.
To sum up Obama's UN Address, the greatest emphasis is put on international
cooperation. Obama acts in accordance with his campaign and his proclamations that he
would try to act multilaterally. Also, he calls for action from the side of the U.S. friends
and allies, which is in accordance with his campaign as well, because he proclaimed that
he would demand greater involvement of the U.S. allies in e.g. NATO to meet their
responsibilities and duties. With regard to threat to the United States, Obama mentions the
same as Bush; however, he also sees the threat to the United States and for the world in
climate change, i.e. something Bush did not talk about in his speeches in this connection.

4.3.2.4 Obama's State of the Union Address

Obama starts his first State of the Union Address by recalling the tradition of the
State of the Union Address, challenges the United States faced in the past, and
achievements of Obama's administration in its first year. The next part is devoted to the
economic crisis, but also to hope and determination to overcome it. Economy, banks, and
taxation are discussed in the following paragraphs, together with small businesses,
infrastructure and job issues. After the issue of economy which forms a large part of the
speech, Obama turns to energy, climate, and education. Further, in the second half of the
speech the major topic is the health care and its reform. Obama also discusses government
spending and the U.S. budget. Doubts about the United States from the side of the world
are also mentioned. Near the end of the speech Obama broadly discusses the issue of
bipartisan politics and the need for compromise with regard to responsibility of the
Democrats and Republicans towards the U.S. citizens. In the last part before concluding
with remarks about the U.S. values, traditions, unity, and the U.S. pride Obama talks about
Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. It is this part which is under analysis in the
following lines. Table 14 shows sentences mentioning threat in Obama's State of the Union
Address (in italics). In comparison to Bush's State of the Union Address, Obama's Address
discusses threat only in four paragraphs.

87 (...) Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists security

- 56 -
 who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our THREAT
homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American
lives. (...)

91 Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the nuclear weapons
greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. THREAT
(...) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations
together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they
never fall into the hands of terrorists.

92 Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing North Korea,
with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in Iran
pursuit of nuclear weapons. (...) THREAT

93 (...) And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to secure world
respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious THREAT
disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public
health abroad.
Table 14 "Threat sentences" in Obama's State of the Union Address

According to the 87th paragraph the terrorists threatening the United States are the
greatest threat. Obama says that since the day he took office, we (probably the U.S.
government) have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. This
sentence implies that the effort to fight terrorism has weakened at the end of Bush's
administration; however, Obama is ready to renew the fight against this threat. The
administration has taken steps to do so by investment into U.S. homeland security, but also
it has succeeded in disrupting plots which threatened to take American lives. As the speech
was delivered for the U.S. Congress, the focus is on protection of the U.S. citizens. By
disrupted plots Obama probably meant the attack planned for December 25, 2009 when a
man with alleged connections to al Qaeda tried to detonate a bomb in a flight from
Amsterdam to Detroit. On the other hand the attempt failed thanks to the passengers on
board, not thanks to the U.S. government, intelligence, or the U.S. President.
In the 91st paragraph wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are compared to nuclear weapons.
For Obama, nuclear weapons are the greatest danger to the American people. The
occurrence of both nuclear weapons and wars in one sentence indicates that Obama
considers the wars to be threat to the United States or its people as well. Obama connects
the wars and the nuclear weapons with the phrase even as and the adverb also, while
connecting the adverb also with the phrase confronting perhaps the greatest danger. Thus
to a certain degree this use of the words even as and also suggests that there is too much

- 57 -
for the United States to deal with and if it wants to confront the greatest danger, which is
the nuclear weapons, the United States must end the two wars to have resources, energy,
and support to face this greatest danger. In the 91st paragraph the second sentence analyzed
develops the threat possessed by nuclear weapons by remarks about nuclear material which
is possible to fall into the hands of terrorists. This threat should be faced by securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world by international cooperation of 44 nations
which will meet in Washington, D.C. in April 2010. Nevertheless, there is also a hope in
this sentence - Obama says that the 44 nations have to secure the materials so that they
never fall into the hands of terrorists. The hope is in the word never, as it suggest that there
is a strong possibility that terrorists do not possess nuclear materials yet, and thus they do
not possess nuclear weapons yet. By mentioning the number of 44 nations in connection
with the hope Obama urges the representatives of these nations to come to the summit and
to participate in the fight.
In the next paragraph Obama specifies the problem nuclear weapons create - there
are nations which insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear
weapons. Thus in connection to threat possessed by the nuclear weapons nations which
pursue them are threat as well. Although not mentioned in the analyzed sentence, these
nations are North Korea and Iran, as the following sentences suggest. Again in this
sentence Obama refers to the international dimension of the threat. The nations are not
violating the U.S. agreements, or the U.S. rules, but they are violating the international
agreements, and it is thus responsibility of all the members of the international community
to prevent these states and nations to acquire nuclear weapons. That is to say that even a
year after his inauguration Obama still believes in multilateral action and still wants the
international community to participate to reach their common goal, which is the world free
of nuclear weapons.
The last sentence from Obama's State of the Union Address does not address nuclear
weapons, but the issue of bioterrorism and an infectious disease. The new initiative Obama
talks about should give the U.S. government the capacity to respond faster and more
effectively to it, which would counter threats at home. This word faster in the sentence
indicates that even at the time of the speech the United States was able to respond to the
threat possessed by bioterrorism and infectious diseases; however, as the development of
new weapons proceeds at a fast pace, so must the U.S. capacity to respond to these threats.
It is to a certain degree symbolic that the last analyzed sentence does not mention
nuclear weapons, but rather biological weapons. This supports the change in the

- 58 -
international arena - although the nuclear weapons still possess the greatest threat to the
United States, the other types of weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical, and
radiological) are the danger of the 21st century, because, as mentioned in Bush's State of the
Union Address, one canister may kill thousands of people.

4.4 Comparison of Threat Perception by George W. Bush and Barack

Obama

This chapter will deal with how threat perception is addressed in the speeches by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama. From Table 15 it results that Bush addresses threat
much more that Obama.

paragraphs total paragraphs addressing threat percentage

Bush 190 29 15.26%
Obama 223 15 6.73%

Table 15 Threat perception - "threat paragraphs"/total paragraphs ratio

Although the total number of Obama's paragraphs in his four speeches is higher than
Bush's, he addresses threat only in 15 paragraphs, i.e. in 6.73 % of the speeches. Bush
devotes 29 paragraphs to threat perception, i.e. 15.26 % of his speeches (18 of the 29
paragraphs are in Bush's State of the Union Address). We may assume that with the
terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush was forced to deal with the issue of threat to the United States
(his speeches are from years 2001 and 2003), whereas Obama emphasizes cooperation in
the international arena which would not gain much support if Obama was talking about
threat and dangers the international community may expect in the future. The following
part will introduce how threat is addressed in the speeches of the two Presidents while
mentioning the common and different characteristics.

4.4.1 Threat perception in the speeches of George W. Bush.

We may divide the lexical items reflecting threat perception in speeches of both
Presidents into three groups – lexical items which directly name regimes, people, etc.,
lexical items which indicate means with which a possible attack can be performed, and
lexical items which refer indirectly to threats, and theoretical concepts.
In case of Bush the results are the following.

- 59 -
Group 1: directly addressed regimes, people, etc.:
 Iraq and its armament program, brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein who
aids and protects terrorists, including al Qaeda
 Iran, its government pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and
supporting terror
 the North Korean regime and its nuclear program

Group 2: means for a possible attack:

 weapons of mass destruction
 chemical, biological, nuclear weapons
 smallpox
 ballistic missiles
 nuclear material around the world
 missile technologies
 one vial, one canister, one crate

Group 3: indirectly addressed threats, theoretical concepts:

 the enemies of liberty and the United States
 everyone trying to keep that light from shining
 scattered network of killers
 outlaw regimes
 terrorism
 terror and lawless violence
 bioterrorism
 challenge
 new horrors
 further attacks
 threats of new era
 aggression and bad faith
 evil
 danger and enemy
 man-made evil of international terrorism
 ideology of power and domination

- 60 -
 From the lists above it results that Bush addresses the threats to the United States
rather indirectly by using expressions like outlaw regimes, man-made evil of international
terrorism, etc. On the other hand, Bush is quite precise with regard to means by which an
attack would be performed - all of them are connected to weapons of mass destruction,
either nuclear (nuclear material, ballistic missiles to carry a nuclear warhead), or biological
(smallpox, the description of what is needed for a biological attack - one vial, etc.).
Group 1 names states which are the threat to the United States, in particular with
regard to terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. These states include Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea. The problem of Iraq was to a certain degree solved by the invasion of Iraq,
and the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, who was also named as the threat to the
United States by President Bush. What is interesting is the fact that the terrorist
organization al Qaeda is not addressed directly as Iran or North Korea, but it is addressed
only in connection with Saddam Hussein and his support for these terrorists.
Taking into account threat perception in Bush's speeches, the third chapter discussing
the threat to the United States based on the journal Mezinárodní politika, and Grice's
maxims as outlined in the second chapter, we may draw the following conclusions.
Bush's Inaugural Address fulfills the aim of an Inaugural Address - Bush talks about
the U.S. values, heritage, the U.S. position in the world, ideals and duties, responsibilities,
and future. He is thus fulfilling the maxim of relevance. With regard to the maxim of
quality, we may assume that Bush believes in what he is saying and thus this maxim is
observed as well. The maxim of quantity may be seen as flouted, since the information
provided is rather general information the hearers already know and Bush does not
mention anything with informative value for these hearers. On the other hand the
informative value may be found in how Bush positions himself within the American
nation. At the beginning of his speech Bush twice the former U.S. President Bill Clinton,
as well as Bush's opponent, Al Gore. Bush also mentions that he is standing where
America's leaders have been and will be, thus positioning himself not as a member of the
American people, but as a member of the U.S. leaders who govern the country and the
American people. The information provided is thus that Bush identifies himself more with
the ruling elite of the United States rather than with the ordinary U.S. people.
As Bush avoids to be ambiguous, the maxim of manner may be considered to be
fulfilled as well.
With regard to the 9/11 Address, the maxim of relevance seems to be opted out, in
particular with regard to the last paragraphs dealing with the issue of gratitude, unity, and

