2009:038

BACHELOR THESIS

Linguistic features in
political speeches
- how language can be used to impose certain moral or ethical
values on people

Lena Kulo

Luleå University of Technology

Bachelor thesis
English
Department of Language and Culture

2009:038 - ISSN: 1402-1773 - ISRN: LTU-CUPP--09/038--SE

Abstract

The topic of this essay is the way in which strategies of persuasion in political speeches can be used
to impose certain moral or ethical values on people. The aim of the study is to elucidate implicit
statements in the language of politics seeing that political speeches are not primarily prosperous
because they are correct or true, instead, it may be more dependent on how valid the arguments
seem. Two speeches during the American presidential campaign of 2008 are analyzed: one speech
by the Democratic president candidate Mr. Barack Obama and one by the Republican candidate Mr.
John McCain. The audience is American military veterans and the speeches concern the American
forces in Iraq. The method of analysis was to locate expressions where linguistic choices seem to
have been made in order to convey certain views. The following rhetorical strategies were analyzed:
metaphors, metonymies, analogies, pronouns, the active or passive voice of transitive verbs, sound-
bites, three-part lists and contrastive pairs. It is argued in this essay that both speakers use rhetorical
strategies to convey their ideas of morality and their views of the war in Iraq. McCain’s main
argument is that the war in Iraq is right and should continue while Obama argues that the war in
Iraq is wrong. However, war in itself is not wrong, hence the right war ought to be fought
somewhere else according to Obama. The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that it is
important to be aware of how politicians use rhetorical strategies in order to convince an audience
of the rectitude of war.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1 Language influences of political speeches..........................................................1
1.2 Aim......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Method and material............................................................................................2

2 Background.................................................................................................................3
2.1 Politicians and rhetoric........................................................................................3
2.2 Metaphors............................................................................................................3
2.3 Metonymies.........................................................................................................4
2.4 Analogies.............................................................................................................5
2.5 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites.........................................................................6
2.6 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs...................................................................7

3 Presentation and Analysis...........................................................................................9

3.1 Remarks by John McCain to the Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(VFW) April 7, 2008. ...............................................................................................9
3.1.1 Metaphors.....................................................................................................9
3.1.2 Metonymies and analogies.........................................................................11
3.1.3 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites................................................................12
3.1.4 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs..........................................................14
3.2 Remarks of Senator Obama: A Sacred Trust Kansas City, MO August 21, 2007.
.................................................................................................................................16
3.2.1 Metaphors...................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Metonymies and analogies.........................................................................17
3.2.3 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites................................................................18
3.2.4 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs..........................................................20
3.3 Comparison between the speeches....................................................................21

4. Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................24

List of references.........................................................................................................25

Appendix 1 John McCain's speech..............................................................................26

Appendix 2 Barack Obama's speech...........................................................................32

1 Introduction
1.1 Language influences of political speeches

Citizens of democratic countries have the option to go to the ballot boxes on election days and
vote for one person or one party. Whether their decision goes along with a political conviction
or not, it is most likely based on communication through language. Charteris-Black (2005)
states that ”[w]ithin all types of political system, from autocratic, through oligarchic to
democratic; leaders have relied on the spoken word to convince others of the benefits that
arise from their leadership” (Charteris-Black 2005: 1).

By studying language in circumstances where all its functions and variations are taken into
consideration, it is possible to learn more about how perceptions, convictions and identities
are influenced by language. In political speeches during election campaigns, ideas and
ideologies need be conveyed through language so that they are agreed upon by the receivers
as well as by others who may read or hear parts of the speech afterwards in the media. Words
and expressions are used or omitted to affect meaning in different ways. Moreover, political
speeches are composed by a team of professional speech writers, who are educated in the use
of persuasive language. Adding rhetorical devices to a pre-composed speech may be of crucial
importance to election results. A political speech is not necessarily a success because of
correctness or truth, rather it may be a matter of presenting valid arguments (Beard 2000: 18).

This essay will look at how two American presidential candidates try to accomplish
persuading an audience to support their political opinions. Are there words or expressions
suggesting that a speaker may wish to emphasize certain views and policies while concealing
others? Are there inflections or paragraphs appearing as if they were picked out selectively in
order to affect meaning? More specifically, how do they use language to make the audience
assent? The controversial topic is intended for pointing out their need of persuasiveness and
the impact linguistic choices may have because of the context (Charteris-Black 2005: 4).

1.2 Aim

The aim of this study is to examine and expose implicit statements in the language of politics
and to detect examples of linguistic strategies that impose moral or ethical values on people.

