The Language of Propaganda in President Bush Jr. Political Speech

The study of this article was set out to identify the use of the language of propaganda in Bush’s political speech. It was purposed to clarify the propaganda techniques applied by Bush in order to have one point of view among the audiences. The study focused on how the techniques of propaganda occurred within Bush Jr.’s speech in which he attempted to explain the different sides of who is combating terrorism and who is performing terror. The material of analysis was the speech delivered by Bush Jr. in front of the Military Officers Association of America Meeting in 2006. This article then found that the propagandist tries to control the relationship between information and audiences’ mind through the usage of language in their political speech. It was argued that propaganda can also effectively work toward almost all types of audiences, whereas the strategy of propaganda was mostly creating a fallacious reasoning connection concerning the topics being discussed.


A. Introduction
As commonly known, almost every kind of political activity and language is devoted to creating a favorable image towards the audiences and voter's perception. Then, it is inevitable that politic and language is deliberately designed and crafted to influence audience mind and action (Chomsky, 2004). Propaganda is famous for winning the claim across histories as Powers (2004) put it. It can also be very useful in "winning the battle of ideas" (Payne, 2009), as a tool of "public diplomacy" (Mor, 2007), "democratic alibi" (Chrétien, 2007) or "discursive strategies" (Fremeaux & Albertazzi, 2002).
Prior to this, some studies have been elucidating the importance of political propaganda in language, communication, and rhetorical studies.
Those studies, for instance, examine how propaganda is used to convince, persuade, justify and mobilize people to go for war. For instance, Altheide & Grimes (2005) argue that propaganda is a project to impose war in Iraq, a kind of war programming. In other words, as Kumar (2005) claims, propaganda is best used as part of strategies of information management via media during the war in Iraq.
In addition to what has been researched above, the work of Mhamdi (2017), Whiting (2012), Walton (2007), highlight that propaganda can be detected in media framing and argumentation, discourse, or rhetoric. Albertazzi (2007) moreover argues that propaganda-style is strongly related to political rhetoric when addressing "the people" in endorsing populist themes. Some others believe that propaganda and rhetoric are dealing with the so-called strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). Although they are almost the same, propaganda often linked to pejorative meaning.
When people talk about propaganda, it will connect to something bad. It is similarly seen, as a "weapon of mass seduction" (O'Shaughnessy, 2004).
Nowadays, most people do not realize that propaganda has always been a central element of representative politics. Roughly speaking, propaganda is the game of using language and persuasion  (Jowett & O'donnell, 2018). It is a substance of linguistic strategies in its role. The best way to understand propaganda is to master the language used in it. Propaganda is an organized effort. It has a system of context, target audience and goals. It is all about persuasion methods in changing opinions and attitudes of a large number of people.
Having said that, political speech is one of many examples of spoken discourse where the language of propaganda can operate. Political speeches often used in political communication, democracy, government and society (Lowi, Ginberg and Shepsle, 2008). McCarthy & Carter (2014) classifies speech or speech as a monologue category along with stories and jokes in discourse studies. Then, by referring to what McCarthy says, we can build one simple conclusion that speech is a form of communication that is commonly found in daily human life. Thus, since speeches or more specifically, political speech always works around among society and it occasionally frame how human's mind work toward the particular issue, as Beard (2000, p. 2) says: '…looking at the language of politics as an occupation is important because it helps us to understand how language is used by those who wish to gain power, those who wish to exercise power and those who wish to keep power'.
Moreover, there are many political movements using almost the same efforts to build power through language by the use of political campaigns and another contemning-persuasiveness in order to get supports from audiences. They used propaganda to appeal for massive attention from prospective voters (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 2003).
Propaganda is not a form of communication that simply seeks to inform.
We know that propaganda is not an end in its self but a mean to an end.
By doing so, propaganda can be analyzed to raise the clearest assumption about how these processes work.
This article is therefore interested to examine how the use of the language of propaganda techniques works in President Bush Jr.'s speeches on the Iraq War. One thing remains and needs to be clarified is propaganda is claimed to be working most effectively in "political ideologies" (Stanley, 2015). Accordingly, Shabo (2008) also explains the use and practice of several popular techniques in propaganda and persuasion, such as assertion, bandwagon, card stacking, glittering generalities, false dilemma, the lesser of two evils, name-calling, pinpointing the enemy, plain folk, testimonials, transfers and many more.