- 61 -
Christianity. On the other hand, the speech is highly informative, thus fulfilling the maxim
of quantity. As Bush is not accusing anyone directly he is avoiding to violate the maxim. If
Bush was accusing e.g. a Russian terrorist group of the attacks without a clear evidence, he
would definitely violate this maxim. Bush also avoids to be ambiguous and we may say
that the maxim of manner is observed as well.
Bush's UN Address is highly informative, in particular with Bush's remarks on the
issue of Taliban, Afghanistan, and Middle East. Also, there was evidence about who
committed the attacks, therefore addressing Taliban in Afghanistan as supporters of the
terrorist groups is unambiguous and relevant, and for Bush probably true. Thus all four
maxims are observed in the UN Address, and the same may be said also about Bush's State
of the Union Address, again highly informative, structured, relevant, and unambiguous.

4.4.2 Threat perception in the speeches of Barack Obama

Barack Obama addresses threat in 15 paragraphs in his speeches. The lexical items
reflecting his perception of threat may be grouped in the following way.

Group 1: directly addressed regimes, people, etc.:

 al Qaeda and its extremist allies
 North Korea
 Iran

Group 2: means for a possible attack:

 nuclear weapons
 nuclear materials

Group 3: indirectly addressed threats, theoretical concepts

 far-reaching network of violence and hatred
 adversaries
 new threats that demand even greater effort
 nuclear threat
 warming planet
 those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering
innocents

- 62 -
  extremists, conflicts, genocide, mass atrocities
 nations with nuclear weapons
 climate change, poverty, pandemic disease
 proliferation
 nuclear arms race
 wars, acts of terror, conflicts
 countries avoiding IAEA inspections and ignoring UN demands
 terrorists
 nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear
weapons
 bioterrorism, infectious disease

As in the case of President Bush, even in speeches by President Obama the list in
Group 1 and Group 2 is rather short. Obama addresses directly North Korea and Iran, as
Bush does, but he also mentions al Qaeda and does not mention Iraq. Here we may see the
change in the U.S. foreign policy, as Obama is trying to withdraw all the troops from Iraq
and leave the country to rule itself and thus does not consider it to be threat no more. On
the other hand, twice in his speeches (9/11 Address, and the UN Address) Obama addresses
al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Although Obama mentions bioterrorism and infectious or
pandemic disease, he does not directly mention that they can be used as means for a
possible attack - in Group 2 there are only nuclear weapons and nuclear materials
mentioned.
Group 3, on the other hand, consists of a long list of indirectly addressed threats. To
what extent these threats correspond to, or differ from, the ones present in Bush's speeches
will be dealt with later.
With regard to Grice's maxims, the following can be said about Obama's rhetoric. His
Inaugural Address fulfills the maxim of quality and manner, but actually violates the
maxims of quantity and relevance. As in the case of Bush's Inaugural, Obama's Inaugural
does not fulfill the condition to be informative, because Obama speaks about the U.S.
ancestors, duties, values, greatness of American people and American nation, etc. (I have
commented on this in the part dealing with Bush). Also, parts of the speech mention the
current crisis and economy situation which seems rather irrelevant for the Inaugural
Address, even though because of the effects of the crisis this topic was otherwise highly
relevant in an economic discussion. What is more, Obama unofficially addressed the joint

- 63 -
session of Congress in February 2009 (instead of a proper State of the Union Address), i.e.
he had the opportunity to address this issue later. However, Obama may have chosen a path
to address issues which concern the people the most, even on the Inauguration Day, on the
day Obama was celebrated as a hope for the American nation.
On the other hand, his 9/11 Address is highly relevant, even though its content is
completely different from Bush's 9/11 Address. This is understandable because of the
circumstances surrounding the delivery of both addresses - Bush's speech is made
immediately after the attacks, and Obama's address is a commemoration. Thus also
Obama's 9/11 Address fulfills the maxim of relevance. The maxim of manner is fulfilled as
well, as we would not expect the President being ambiguous on such an occasion. Also, we
would not expect Obama to lie about the compassion for those who lost their relatives and
friends, and about the loss for the American nation which fulfills the maxim of quality.
However, we may assume that Obama is violating the maxim of quantity, as the speech
rather lacks any informative value because of its form as a commemoration speech. On the
other hand the informative value may lie in the fact that even though the events of 9/11
happened eight years ago, the United States did not forget what happened and would not
cease with its fight against the evil which is the source of the danger and threat in the
world.
Similarly to Bush, Obama's UN Address and State of the Union Address are highly
informative, relevant, and structured, and presumably based on what Obama believes is
true. However, in case of both Presidents we actually do not know and may not know
whether they really believe in what they say as they may have evidence proving the
contrary, but they say the opposite, or not a complete truth to protect the information.

4.4.3 Common characteristics

If we compare Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 lexical items as used by the two
presidents, we find certain similarities in how Bush and Obama address threat. As already
mentioned in the previous chapter with regard to Group 1 lexical items - both Obama and
Bush speak about Iran and North Korea. Whereas Obama just names these countries, Bush
specifies their danger in connection to nuclear weapons. Iranian government is described
by Bush as a government pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and supporting terror,
North Korean regime possesses threat because of its nuclear program. It is interesting that
Obama does not mention it in the threat sentences similarly, although it is clear that North

- 64 -
Korea has tested ballistic missiles and Iran is continuing in its program of uranium
enrichment.
With regard to Group 2 lexical items, Obama's remarks about threat possessed by
generally nuclear weapons and nuclear material are similar to Bush's; however, Bush
mentions nuclear weapons in the broader sense of weapons of mass destruction.
In the case of Group 3 lexical items, it is rather difficult to find similarities, for both
Presidents use specific vocabulary to indirectly address the threat. Still, there are some
similarities, even though these are quite obvious - both Presidents mention terrorism and
bioterrorism. On the other hand, we may find similarities in the meaning of certain phrases
addressing the threat. For example, Bush's “enemies of liberty and the United States” can
be linked to Obama's “adversaries”. Similarly, Bush's “scattered network of killers” does
coincide with Obama's “far-reaching network of violence and hatred”. Also, Bush's
“threats of new era” and Obama's “new threats that demand even greater effort” have much
in common, and we may also connect Bush's “threats of new era” with Obama's “nuclear
threat”. Nevertheless, this is possible only if we interpret Bush's remark about threats of
new era as threat the United States faces in connection with terrorist groups and rogue
states and their effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear weapons.
Generally, it is possible to state that the Presidents share their view on threats to the
United States. But there are still threats one President considers important, whereas the
other does not.

4.4.4 Different characteristics

First, it is necessary to mention that there are no profound differences between

threats as perceived by Bush and Obama. Thus it is possible to say that the issue of security
of American people and American territory is common to all Presidents, and is independent
of the party the President belongs to.
In Group 1 there is one already mentioned difference - whereas Bush sees as threat,
besides Iran and North Korea, Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Obama fears the non-state actors
- al Qaeda and its extremist allies.
With regard to Group 2, Bush is more concrete in what might endanger the United
States. Besides Obama's nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, he mentions weapons of
mass destruction as such, but also concrete biological “weapon” - smallpox, but also means
how to deliver the biological weapons (one vial, one canister, one crate), and means how to

- 65 -
deliver nuclear weapons (ballistic missiles and missile technologies).
In Group 3 there are differences not in the who or what is the threat to the United
States, as it results from Group 1 and Group 2 that there are not enormous differences in
the threat, but rather in the words the Presidents use to describe the threat. For example,
Bush's “everyone trying to keep that light from shining”, or “man-made evil of
international terrorism” show rich language. He could have said “everyone threatening us”,
or just “international terrorism”. Similar to the “man-made evil of international terrorism”
is “aggression and bad faith”, as Bush is speaking about it in the context that We will meet
aggression and bad faith as if these two types of behavior were human beings.
On the other hand, Obama uses quite specific and concrete words to describe what he
is actually talking about – “extremists”, “conflicts”, “nations with nuclear weapons”,
“nuclear arms race”, “countries avoiding IAEA inspections and ignoring UN demands”,
etc. But he does not avoid rich language completely - he uses e.g. “far-reaching network of
violence and hatred”.
Nevertheless, there is a difference in several topics Obama addresses and Bush does
not – “climate change”, “warming planet”, “poverty”, “proliferation”, “genocide”, “mass
atrocities”. The reason for Obama's remarks on the environment issues may be his personal
beliefs, as well as current trends in the world where there is an emphasis on the issues of
environment or sustainable resources. Thus Obama is to a certain degree forced to address
these issues. However, he is not forced to address them as threat, therefore in his case it
probably is influenced by his beliefs. Let us in this connection recall the change in
international relations mentioned in the third chapter which might have influenced what the
Presidents addressed in their speeches as threat. After the end of the Cold War the tension
loosened in the world with regard to the relationship between the former Eastern and
Western blocks. The world itself was not peaceful, e.g. with regard to the development on
the Balkan Peninsula. Nevertheless, the world was not under a permanent threat of a
sudden nuclear war. The beginning of Bush's administration was a continuation of the
development in the 1990s. However, this changed with the attacks of 9/11. Suddenly the
threat of a sudden attack was renewed in the United States, although this time there was an
uncertainty about who the adversary might be and from what side an attack might be
expected. Eyes of the United States turned to the Middle East and Afghanistan, where the
Taliban government possessed a great threat to the United States because of its connection
to al Qaeda, a terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush's position, and overall
the position of the Republican Party became clear - the task needed to be done was to