C. Method
What we propose to do here is looking at a clear and close analysis of propaganda as a subset of political and rhetorical study (Ietcu-Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, 2013). We will use one of Bush Jr. political speeches when he was discussing "Global War on Terror" at the Military 3) In Focus: National Security.  Secondly, we will apply the selected propaganda techniques adopted from Shabo (2008) to the transcript of Bush speech in order to get the real analysis of using the language of propaganda itself. This article will focus on several selected techniques of using the language of To be noted, we are not going to analyze word by word of the transcript; however, the using of the sentence quotes is more effective to show the main case of the study here. Hence, we will list every sentence of the transcript which is containing propagandistic effects in order to make an easier understanding of the technique itself; and if we finds two or more the used-techniques in one sentence, yet, we will analyze it separately. Meanwhile, based on applying these techniques into the transcript, the study is expected to show that the propaganda will be accepted considerately as the thing that constructed systematically to have great effects beneficial to the speaker or propagandist.
In addition, we will provide the marked transcript of Bush's speech in appendices with coded fonts for each sentence which contains

Findings
This section entirely focuses on how the techniques of manipulating language named propaganda occurred within the speech of Bush; the president of the United State. It will analyze how Bush utilizes the Nine Techniques of Propaganda: Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain folks, Bandwagon, Fear, and Bad Logic.

a. Name Calling
In so many parts of the transcript of Bush's speech, the Name Calling technique can be easily found. For example, the using of the words terrorist, extremist, and enemy. This technique is used to link people or a group of people and its idea to a negative symbol. As seen on how it occurs in Bush speech, this technique is marked by accusation with pejorative labels and its repetition. These two elements are united and they are useful in making the change of opinion and belief of the audiences. For example, when Bush accused that Al Qaeda is a group of terrorists, and he frequently used it in his speech.

1) Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden
The following example Bush provided in his speech was one of the dark histories on the earth by comparing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to the agony created by Hitler. Bush also mentioned some names of groups that he claimed against US foreign policies, such as Mullah Omar of Taliban and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah. That information provided by Bush is really capable in order to make his arguments seem to be more valid. By providing the related information of academic studies such as the histories of Nazi and Soviet communist, it will help to make a standpoint among the audiences that Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda is taking a position of Nazi or Soviet Communist who acted against the democracy.
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them.

166}
In using such words, Bush also provided some definitions of Islam that he categorically claimed that they are against the free world, for example, he used the terms Caliphate and Jihad and provided its meanings and linked it to Al Qaeda's action. However, it might be useful in reconstructing one understanding among the audiences that Islam has a dangerous vision that needs to be measured.

3) Saddam Hussein
In addressing the accusation to the previous leader of Iraq, Bush

b. Glittering Generalities
Glittering Generalities is one of the arts of persuading people.
Generally conceived, this technique is the opposite strategy of the first technique. It is used to connect someone or group to beneficence images or enhances people's position in order to have a comparative statement between goodness and meanness. As a common theme in exploring propaganda, the hidden aim will show the question of which one of the sides you are standing on; our side or against us? (us versus them). In this case, Name Calling and Glittering Generalities techniques are used, in which the speaker encourages the audiences to join with reasonable people and oppose the enemy. Still, Bush used this technique by using a comparative statement, see Table IV.  Bush used the words "coalition partners" and "coalition forces" that sounds so great to fascinate the audiences (members and guests of the Military Officers Association of America). The use of those words is described as the mean to show terrorism action will always face the defiance from many nations wishing to establish a free world. Therefore, what Bush actually intends to deliver in those parts is: "We are friends in defeating terrorism". Thus, based on the explanation what Glittering Generalities means, the usage of many personal pronouns of "we" and the derivatives (us, our, ours), what Bush went on to say as well, such aswe're reasonable people and we are fighting for the peaceful ideas".

c. Transfer
This technique is actually used by the speaker in making some motions that have a great sound; full of something well-respected to draw out enthusiasm from the audiences, even more, including some religious sounds. This is the use of the word such as providing prayer to create a connection between the audiences' minds and what the speaker aims, it means when the speaker delivers his aims and he ended it by prayer as if he is in the way of God-Blessing.
Meanwhile, in the transcript of Bush's speech, this technique can be noticed clearly. For example, Bush said "thank you"; "honored"; and "proud" to create a great feeling in front of the audiences. In his speech, Bush used such words that able to affects and plays audiences emotion that the speaker (Bush Jr) is really a man who is standing on the audiences' side, or even better; fighting for the audiences' rights.

For this, Bush used the transfer technique of propaganda strategy.
This technique is useful in making false connections of the idea in ways of finding something well-respected. Here is his speech, Bush tried to convince the people for those who sent their children to the war that the nation will never forget them and always provide necessaries of their life when they are belonging to the nation.
[23]I'm going to tell the parents of our troops, we provide great health care to those who wear the uniform.

d. Testimonial
In political communication, one frequently sees famous people, for example, a movie actor or politician to endorse the speaker and his ideas.
This technique is to take someone who the audiences "know" even "like", and attempt to transfer the famous peoples' opinion to the audiences. In other words, the user of this technique is to transfer a favorable image of an individual person to the aims of the speaker.
From the start of the speech, the user of this technique can be identified when Bush tried to convince the audiences that he and his ideas [20] The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia From the "three senators", Bush has said that he is an American who actually care about the nation; the terror faced by the people and he will also be supported by the famous and qualified persons of United State senate. At these parts of the speech, the testimonial technique is very useful. It is usually used to clarify the propagandist's position. So that the audience will notice which side the propagandist is standing for and who actually get his back is. Bush tried to justify his ideas by exploiting the performance of those three Senators.