- 66 -
invade Afghanistan and fight the Taliban for what it had caused to the United States. The
investigation of the 9/11 attacks indicated that al Qaeda is connected also to Iraq and its
dictator, Saddam Hussein. Further investigation showed that Iraq possessed weapons of
mass destruction14 and therefore the United States must act before Iraq does. Thus Bush's
major concerns were whether the United States would be attacked again, and to win the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand in 2009 when Obama became the U.S.
President the situation was different. First, the people of the United States were tired of the
endless wars. Second, they were tired of how the rest of the world saw the United States, as
its reputation worsened significantly. Third, they were tired of the constant unilateral
conduct of the United States. Fourth, since September 2008 the United States has been in
economic crisis, the most significant results of which appeared in 2009. Fifth, with the new
millennium people around the world started to be more concerned about environmental
issues, in particular with connection to clean energy and renewable resources. Thus the
warming planet, thawing icebergs, natural disasters, lack of potable water, etc. threaten not
only the United States, but also the whole world. Obama chose the path of cooperation in
the international arena as opposed to Bush's rather unilateral conduct, although Obama is
not afraid to act unilaterally if needed. Besides the environmental threats the United States
faces also threats of weapons of mass destruction possessed by some rogue states. Also in
this case Obama is trying to solve the problem internationally, e.g. by means of multilateral
talks with Iran about its nuclear program.
There are differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in many issues.
Let us consider the issue of national security. The Democrats see today's threats as at least
as dangerous as those the United States has confronted in the past. Among these threats are
weapons of mass destruction, violent extremists, rogue states allied to terrorists, rising
powers, weak states, addiction to oil, a warming planet spurring new diseases, spawning
more devastating natural disasters, and catalyzing deadly conflicts (“The Democratic
Party,” n.d.). The majority of these issues was actually addressed by Obama in the
speeches analyzed in this thesis. In the 2008 Republican Party Platform the following
issues are addressed: bioterrorism and other WMD-related attacks, cyber attacks, terrorist
activities, military and industrial espionage and sabotage, global terror networks, and the
gravest danger which is nuclear terrorism (“2008 Republican Platform,” n.d.)15. This is also
in accordance with what Bush has addressed in his speeches in the years 2001 and 2003.

14 According to recent information Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
15 Including nuclear stockpiles, proliferation, nuclear arsenal, production of weapons-grade fissile material,
spread of weapons of mass destruction and related materials (“2008 Republican Platform,” n.d.).

- 67 -
Even in the 2008 Republican Platform the threat of a warming planet is not mentioned as
the threat to the United States.

- 68 -
5 Conclusion

The aim of this diploma thesis was to compare threat perception in the speeches by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Even though the times of the Cold War are over and
people around the world do not live in danger of a sudden nuclear war between the two
superpowers, the United States, and the Soviet Union, there is still much to fear.
The United States can be absolutely sure in one thing. Since the end of the Cold War
the United States has been the only superpower in the world, and because its main concern,
the Soviet Union, has ceased to exist, the United States turned its attention to non-
democratic regimes around the world which oppress its people. The United States with its
tradition of freedom and democracy felt that the oppressed people should not be deprived
of their chance to live a live in a democratic country. However, the U.S. export of
democracy was not perceived positively in these regimes and more and more the United
States was seen as interfering into the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Also, the U.S. behavior in the international arena might have been perceived as
superior, even though the United States is the only state which has the will and capabilities
to be a hegemonic leader in the world. To sum up, the U.S. position and conduct within the
international community naturally evoked opposition toward the United States, in
particular in the Middle East region where the U.S. interference was the strongest. The
opposition in the Middle East is also caused by the strong bond between the United States
and Israel.
The weapons of mass destruction represent for the states who stay in opposition
toward the United States probably the only possibility how to endanger its existence, as no
country in the world has conventional capabilities to wage a war with the United States.
Although the international community is against the spread of nuclear weapons, as the
majority of the countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which prohibits
provision of nuclear weapons, technologies for their production, or any support in
production of nuclear weapons, there are still countries and non-state actors which either
have the technologies to produce nuclear weapons, or have the intention to acquire them.
The danger to the United States, and for the world, lies in the fact that if the countries or
non-state actors succeed in acquisition of nuclear weapons, and are able to deliver them, it
may be assumed that they will not hesitate to use these weapons against the United States.
This danger and threat is permanent for the United States and thus it is clear that both
Presidents whose speeches are analyzed in this diploma work address it.

- 69 -
 It is possible to draw several conclusions from the analysis of the eight Presidential
addresses included in the corpus. First, the length of a speech depends on the occasion, or
rather on the type of the speech. Thus the 9/11 speech is the shortest, whereas the State of
the Union the longest speech.
Second, from the length of sentences and paragraphs, and based on the assumption
that the longer sentence/paragraph, the more information provided, Obama provided the
hearers with more information than Bush. Also, Obama's speeches were longer than Bush's
speeches, which resulted from the comparison of the individual speeches (Bush's Inaugural
Address compared to Obama's Inaugural Address, etc.). The biggest difference in length of
the speeches based on the number of words was in the UN Addresses. Whereas Bush
addressed the UN General Assembly with 2479 words, Obama used 5135 words. The
conclusion which may be drawn from this is that Obama positioned himself as President of
a country which is equal to all the member states of the United Nations, and as a President
who wants his country to cooperate with the rest of the world. Thus a longer speech was
necessary to persuade the member states that his intentions are firm.
Third, how threat is perceived by Bush and Obama and how much space they both
devote to remarks about threat depends on the international situation. Both Bush and
Obama address threat in three paragraphs in their Inaugural Address. In the case of Bush,
the threat to the United States was still unclear at the time of the speech. In the case of
Obama, there were no signs that the United States would face another attack. In the 9/11
speech Bush addresses threat three times, whereas Obama only once. It has already been
mentioned that occasions on which both speeches were delivered were different which
influences the difference in threat perception. The UN Address is the only address in which
Obama devotes more paragraphs to threat to the United States than Bush. On the other
hand, Obama's speech is twice as long as Bush's, but Obama addresses threat in 7
paragraphs, whereas Bush in five. The State of the Union Address represents the biggest
difference - Bush's 18 paragraphs differ considerably from Obama's four paragraphs. In
general, Bush devotes more space to threat perception with regard to the number of threat
perception paragraphs, as well as with regard to the overall percentage presented in Table
15.
Fourth, even though both Bush and Obama address the threat directly by mentioning
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and al Qaeda, they both prefer to use indirect names for the threat
(the enemies, the terrorists, outlaw regimes, etc.). The result of this is that their language
seems to be richer; however, to the detriment of comprehension. It is up to the hearer

- 70 -
whom to imagine under aggression and bad faith, challenge, or adversaries.
To sum up, even though Bush and Obama have different political background, social
background, experience, origins, and they are members of a different political party, their
perception of the threat to the United States is predominantly the same. Therefore it is
possible to conclude that the question of national security of the United States is
independent of factors which otherwise influence other areas of politics of the United
States.

- 71 -
 6Abstract

The diploma thesis Threat Perception in the Speeches of G. W. Bush and B. Obama –
A Comparison discusses how threat is addressed in the speeches of George W. Bush and
Barack Obama. The attempt of the thesis was to compare four speeches of Bush with four
speeches of Obama and analyze similarities and differences in how they perceive threat to
the United States. The thesis also discusses how the threat to the United States has changed
since the end of the Cold War, and since the attacks of 9/11.
The thesis has three parts. The first part is theoretical and it deals with the issue of
discourse analysis and political rhetoric. The second part discusses changes in international
relations after the end of the Cold War, and after the attacks of 9/11. The third practical part
consists of analyses of the speeches, based on both qualitative and quantitative method of
analysis.
The results show that there are similarities in the speeches of G. W. Bush and B.
Obama with regard to how the Presidents address threat. The most significant threats to the
United States are the nuclear weapons in possession of either states (Iran, North Korea), or
non-state actors (terrorist groups).

- 72 -
 7References

2008 Republican Platform. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/NationalSecurity.htm

Aftergood, S. (2005-01-24). Terrorist Threat Integration Center. Retrieved April 9, 2010,

from http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ttic/

Bush v. Gore (Per Curiam). (n.d.). U.S.. Retrieved from

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Change.gov. The Office of the President - Elect. Agenda. Foreign Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved
April 9, 2010, from http://change.gov/agenda/foreign_policy_agenda/

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice (1 ed.). Routledge.

Davis, S. (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford University Press, USA.

Department of Homeland Security : Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America. (n.d.). .

Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

Drulák, P. and Kratochvíl, P. , 2007-02-28 "The Dynamics of U.S.-Russian Relations after

the Cold War: A Metaphorical Perspective" Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago,
CHICAGO, IL, USA Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-05-24 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180393_index.html

Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? (1 ed.). Routledge.

Faith. (n.d.) In Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from

http://dictionary.cambridge.org

Flesch, R. (n.d.). How to write plain English. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/writing_guide/writing/flesch.shtml

Goldman, E. O. (2001). New Threats, New Identities and New Ways of War: The Sources
of Change in National Security Doctrine. Journal of Strategic Studies, 24(2), 43.
doi:Article

Hirsch, M., Nordland, R., Moreau, R., Yousefzai, S., Hussein, Z., Hosenball, M.,
Klaidman, D., et al. (2002). AL QAEDA'S NEW THREAT. Newsweek, 139(23), 30.
doi:Article

Hirschkorn, P. (2003, October 29). New York reduces 9/11 death toll by 40. CNN New York
Bureau. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/

- 73 -
Invite. (n.d.) In Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org

Kuchins, A. (2006-11-20). A turning point in U.S.-Russian Relations? Retrieved April 9,

2010, from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?
fa=view&id=18872&zoom_highlight=Kuchins+A+turning+point

Man-made. (n.d.) In Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from

http://dictionary.cambridge.org

Man-made. (n.d.) In Longman English Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.ldoceonline.com

Member States of the United Nations. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.un.org/en/members/#i

Mount, S. (n.d.) U.S. Constitution. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Peters, G. (n.d.). State of the Union Messages. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php

Proliferation. (n.d.) In Longman English Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.ldoceonline.com

Schaffner, C. (1996). Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis. Current Issues
In Language and Society, 3(3), 201.

Trosborg, A. (2000). Analysing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

The Democratic Party. (n.d.) National Security. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/american_leadership/national_security/

U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action. Office of the Coordinator for

Counterterrorism. Country Reports on Terrorism 2008. Chapter 3: State Sponsors
of Terrorism. (2009-04-30). Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122436.htm

Waver. (n.d.) In Longman English Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from
http://www.ldoceonline.com

Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. A. (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2008). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mezinárodní politika. Ústav mezinárodních vztahů Praha.

8Appendices

- 74 -
A. Speeches of G. W. Bush

1. Bush's 1st Inaugural Address (January 20, 2001)

Para Text Main idea of the

grap paragraph
h THREAT yes/no
1 President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens, the peaceful Presidential oath
transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. With a
simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.

2 As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation. Clinton

3 And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and Al Gore
ended with grace.

4 I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's History - future
leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

5 We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose U.S. power and values
end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and
liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant
of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not
possess, to defend but not to conquer.

6 It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across U.S. heritage
the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

7 The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone U.S. ideals
belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was
ever born.

8 Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And U.S. ideals
though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must
follow no other course.

9 Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy Past - present U.S.
was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in ideas
many nations.

10 Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn U.S. ideals
hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and
pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to
travel.

11 While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the Differences among
justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by people
failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth.
And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent,
but not a country.

12 We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the Union - unity

- 75 -
 serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my
solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and
opportunity.

13 I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than God
ourselves who creates us equal in His image.

14 And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward. Principles

15 America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by Ideals and principles
ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and
teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these
principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by
embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

16 Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through Ideals
civility, courage, compassion and character.

17 America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for Social duties
civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair
dealing and forgiveness.

18 Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a Doubts
time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear small.

19 But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the Ideals and power
cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do not turn the hearts of children
toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their
idealism. If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will
suffer most.

20 We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a Duty

sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community
over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared
accomplishment.

21 America, at its best, is also courageous. Courage

22 Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when Courage and power
defending common dangers defined our common good. Now we must
choose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn
us. We must show courage in a time of blessing by confronting problems
instead of passing them on to future generations.

23 Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy Education
claim more young lives.

24 We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from Social security,
struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will reduce taxes, to Medicare and economy
recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise
of working Americans.

25 We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite Defense
challenge. THREAT

26 We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is Weapons

- 76 -
 spared new horrors. THREAT

27 The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America U.S. decisivness
remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of THREAT
power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We
will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith
with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values
that gave our nation birth.

28 America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, Poverty

we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise.

29 And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are Family
not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of
love.

30 And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for Prisons

hope and order in our souls.

31 Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, Duty to act
they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. And all of us are diminished
when any are hopeless.

32 Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for Responsibility
civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not
just a government.

33 And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's Religion
touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque lend
our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our
plans and in our laws.

34 Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to Responsibility
those who do.

35 And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler Responsibility
on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

36 America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and Responsibility
expected.

37 Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to Responsibility

conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment.
We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we
find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

38 Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family Values
bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which
give direction to our freedom.

39 Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times Values and principles
has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The
most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

40 I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with Principles
civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater

- 77 -
 justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.

41 In all these ways, I will bring the values of our history to the care of our Values
times.

42 What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek Citizenship
a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against
easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you
to be citizens: citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible
citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

43 Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in Citizenship
ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of
citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this
spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.

44 After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John History
Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: ``We know the race is not to the swift nor
the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and
directs this storm?''

45 Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years History
and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our
nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.

46 We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Duty
Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to
one another.

47 Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, Future
to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our
lives and every life.

48 This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the Future
whirlwind and directs this storm.

49 God bless you all, and God bless America. End

- 78 -
2. Bush's 9/11 Address (September 11, 2001)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no
1 Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom Terrorism
came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims
were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women,
military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands
of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

2 The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures Catastrophe
collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding
anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into
chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.

3 A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can Values
shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the
foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel
of American resolve.

4 America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom Values
and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. THREAT

5 Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded Determination
with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the
caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way
they could.

6 Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's Preparedness

emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our
emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help
with local rescue efforts.

7 Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every Protection
precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further THREAT
attacks.

8 The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal No crisis

agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for
essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our
financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for
business, as well.

9 The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed Action
the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find
those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

10 I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in Gratitude
strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I
thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and
assistance.

- 79 -
11 America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and Unity
security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. Christianity
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose THREAT
worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been
threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us,
spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."

12 This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for Unity
justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so THREAT
this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend
freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

13 Thank you. Good night, and God bless America. Ending

- 80 -
3. Bush's 1st UN Address (November 10, 2001)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no

1 Thank you. Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and defense
ladies and gentlemen. We meet in a hall devoted to peace, in a city scarred by
THREAT
violence, in a nation awakened to danger, in a world uniting for a long
struggle. Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic
commitment of civilization: We will defend ourselves and our future against
terror and lawless violence.

2 The United Nations was founded in this cause. In a second world war, we history
learned there is no isolation from evil. We affirmed that some crimes are so THREAT
terrible they offend humanity, itself. And we resolved that the aggressions and
ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively, and collectively,
before they threaten us all. That evil has returned, and that cause is renewed.

3 A few miles from here, many thousands still lie in a tomb of rubble. Tomorrow, action
the Secretary General, the President of thevz General Assembly, and I will visit
that site, where the names of every nation and region that lost citizens will be
read aloud. If we were to read the names of every person who died, it would
take more than three hours.

4 Those names include a citizen of Gambia, whose wife spent their fourth referrence to people
wedding anniversary, September the 12th, searching in vain for her husband. who died
Those names include a man who supported his wife in Mexico, sending home
money every week. Those names include a young Pakistani who prayed toward
Mecca five times a day, and died that day trying to save others.

5 The suffering of September the 11th was inflicted on people of many faiths and terrorism
many nations. All of the victims, including Muslims, were killed with equal
indifference and equal satisfaction by the terrorist leaders. The terrorists are
violating the tenets of every religion, including the one they invoke.

6 Last week, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic Islam
institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease, and that Islam
prohibits killing innocent civilians. The terrorists call their cause holy, yet, they
fund it with drug dealing; they encourage murder and suicide in the name of a
great faith that forbids both. They dare to ask God's blessing as they set out to
kill innocent men, women and children. But the God of Isaac and Ishmael
would never answer such a prayer. And a murderer is not a martyr; he is just a
murderer.

7 Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no memories
forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in
honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember
the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children.

8 And the people of my country will remember those who have plotted against war against
us. We are learning their names. We are coming to know their faces. There is terrorism
no corner of the Earth distant or dark enough to protect them. However long it
takes, their hour of justice will come.

- 81 -
9 Every nation has a stake in this cause. As we meet, the terrorists are planning terrorism
more murder -- perhaps in my country, or perhaps in yours. They kill because THREAT
they aspire to dominate. They seek to overthrow governments and destabilize
entire regions.

10 Last week, anticipating this meeting of the General Assembly, they denounced terrorists
the United Nations. They called our Secretary General a criminal and
condemned all Arab nations here as traitors to Islam.

11 Few countries meet their exacting standards of brutality and oppression. Every weapons of mass
other country is a potential target. And all the world faces the most horrifying destruction
prospect of all: These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass THREAT
destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust. They can be expected
to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of
doing so. No hint of conscience would prevent it.

12 This threat cannot be ignored. This threat cannot be appeased. Civilization, threat
itself, the civilization we share, is threatened. History will record our response,
and judge or justify every nation in this hall.

13 The civilized world is now responding. We act to defend ourselves and deliver commitments
our children from a future of fear. We choose the dignity of life over a culture
of death. We choose lawful change and civil disagreement over coercion,
subversion, and chaos. These commitments -- hope and order, law and life --
unite people across cultures and continents. Upon these commitments depend
all peace and progress. For these commitments, we are determined to fight.

14 The United Nations has risen to this responsibility. On the 12th of September, gratitude
these buildings opened for emergency meetings of the General Assembly and
the Security Council. Before the sun had set, these attacks on the world stood
condemned by the world. And I want to thank you for this strong and principled
stand.

15 I also thank the Arab Islamic countries that have condemned terrorist gratitude
murder. Many of you have seen the destruction of terror in your own lands. The
terrorists are increasingly isolated by their own hatred and extremism. They
cannot hide behind Islam. The authors of mass murder and their allies have no
place in any culture, and no home in any faith.