e. Plain Folk
One strategy in propaganda is an attempt to convince the audience that a famous person and his ideas are one of the participants. It is almost similar to the previous technique, but it is more specified. It is not only talking about the individual job but also the ideological foundation of the speaker itself. It seems like exploiting the speaker's position and making a special appeal that the speaker is one of the audiences. Furthermore, in the transcript of Bush Jr's speech appeared in sentence 203: [203] I'm not going to allow this to happen-and no future American president can allow it either. he is going to do to prevent the terrorist actions, but he made a connection within the main goal of terrorist (which is to establish their ideology) and who will be the strongest challenger for the terrorist and what they purpose to establish.

f. Bandwagon
The making of an appeal that "you are not alone" or "everyone else is doing it, so should you", it must be the way how bandwagon technique works. In many cases, it is safe to say that most people prefer to be in the majority. There are at least two reasons, according to Standler (2005) why being in the majority is better: (a). the majority is the winner in elections, and the winner has political power, (b). most people like to be conformist, rather than vulnerable to criticism for being different.
Also, there is some style of bandwagon's strategy that appeared in Bush speech. For example, he made special appeals by clarifying that the goal of the terrorist is not only to defeat America but the terrorist aimed to conquer a civilized world. Bush also declared that America is not alone in fighting terrorists; they have allies to destroy these terrorists. For example: [41] Together with our coalition partners…

g. Fear
Regarding this technique, Bush reminded the audiences about the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. In many sentences of the speech, the words "September 11th" were frequently used by Bush in order to alarm the audiences. From the use of "September 11th", Bush has explicitly invited the audiences' minds to go way back to the death day of September 11th. Bush provoked the audiences of the day when the Americans were attacked by terrorists and also declared that America is at war.
[40]We're a nation at war --and America and her allies are fighting this war with relentless determination across the world.
In case to create the real scary image, Bush also used some quotes of the terrorist statement, for example, he quoted Bin Laden's words and explored the main goals and horrible action of execution by al Qaeda.
[62]Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare --a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, girls could not go to school, and children have forbidden the smallest pleasures like flying kites.
[63]Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for perceived offenses.
[65]Summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs.
[66]And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world --including many Muslim nations.

h. Bad Logic
Bad Logic is an illogical message is not necessarily propagandistic; it can be just a logical mistake; it is called as propaganda if logic is manipulated deliberately to promote a cause. In many parts of his speech, Bush has frequently re-explained that the ideology of the enemies is driven by radical's vision of Islam. Bush accomplished the accusation that the ideology of terrorists is the perverted idea of Islam. In this case, Bush has deliberately manipulated the logic of Islamic Studies to promote a cause of the terrorist attacks.
[54]They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power.

Discussion
The analysis provided here relate to the close-reading of how the techniques of propaganda adapted from Shabo (2008)  In this article, we determined that the statements and any provision of the evidence in the speech involve belief, opinions, norms, and behalf-assessments on the values of a social group. In other words, tasks and goals lead to a selected social group of ideological criteria for judgment representing self-performance of a group, aims, and norms. In other words, it may raise the standard meaning between good and evil by using the language of propaganda.
On a practical level, this article informs the importance of the language of propaganda within the extensive context of communication, especially in political settings. This article also serves as a confirmation that the use of language as propagandists' tool to persuade people is extensively growing and it has also gained international interests as the world is embracing new ways of making war and not peace. Divisive arguments and contrasting ideologies are at the stake of politicians who abuse language to manufacture the consent of the people to go for war and to display enemy images (Vuorinen, 2012).
The simple presence of the current study suggests that the language of propaganda can be used in either an explicit or implicit approach. For President Bush Jr, winning the heart of his military personnel is absolutely essential before winning the war abroad in Iraq, as Payne (2009) suggests. In his speech context, name-calling and glittering

E. Conclusion
Finally, it can be concluded that there are some centrals of human thinking that become targets of propaganda. It has different roles in persuading the audiences as well as changing the audiences' beliefs and ideas. These targets generally formed as the way the audiences hold the beginning information of political issues and responsive acts toward the early information of the issue itself. Both the beginning information and responsive acts toward the early information have donated the greatest ideas to the political system to take necessary actions in dominating the audiences' minds. The input and output of the audiences or other political environments have become bases of the political system's actions, it is because the political system could not stand to work or exist by itself. The central element in propagandist inducements, as opposed to compulsion on the one side, and payment, or bribery on the other; is that they depend on 'communication' rather than concrete penalties or rewards. But if its owner (propagandist) shouts at it in a threatening manner, or tries to coax it with winning words, then the word begins to become appropriate. It might be acceptable whereas propaganda is one of the social sciences which is a part of rhetorical arts in communication.
People may consider that propaganda necessarily presents a biased view Furthermore, this analysis is expected to contribute to the body of knowledge in the study of language and propaganda by using this closereading approach on a focused, specific topic and political speech to the benefit a language can eventually transform into serious action, like going for war. The more varied propaganda techniques used in the language of the political speech, then the greater and the quicker impacts of persuasion to go for war, and even more devastating than one could probably think about, the real impact of war itself. For other researchers focusing on this field of study, it is hoped that it would become a base of analyzing the power of using the substantial arts of rhetorical study; and eventually finding an easier way to understand political communication based on the contextual study of discourse analysis.