16 The conspiracies of terror are being answered by an expanding global duties

coalition. Not every nation will be a part of every action against the
enemy. But every nation in our coalition has duties. These duties can be
demanding, as we in America are learning. We have already made adjustments
in our laws and in our daily lives. We're taking new measures to investigate
terror and to protect against threats.

17 The leaders of all nations must now carefully consider their responsibilities and terrorist groups
their future. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda depend upon the aid or indifference
of governments. They need the support of a financial infrastructure, and safe
havens to train and plan and hide.

18 Some nations want to play their part in the fight against terror, but tell us they how countries differ
lack the means to enforce their laws and control their borders. We stand ready in their perception
to help. Some governments still turn a blind eye to the terrorists, hoping the of terrorism
threat will pass them by. They are mistaken. And some governments, while

- 82 -
 pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the
terrorists. They support them and harbor them, and they will find that their
welcome guests are parasites that will weaken them, and eventually consume
them.

19 For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid. And it will be condemnation of
paid. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable supporters of
to justice. terrorism

20 The Taliban are now learning this lesson -- that regime and the terrorists who Taliban
support it are now virtually indistinguishable. Together they promote terror
abroad and impose a reign of terror on the Afghan people. Women are executed
in Kabal's soccer stadium. They can be beaten for wearing socks that are too
thin. Men are jailed for missing prayer meetings.

21 The United States, supported by many nations, is bringing justice to the Afghanistan
terrorists in Afghanistan. We're making progress against military targets, and
that is our objective. Unlike the enemy, we seek to minimize, not maximize, the
loss of innocent life.

22 I'm proud of the honorable conduct of the American military. And my country Afghanistan and its
grieves for all the suffering the Taliban have brought upon Afghanistan, people
including the terrible burden of war. The Afghan people do not deserve their
present rulers. Years of Taliban misrule have brought nothing but misery and
starvation. Even before this current crisis, 4 million Afghans depended on food
from the United States and other nations, and millions of Afghans were refugees
from Taliban oppression.

23 I make this promise to all the victims of that regime: The Taliban's days of promise to defeat
harboring terrorists and dealing in heroin and brutalizing women are drawing to the regime in
a close. And when that regime is gone, the people of Afghanistan will say with Afghanistan
the rest of the world: good riddance.

24 I can promise, too, that America will join the world in helping the people of humanitarian aid
Afghanistan rebuild their country. Many nations, including mine, are sending
food and medicine to help Afghans through the winter. America has air-dropped
over 1.3 million packages of rations into Afghanistan. Just this week, we air-
lifted 20,000 blankets and over 200 tons of provisions into the region. We
continue to provide humanitarian aid, even while the Taliban tried to steal the
food we send.

25 More help eventually will be needed. The United States will work closely with reconstruction of
the United Nations and development banks to reconstruct Afghanistan after Afghanistan
hostilities there have ceased and the Taliban are no longer in control. And the
United States will work with the U.N. to support a post-Taliban government that
represents all of the Afghan people.

26 In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we need for action
have left undone. After tragedy, there is a time for sympathy and
condolence. And my country has been very grateful for both. The memorials
and vigils around the world will not be forgotten. But the time for sympathy has
now passed; the time for action has now arrived.

27 The most basic obligations in this new conflict have already been defined by the Security Council
United Nations. On September the 28th, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373

- 83 -
 Resolution 1373. Its requirements are clear: Every United Nations member has
a responsibility to crack down on terrorist financing. We must pass all
necessary laws in our own countries to allow the confiscation of terrorist
assets. We must apply those laws to every financial institution in every nation.

28 We have a responsibility to share intelligence and coordinate the efforts of law cooperation
enforcement. If you know something, tell us. If we know something, we'll tell
you. And when we find the terrorists, we must work together to bring them to
justice. We have a responsibility to deny any sanctuary, safe haven or transit to
terrorists. Every known terrorist camp must be shut down, its operators
apprehended, and evidence of their arrest presented to the United Nations. We
have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent
private citizens from providing them.

29 These obligations are urgent and they are binding on every nation with a place obligations
in this chamber. Many governments are taking these obligations seriously, and
my country appreciates it. Yet, even beyond Resolution 1373, more is required,
and more is expected of our coalition against terror.

30 We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight. We must unite in commitment to fight
opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. In this world there are good terrorism
causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn. Yet,
there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no
remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any
government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist
friends, will know the consequences.

31 We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies about 9/11
that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from
the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.

32 The war against terror must not serve as an excuse to persecute ethnic and freedom for people
religious minorities in any country. Innocent people must be allowed to live
their own lives, by their own customs, under their own religion. And every
nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and
dissent. When these avenues are closed, the temptation to speak through
violence grows.

33 We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land. My export of U.S.
country is pledged to encouraging development and expanding trade. My values
country is pledged to investing in education and combatting AIDS and other
infectious diseases around the world. Following September 11th, these pledges
are even more important. In our struggle against hateful groups that exploit
poverty and despair, we must offer an alternative of opportunity and hope.

34 The American government also stands by its commitment to a just peace in the Middle East
Middle East. We are working toward a day when two states, Israel and
Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognize borders as called
for by the Security Council resolutions. We will do all in our power to bring
both parties back into negotiations. But peace will only come when all have
sworn off, forever, incitement, violence and terror.

35 And, finally, this struggle is a defining moment for the United Nations, United Nations
itself. And the world needs its principled leadership. It undermines the

- 84 -
 credibility of this great institution, for example, when the Commission on
Human Rights offers seats to the world's most persistent violators of human
rights. The United Nations depends, above all, on its moral authority -- and that
authority must be preserved.

36 The steps I described will not be easy. For all nations, they will require costs
effort. For some nations, they will require great courage. Yet, the cost of
inaction is far greater. The only alternative to victory is a nightmare world
where every city is a potential killing field.

37 As I've told the American people, freedom and fear are at war. We face enemies future victory of
that hate not our policies, but our existence; the tolerance of openness and freedom
creative culture that defines us. But the outcome of this conflict is THREAT
certain: There is a current in history and it runs toward freedom. Our enemies
resent it and dismiss it, but the dreams of mankind are defined by liberty -- the
natural right to create and build and worship and live in dignity. When men and
women are released from oppression and isolation, they find fulfillment and
hope, and they leave poverty by the millions.

38 These aspirations are lifting up the peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and the hope
Americas, and they can lift up all of the Islamic world.

39 We stand for the permanent hopes of humanity, and those hopes will not be hope, belief
denied. We're confident, too, that history has an author who fills time and
eternity with his purpose. We know that evil is real, but good will prevail
against it. This is the teaching of many faiths, and in that assurance we gain
strength for a long journey.

40 It is our task -- the task of this generation -- to provide the response to task
aggression and terror. We have no other choice, because there is no other peace.

41 We did not ask for this mission, yet there is honor in history's call. We have a to fight the evil
chance to write the story of our times, a story of courage defeating cruelty and
light overcoming darkness. This calling is worthy of any life, and worthy of
every nation. So let us go forward, confident, determined, and unafraid.

42 Thank you very much. ending

- 85 -
4. Bush's State of the Union Address (January 25, 2003)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no

1 Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished tradition

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.

2 You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session responsibility
of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country; THREAT
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.

3 In all these days of promise and days of reckoning, we can be confident. In a strength and faith
whirlwind of change and hope and peril, our faith is sure, our resolve is firm,
and our union is strong.

4 This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will facing the problems
not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other
generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

5 During the last two years, we have seen what can be accomplished when we achivement in the
work together. To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic last two years
education reform -- which must now be carried out in every school and in every THREAT
classroom, so that every child in America 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.

6 Some might call this a good record; I call it a good start. Tonight I ask the House request
and Senate to join me in the next bold steps to serve our fellow citizens.

7 Our first goal is clear: We must have an economy that grows fast enough to economic recovery
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's 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."

8 Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans taxation
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.

9 I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made taxation
permanent and effective this year. And under my plan, as soon as I sign 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.

- 86 -
10 The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our taxation
economy immediately: 92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of
almost $1,000 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.
Our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small
businesses.

11 You, the Congress, have already passed all these reductions, and promised them taxation
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.

12 We should also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax taxation
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 senior who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double
taxation of dividends.

13 Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs taxation and
mean more taxpayers, and higher revenues to our government. The best way to investment
address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage
economic growth, and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C.

14 We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send budget
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.

15 A growing economy and a focus on essential priorities will also be crucial to the Social Security
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.

16 Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The health care
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.

17 Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good health care
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.

18 Health care reform must begin with Medicare; Medicare is the binding Medicare
commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by giving
seniors access to preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming
health care in America.

19 Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their Medicare
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.

- 87 -
20 My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to Medicare
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.

21 To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of healt care
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.

22 Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while energy
dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive independence and
energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner improvement of
technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies environment
legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants
over the next 15 years. I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help
prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn
away millions of acres of treasured forest.

23 I urge you to pass these measures, for the good of both our environment and our environment
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.

24 In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through environment
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.

25 A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, environment
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.

26 Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and environment
our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

27 Our fourth goal is to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems social issues
of America. For so many in our country -- the homeless and the fatherless, the
addicted -- the need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the
goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.

28 Americans are doing the work of compassion every day -- visiting prisoners, social issues
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.

29 I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act, to social issues
encourage acts of compassion that can transform America, one heart and one
soul at a time.

30 Last year, I called on my fellow citizens to participate in the USA Freedom social issues
Corps, which is enlisting tens of thousands of new volunteers across America.

- 88 -
 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.

31 I propose a $450-million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million mentors

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.

32 Another cause of hopelessness is addiction to drugs. Addiction crowds out drug addicts
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 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.

33 Our nation is blessed with recovery programs that do amazing work. One of drug addicts
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.

34 By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who humanity
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.

35 The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also history and tradition
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.

36 In Afghanistan, we helped liberate an oppressed people. And we will continue U.S. employment
helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their abroad
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 this world better.

37 Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus AIDS in Africa
-- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in
Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection.

- 89 -
 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.

38 Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek AIDS
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.

39 AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. AIDS
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.

40 We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own AIDS
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.

41 I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including AIDS
nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most
afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.

42 This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of terrorism
nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the THREAT
man-made evil of international terrorism.

43 There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on war on terror
terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive THREAT
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.

44 To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al al Qaeda
Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the
September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf,
who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole;
an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al
Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a
major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists
have been arrested in many countries. 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.

45 We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America al Qaeda
and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies
targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore,
a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits the
Gibraltar. We've broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London,
Paris, as well as, Buffalo, New York.

- 90 -
46 We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one, the war on terror
the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

47 As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our own protection of the
country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our United States
people and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and THREAT
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.

48 I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to bioterrorism
our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our THREAT
people against bioterrorism, 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.

49 Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have intelligence
worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The FBI is THREAT
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. 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 all our
citizens.

50 Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the war against terror
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.

51 Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing threat
America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, THREAT
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.

52 This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small threat in the history
groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set THREAT
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.

53 Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, 21st century threats
and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all THREAT
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.

- 91 -
54 America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We dangers
have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand THREAT
that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy
Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world.
We're 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.

55 In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process request for
-- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All cooperation
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.

56 Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a threats and
government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and strategies
supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as THREAT
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.

57 On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and North Korea
starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated THREAT
framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know
that that regime was 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.

58 America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, North Korea
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.

59 Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not Iraq
allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of THREAT
reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not
be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

60 Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty Saddam Hussein
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.

61 Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Iraq and weapons of
Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the mass destruction
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

- 92 -
 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.

62 The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological Saddam Hussein
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to and biological
kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no weapons
evidence that he has destroyed it.

63 The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to Saddam Hussein
produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions and biological
of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. weapons
He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

64 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to Saddam Hussein
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such and chemical
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not weapons
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed
them.

65 U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 Saddam Hussein
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up and munition
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's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

66 From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several Saddam Hussein
mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare and mobile
agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam biological weapons
Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has labs
destroyed them.

67 The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Saddam Hussein
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design and nuclear
for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching weapons program
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.

68 The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence about
intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security Iraq
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.

69 Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi no cooperation from
intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to Iraq
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.

70 Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous Saddam Hussein

- 93 -
 sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But and WMD
why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for THREAT
those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

71 With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Saddam Hussein
Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create and WMD
deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must THREAT
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 Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own.

72 Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein threat
could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist THREAT
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.

73 Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have request for action
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.

74 The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already Saddam Hussein
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 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.

75 And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your hope fro Iraqis
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.

76 The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a request for action
serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The THREAT
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 legal -- Iraq's
illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors,
and its links to terrorist groups.

77 We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does determination to act
not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we
will lead a coalition to disarm him.

78 Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, U.S. Armed Forces
members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near

- 94 -
 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.

79 Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can U.S. Armed Forces
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.

80 We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A peace
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.

81 And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to freedom
the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom.

82 Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two the last two years
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.

83 Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. America's character
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.

84 Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person America's character
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.

85 We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not America's character
know -- 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.

86 May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of Ending
America.

- 95 -
B. Speeches of Barack Obama

1. Obama's Inaugural Address (January 21, 2009)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no

1 My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful beginning
for the trust you've bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.
2 I thank President Bush for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and Bush
cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
3 Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have presidential oath
been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet,
every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At we, the people,...
these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision
of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the
ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.
4 So it has been; so it must be with this generation of Americans. future

5 That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war crisis
against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly THREAT
weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but
also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new
age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is
too costly, our schools fail too many -- and each day brings further evidence that
the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
6 These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, crisis
but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear
that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its
sights.
7 Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and challenges
they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know
this America: They will be met.
8 On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose change, ideas
over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty
grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for a chance to pursue
far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the their full measure of
words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has happiness
come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry
forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to
generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve
a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
9 In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never greatness of
a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or American nation and
settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those that American people
prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather,
it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated,
but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up
the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

- 96 -
10 For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans ancestors
in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops, and settled the West,
endured the lash of the whip, and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and
died in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sahn.
11 Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till ancestors
their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as
bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences
of birth or wealth or faction.
12 This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful the most powerful
nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. nation has to remake
Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than America
they were last week, or last month, or last year. Our capacity remains
undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and
putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today,
we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of
remaking America.
13 For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy economy recovery
calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but
to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the
electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to
raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the
winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform
our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All
this we can do. All this we will do.
14 Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that ancestors
our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for
they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and
women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and
necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has
shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us
for so long no longer apply.
15 The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too government
small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent
wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is
yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to
spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because
only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
16 Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its prosperity
power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. But this crisis has
reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The
nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of
our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic
product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity
to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to
our common good.
17 As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety the rule of law and
and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely the rights of man
imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man -- a
charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world,
and we will not give them up for expedience sake.

- 97 -
18 And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from friendship and
the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that leadership
America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks
a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more.
19 Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just justice and power,
with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. humility, restraint
They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to
do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent
use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our
example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
20 We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more we can new action
meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater THREAT
cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly
leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old
friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and
roll back the specter of a warming planet.
21 We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And will and strength
for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering THREAT
innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken --
you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
22 For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a hope in the future
nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are
shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and
because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and
emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but
believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon
dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal
itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
23 To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and aggressors
mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or
blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on
what you can build, not what you destroy.
24 To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of cheaters
dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend
a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
25 To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your international
farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed dimension
hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say
we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor
can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world
has changed, and we must change with it.
26 As we consider the role that unfolds before us, we remember with humble U.S. armed forces
gratitude those brave Americans who at this very hour patrol far-off deserts and
distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who
lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
27 We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty, but U.S. armed forces
because they embody the spirit of service -- a willingness to find meaning in
something greater than themselves.
28 And yet at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely faith and
this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do, and must determination of the

- 98 -
 do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon American people
which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees
break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a
friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the
firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's
willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate.
29 Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be values
new. But those values upon which our success depends -- honesty and hard
work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism --
these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of
progress throughout our history.
30 What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now duties, values
is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that
we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not
grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is
nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our
all to a difficult task.
31 This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our liberty and freedom
confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and
children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this
magnificent mall; and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not
have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most
sacred oath.
32 So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have ancestors
traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of
patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital
was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood.
At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the
father of our nation ordered these words to be read to the people:
33 "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but Thomas Paine The
hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one Crisis
common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
34 America: In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let bravery, freedom,
us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more future
the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our
children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end,
that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon
and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and
delivered it safely to future generations.
35 Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. ending

- 99 -
2. Obama's 9/11 Address (September 11, 2009)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no

1 Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and members of the Armed Forces, fellow greetings
Americans, family and friends of those that we lost this day -- Michelle and I
are deeply humbled to be with you.
2 Eight Septembers have come and gone. Nearly 3,000 days have passed -- great loss for
almost one for each of those taken from us. But no turning of the seasons can everyone
diminish the pain and the loss of that day. No passage of time and no dark skies
can ever dull the meaning of this moment.
3 So on this solemn day, at this sacred hour, once more we pause. Once more we prayer
pray -- as a nation and as a people; in city streets where our two towers were
turned to ashes and dust; in a quiet field where a plane fell from the sky; and
here, where a single stone of this building is still blackened by the fires.
4 We remember with reverence the lives we lost. We read their names. We press victims
their photos to our hearts. And on this day that marks their death, we recall the
beauty and meaning of their lives; men and women and children of every color
and every creed, from across our nation and from more than 100 others. They
were innocent. Harming no one, they went about their daily lives. Gone in a
horrible instant, they now "dwell in the House of the Lord forever."
5 We honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and all the thanks to all who
survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other rebuild their helped
lives; men and women who gave life to that most simple of rules: I am my
brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
6 We pay tribute to the service of a new generation -- young Americans raised in a service for the
time of peace and plenty who saw their nation in its hour of need and said, "I country
choose to serve"; "I will do my part." And once more we grieve. For you and
your families, no words can ease the ache of your heart. No deeds can fill the
empty places in your homes. But on this day and all that follow, you may find
solace in the memory of those you loved, and know that you have the unending
support of the American people.
7 Scripture teaches us a hard truth. The mountains may fall and the earth may Scripture
give way; the flesh and the heart may fail. But after all our suffering, God and
grace will "restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast." So it is -- so it
has been for these families. So it must be for our nation.
8 Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and al Qaeda and
who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we will never waver; in enemies
pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we will never falter. THREAT
9 Let us renew our commitment to all those who serve in our defense -- our U.S. Armed Forces
courageous men and women in uniform and their families and all those who
protect us here at home. Mindful that the work of protecting America is never
finished, we will do everything in our power to keep America safe.
10 Let us renew the true spirit of that day. Not the human capacity for evil, but the National Day of
human capacity for good. Not the desire to destroy, but the impulse to save, and Service and
to serve, and to build. On this first National Day of Service and Remembrance, Remembrance
we can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America -- to serve our
communities, to strengthen our country, and to better our world.

- 100 -
11 Most of all, on a day when others sought to sap our confidence, let us renew our unity
common purpose. Let us remember how we came together as one nation, as one
people, as Americans, united not only in our grief, but in our resolve to stand
with one another, to stand up for the country we all love.
12 This may be the greatest lesson of this day, the strongest rebuke to those who unity
attacked us, the highest tribute to those taken from us -- that such sense of
purpose need not be a fleeting moment. It can be a lasting virtue.
13 For through their own lives –- and through you, the loved ones that they left legacy of those who
behind –- the men and women who lost their lives eight years ago today leave a died
legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness, and that calls on all of us to be
strong and firm and united. That is our calling today and in all the Septembers
still to come.
14 May God bless you and comfort you. And may God bless the United States of ending
America.

- 101 -
3. Obama's 1st UN Address (September 23, 2009)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yea/no

1 Good morning. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies greetings
and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time as the 44th
President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility
that the American people have placed upon me, mindful of the enormous
challenges of our moment in history, and determined to act boldly and
collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.
2 I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot expectations
longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency
around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted,
I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly
defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also
rooted in hope -- the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that
America will be a leader in bringing about such change.
3 I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America anti-Americanism
with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and
misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific
policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted
unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost
reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for
collective inaction.
4 Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and common interest
my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my
deeply held belief that in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human
history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared. The religious
convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or
they can tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or
forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What
happens to the hope of a single child -- anywhere -- can enrich our world, or
impoverish it.
5 In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No cooperation for the
longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the future
work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to
Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it is what I
will speak about today -- because the time has come for the world to move in a
new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual
interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.
6 We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches actions
alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent action. For those who
question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete
actions we have taken in just nine months.
7 On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- ban on torture - the
the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at U.S. to live its
Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a values
framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must
know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.
8 We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to al Qaeda,

- 102 -
 disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies -- a network that Afghanistan,
has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to Pakistan
blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we and many nations THREAT
here are helping these governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this
effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.
9 In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat Iraq
brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our
combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help
Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment
to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.
10 I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without world free of
nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we weapons of mass
would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At destruction
the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end
to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my
Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the
annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
11 Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and Middle East
America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two
states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the
rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.
12 To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy. We climate change and
have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided energy
new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the
Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate
negotiations.
13 To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we economy crisis
worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of
over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We
mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to
developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global
food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help
them build their own capacity.
14 We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have international
joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights initiatives
of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium
Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution -- for
instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on
nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will
discuss today.
15 This is what we have already done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our appeal for
actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in multilateral action
the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America's endeavor.
Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now
stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have
sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now
is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response
to global challenges.
16 Now, if we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up threat
to that responsibility. Consider the course that we're on if we fail to confront the THREAT
status quo: Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world; protracted conflicts

- 103 -
 that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear
weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and
pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The magnitude of
our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions.
17 This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve cooperation
their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his
vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way -- and I quote: "The
structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one
nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations -- or of small nations. It must be a
peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world."
18 The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true United Nations
today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and prosperity that we
hold in common. Yet we also know that this body is made up of sovereign
states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for
sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics
and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to
walk up to this podium and point figures -- point fingers and stoke divisions.
Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves
of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that.
Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more.
19 In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No interconnection of
one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that the world
elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of
power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the
South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do
alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
20 The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are cooperation
irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in
opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this
body, against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us
and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to
come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides --
coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east, west, black,
white, and brown.
21 The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the future
arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to
look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were
against instead of what we were for. Or we can be a generation that chooses to
see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve
the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the
promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.
22 That is the future America wants -- a future of peace and prosperity that we can future, cooperation
only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have
responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be
the guiding principle of international cooperation.
23 Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the goals
future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the
promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global
economy that advances opportunity for all people.
24 First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world nuclear weapons
without them.

- 104 -
25 This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because proliferation
man's capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, THREAT
even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of
proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite
nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror
on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
26 A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the nuclear weapons,
basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all NPT
nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear
weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without
them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next 12 months could be
pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly
dissolve.
27 America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new world free of
agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and nuclear weapons
launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and
work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is
permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens
the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will
call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the
production of fissile material for weapons.
28 I will also host a summit next April that reaffirms each nation's responsibility to secure nuclear
secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can't -- because material
we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent
extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that
combat nuclear smuggling and theft.
29 All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse NPT
to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is THREAT
not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights
of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which
IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will
leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.
30 In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to North Korea, Iran
take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the THREAT
community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to
diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for
both nations if they live up to their obligations.
31 But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international Iran, North Korea
standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability
and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the
dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East
-- then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to
demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will
be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.
32 That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace. pursuit of peace
33 The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live conflicts
their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet
we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction --
a distant dream. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate
constant and crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace
is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

- 105 -
34 That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of conflict,
innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, no one can determination
be -- there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by THREAT
distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but
hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting
partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law
enforcement and protect our people. We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda
to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our
friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support
for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue positive engagement that
builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.
35 Our efforts to promote peace, however, cannot be limited to defeating violent better future
extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human
beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not
destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.
36 And that is why we will support -- we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping
peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take
hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of
Darfur and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that
we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve. And in countries ravaged
by violence -- from Haiti to Congo to East Timor -- we will work with the U.N.
and other partners to support an enduring peace.
37 I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, Middle East
and the Arab world. We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a
constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We
have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on
security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the
Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West
Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on
Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that
America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
38 The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without Middle East
preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and
Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states
living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true
security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with
contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the
potential of the Palestinian people.
39 As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Middle East
Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In
pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral
participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.
40 Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us -- not just the Middle East
Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are serious
about peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service. To break the old
patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly
what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors
when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an
insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.
And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they
choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize
Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security.

- 106 -
41 We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's Middle East, pursuit
not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes of peace
in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by
the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his
own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing,
this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security.
That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of
Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and
false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace.
42 Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless environment
we take responsibility for the preservation of our planet. And I thank the
Secretary General for hosting the subject of climate change yesterday.
43 The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to climate change
meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every THREAT
member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our
efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources.
Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human
beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look
back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on -- why we
failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.
44 And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. energy
We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy,
while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy.
We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set
for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy
and efficiency, and share new technologies with countries around the world.
And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a
cooperative effort with the entire world.
45 And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the responsibility for
20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end environment
there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any
effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters
who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And
any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that
climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean
development simply will not work.
46 It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. I know necessity for action
that. It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will
be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make
this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen,
let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common
future.
47 And this leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global global economy
economy that advances opportunity for all people.
48 The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great crisis, survival
Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, and
yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find
promising signs, but little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many
people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our
humanity -- the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling
water supplies; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease; or a
mother losing her life as she gives birth.

- 107 -
49 In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world's largest economies to chart a course prevention of
for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that another crisis
we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to
rekindle demand so that global recovery can be sustained. And that means
setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial
centers, so that we put an end to the greed and the excess and the abuse that led
us into this disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.
50 At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest, development,
however, in broader questions of development -- the questions of development underdeveloped and
that existed even before this crisis happened. And so America will continue our developing countries
historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to
carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS, to end deaths from tuberculosis and
malaria, to eradicate polio, and to strengthen public health systems. We are
joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health
Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade.
We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's
summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on
the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.
51 Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or global economy
shared unless all nations embrace their responsibilities. And that means that
wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to
those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a
greater voice. And developing nations must root out the corruption that is an
obstacle to progress -- for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are
oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That is why we support honest
police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our
goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity
is available to all.
52 Now, the changes that I've spoken about today will not be easy to make. And people as the most
they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums important for
like this, as useful as that may be. For as in any assembly of members, real change
change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do
the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That's
where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for
peaceful purposes, to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that
can be sustained and shared.
53 I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that values
is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments
reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts --
democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that
I've discussed today, because governments of the people and by the people are
more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than
narrow interests of those in power.
54 The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and true leadership
old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to
muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The
people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on
the wrong side of history.
55 This Assembly's Charter commits each of us -- and I quote -- "to reaffirm faith human rights
in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in
the equal rights of men and women." Among those rights is the freedom to
speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races,

- 108 -
 and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the
ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have
confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be
forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to
accept the tyranny of their own people.
56 As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today hope
without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. And that
guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative
change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice. And I pledge
that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and
their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be
heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.
57 Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society differences all over
must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a the world, but still
path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that universal principles
America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that
does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic truths which are
principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- self-evident
and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for
the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.
58 Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people Franklin Roosevelt
in his fourth and final Inaugural Address. After years of war, he sought to sum
up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering, the enormous
sacrifice that had taken place. "We have learned," he said, "to be citizens of the
world, members of the human community."
59 The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every UN foundation
corner of the world -- from Africa and Asia, from Europe to the Americas. These
architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but
naïve -- it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war; rooted in the wisdom
that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting
apart.
60 Now it falls to us -- for this institution will be what we make of it. The United UN facing problems
Nations does extraordinary good around the world -- feeding the hungry, caring
for the sick, mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to
enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.
61 I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this future UN
institution -- they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can
either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common
ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us
together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In
short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what
matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in
advancing the interests of the people we serve.
62 We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a international
new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and cooperation
responsibilities of all nations. And so, with confidence in our cause, and with a
commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future
that our people so richly deserve.
63 Thank you very much, everybody. ending

- 109 -
4. Obama's State of the Union Address (January 28, 2010)

par text main idea of the

agr paragraph
aph THREAT yes/no

1 Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished beginning

guests, and fellow Americans:

2 Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to State of the Union
Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders Address tradition
have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and
tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments
of great strife and great struggle.

3 It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was challenges in the
inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union history of the
was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, United States
victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday,
and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was
anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our
convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and
disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we
chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

4 Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call. challenge

5 One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe achievements in the
recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply first year
in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act,
we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and
aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

6 But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many crisis
businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural
communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known
poverty, life has become that much harder.

7 This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have crisis
been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for
less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

8 So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These crisis
struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've
witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear
about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those
written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking
when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

9 For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. crisis
Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like
bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or
why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know
we can't afford it. Not now.

- 110 -
10 So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– responsibility
what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work
through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For
while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories,
different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold
are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability
to give their children a better life.

11 You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of hope
adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy
building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school.
They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote
to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

12 It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have hope, determination
never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our
hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not
allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the
American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies
their strength.
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that
promise.

13 It begins with our economy. economy

14 Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that economy, banks
helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has
unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all
hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as
popular as a root canal.

15 But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– action when
I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the necessary
financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More
businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been
lost.

16 So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue financial rescue
program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent program
and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and
we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. Most but not all.

17 To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, I know Wall economy, fee on
Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big banks
bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who
rescued them in their time of need.

18 Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy
economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans
who had become unemployed.

19 That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 employment, health
million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who insurance, tax cuts
get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

- 111 -
20 Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working tax cuts
families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time
homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut
taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

21 I thought I'd get some applause on that one. joke

22 As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other tax cuts
necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't
raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

23 Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working new jobs
right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in
construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education
workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first
responders. And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this
total by the end of the year.

24 The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the the Recovery Act
Recovery Act. That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill.
Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert
disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business
in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the
window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the
Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the
business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by
her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she
wouldn't be laid off after all.

25 There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, economic recovery
the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some
of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are
starting to hire again.

26 But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and jobs still needed
women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next
paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear
nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010,
and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

27 Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's business
businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses
to expand and hire more workers.

28 We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that small businesses
begin when -- -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an
entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she
became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies
have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to
small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio,
you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're
mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small
businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

29 So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street small businesses

- 112 -
 banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the
credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax
credit
-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers
or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on
small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses
and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.

30 Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of infrastructure
tomorrow. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation
has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should
have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy
products.

31 Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a infrastructure
new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like
that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's
goods, services, and information.

32 We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- -- and clean energy
give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which protection of jobs
supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within the United
within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that States
ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs
right here in the United States of America.

33 Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the jobs bill
first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know
they will. They will. People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our
help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

34 But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've jobs
lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a
new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the
problems that America's families have confronted for years.

35 We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the jobs
last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly
than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American
household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record
highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

36 From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is voices that the plans
too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our are too ambitious
political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for
a while.

37 For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should challenge
we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

38 You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the the United States
problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its shall not be on the
economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're second place in the
not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting world
more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure.

- 113 -
 They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those
jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America.

39 As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may to fix problems
become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our
growth.

40 Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in financial reform
punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy
financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new
jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But
that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly
brought down our entire economy.

41 We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information among
information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial the citizens
institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten
the whole economy.

42 Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these financial reform
changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this
fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real
reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right.

43 Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the investment in
largest investment in basic research funding in history -– -- an investment that research
could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells
but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation
than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -–
in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to
make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand
people to work making solar panels.

44 But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more production,
efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, incentives
clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions energy and climate
about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means bill
continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And,
yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives
that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

45 I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I'm energy and climate
eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. bill

46 I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in the U.S. primacy
a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the
overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing --
even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and
clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that
leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global
economy. And America must be that nation.

47 Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we export
make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in
America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the

- 114 -
 next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To
help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help
farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls
consistent with national security.

48 We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If global markets,
America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose trade
the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means
enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's
why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets,
and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like
South Korea and Panama and Colombia.

49 Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. education

50 Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by education
launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is
simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding
the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student
achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around
failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural
communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program
around is a world-class education. And in this country, the success of our
children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

51 When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work education
with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a
high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the
Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community
colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working
families.

52 To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted education - tax
taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that credits
money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and
increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they
graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student
loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after
10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States
of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

53 And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about colleges and
cutting their own costs -– -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help universities
solve this problem. spending

54 Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle child care tax credit
class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on
middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit,
and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a
retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg.
That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment
–- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have
allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of
$1,500 on mortgage payments.

- 115 -
55 This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more health insurance
affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class reform
families that we still need health insurance reform. Yes, we do.

56 Now, let's clear a few things up. I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some healt care
legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I
didn't take on health care because it was good politics. I took on health care
because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions
whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage;
families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from
financial ruin.

57 After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican health care

administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives
of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American
from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small
businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health
care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to
cover preventive care.

58 And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who childhood obesity
this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood
obesity and make kids healthier. Thank you. She gets embarrassed.

59 Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to health care reform
keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for
millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget
Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official
scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as
much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

60 Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical health care reform
people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly
to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-
trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

61 But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished need for health
speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions insurance
will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be
denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage
altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the
people in this chamber.

62 So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've health care reform
proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts
who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the
status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring
down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen
Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me
know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.

63 Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. healt care reform
Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job
for the American people. Let's get it done. Let's get it done.

- 116 -
64 Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig fiscal hole
us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that
makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of
political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by
setting the record straight.

65 At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus budget deficit
of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over
$1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this
was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive
prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3
trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

66 Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I crisis
would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we
took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have
added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

67 I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the government
country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal spending
government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay
for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

68 Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. government
Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social spending
Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs
will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in
what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this
discipline by veto, I will.

69 We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to budget
eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified
$20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our
middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax
cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making
over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.

70 Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the budget deficit
massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why
I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by
Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those
Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The
commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain
deadline.

71 Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this responsibility
commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward,
because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.
And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-
go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

72 Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the government
deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I spending freeze
agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) --

- 117 -
 when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. But understand –-
understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage
our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all
of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family
incomes.

73 From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we no alternatives
just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for
the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on
health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for
eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these
deficits. We can't do it again.

74 Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for investment in
decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without people,
leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens responsibility
who sent us here. Let's try common sense. A novel concept.

75 To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right doubts about
now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington
Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility
gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the
outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the
government they deserve.

76 That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in opened Washington
history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's to renew trust
why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal
boards and commissions.

77 But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact lobby
they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's
time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for
federal office.

78 With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court elections
reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special
interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our
elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's
most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided
by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill
that helps to correct some of these problems.

79 I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. earmark request
Democrats and Republicans.Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some
of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the
public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some
earmark requests online. Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark
requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people
can see how their money is being spent.

80 Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how differences between
we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere Democrats and
fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony and some post-partisan Republicans
era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And

- 118 -
 on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always
cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our
lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking
place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

81 But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is bipartisan
Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see cooperation
who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that
if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just
because they can. The confirmation of -- -- I'm speaking to both parties now.
The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to
the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.

82 Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how political parties
false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such
politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse
yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our
government.

83 So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's elections
an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come
even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

84 To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in responsibility of
decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if both Democrats and
the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are Republicans
required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the
responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may
be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve
our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can
do it together.

85 This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to meetings with
begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I Democrats and
know you can't wait. Republicans

86 Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. defense, unity
Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we
want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the
past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its
defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject
the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's
leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and
forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world.

87 That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed security
our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial THREAT
investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take
American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed
Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our
intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the
Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of
al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been
captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

- 119 -
88 And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security Afghanistan
forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can
begin to come home. We will reward good governance, work to reduce
corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. We're
joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and
who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose.
There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will
succeed.

89 As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. war in Iraq
As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing
as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this
August. We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi
government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi
people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war
is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

90 Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and veterans
around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our
gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in
war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That's
why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last
year. That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has
joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military
families.

91 Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the nuclear weapons
greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've THREAT
embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy
that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To
reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United
States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms
control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit,
we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal:
securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that
they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

92 Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with North Korea, Iran
those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of THREAT
nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and
stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why
the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is
more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there
should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a
promise.

93 That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the secure world
common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 THREAT
to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities
around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have
gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're
helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight
against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the
capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious
disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health

- 120 -
 abroad.

94 As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny U.S. destiny to
is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. stand on the side of
That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with freedom and human
many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That's why we dignity
stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support
the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we
advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America
must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always.

95 Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The unity
same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the
promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal;
that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you
should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be
treated no different than anyone else.

96 We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights civil rights
Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment
discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes
driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally
repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love
because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.

97 We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equalitz
equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing
our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws,
and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy
and enrich our nation.

98 In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us U.S. ideals and
to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values values
that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to
their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their
neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are
generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that
they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

99 Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest distrust in
institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still institutions
reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men
and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time
a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his
own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or
politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith.
The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues
into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

100 No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much cynicism,
disappointment. dissappointment

101 I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan distrust in change
went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they
still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

- 121 -
102 But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I big things and
could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and changes bring about
messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big controversy
changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

103 Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and pragmatism
avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to
keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing
what's best for the next generation.

104 But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 ancestors, future
years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we
are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was
hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it
took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their
grandchildren.

105 Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them spirit of
were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing determination and
compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this optimism
year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all
these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental
decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

106 It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his U.S. pride
company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that
we might fail."

107 It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have U.S. pride
felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

108 It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance U.S. pride
and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

109 And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace U.S. pride
they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble,
prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

110 The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in past and future,
you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a determination
difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We
don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the
dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

111 Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. ending

- 122 -