1
1.3 Method and material

Two speeches during the American presidential campaign of 2008 were studied: one speech
by the Democratic president candidate Mr. Barack Obama and one by the Republican
candidate Mr. John McCain. When the speeches were made, both candidates were running
their campaigns for one of the world's most powerful positions. Disregarding the reasons why
they strove for power, this study looked at how they attempted to communicate leadership and
obtain credit with the use of language.

Each speech concerned the American forces in Iraq and addressed American military veterans.
The speeches were chosen because the topic and the audience place the two candidates
juxtaposed and contrasted in a number of ways. To begin with, the forthcoming President of
the USA will determine whether American forces should be retained in or withdrawn from
Iraq. In addition, the President is also Commander in Chief. Thus, the outcome of this election
has implications for the citizens of the USA and certainly for this audience. These listeners
have actually been in Iraq or on other foreign missions, and they may be asked to go there or
elsewhere again. Therefore, the arguments needed more validity than if they were presented to
an audience unacquainted with the issue.

The method of analysis was to locate words, sentences or paragraphs where it appeared as if
linguistic choices had been made to depict ideas and concepts in certain ways. The following
rhetorical strategies were analyzed: metaphors, metonymies, analogies, pronouns, the active
or passive voice of transitive verbs, sound-bites, word-repetition, three-part lists and
contrastive pairs. Further strategies were excluded in order to limit the essay. The speeches
were analyzed separately as well as comparatively.

2
2 Background
2.1 Politicians and rhetoric

Charteris-Black (2005) argues that successful speakers, especially in political contexts, need
to appeal to attitudes and emotions that are already within the listeners. When the listeners
perceive that their beliefs are understood and supported, the speaker has created connections
to the policy that they wish to communicate. When putting forward arguments a speaker has
to communicate at an emotional level and take standpoints that seem morally correct.
Furthermore, the listener must perceive that the arguments are relevant for the issue. This
cannot be done solely by lexical means although linguistic performance is the most important
factor (Charteris-Black 2005: 10).

According to Charteris-Black (2005), the effect of rhetorical strategies in political speeches is

often a result of them being combined. Therefore, it is as interesting to look at the interaction
of various strategies as it is to look at each one separately (Charteris-Black 2005: 11). Jones
and Wareing (1999) argue that the ability to convey the message that speaker and listener
want the same thing plays a decisive role in the process of establishing an ideology (Jones &
Wareing 1999: 34). To achieve a sense of congruence between audience and speaker,
politicians often make use of symbols to foster national unity (Ball & Peters 2000: 81).

2.2 Metaphors

Metaphors are linguistic symbols which give concrete labels to abstract ideas. This is possible
because of the perceived similarity between objects and concepts as regards particular
features that one wants to convey. The SUNSHINE of a smile is an example of a metaphor,
where it is understood that a smile brings out the same feelings of warmth and well-being as
sunshine does.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) hold that the conceptual system of human beings is metaphorical.
Metaphors are not merely linguistic instruments. They actually permeate perception, thought
and behavior (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 3). Common metaphors in politics come from the
domains of sports and war. Simultaneously, political campaigns can be seen as actions of war,
although the military actions are in the shape of arguments. In Western societies, the two

3
concepts 'argument' and 'war' are generally understood as being closely connected in spite of
the fact that they are different types of matters (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 5).

When talking about real war, however, there are a number of conventions that limit what can
be said, hence the usage of language plays a decisive role (Lakoff 1991). Lakoff (1991) states
that a whole system of metaphors was used to justify the first war in the Gulf. First and
foremost, THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor was at work, where the state was conceptualized
as a person, the land-mass its home, economic wealth its well-being and strength its military
force. In this sense, WAR can be presented as a fight between two people fitting the scenario of
THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor, including an evil villain, who has committed a
crime, an innocent victim and an honorable hero. Lakoff (1991) argues that former President
Bush used two variants of this FAIRY TALE structure to explain the situation in the Gulf. The
first was a Self-Defence Setting, where Iraq was the villain and the US was the hero, the US
and other industrialized nations were the victims and the crime was a death threat to the
economic health of these nations. The second explanation was a Rescue Setting, where Iraq
was the villain, the US the hero, Kuwait was the victim and the crime was kidnap and rape.
The latter eventually became the government's moral justification of going to war, since the
American people did not accept the first explanation, because it traded lives for oil (Lakoff
1991).

Lakoff (1991) stresses the importance of looking systematically not only at what metaphors
represent, but at what they conceal. Hidden in THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor are the
economic, religious and class divergences within a country. The two metaphors WAR IS
POLITICS (WITH ADDITION OF VIOLENCE) and POLITICS IS BUSINESS hide ethical and moral
aspects, because war is presented solely in its political or financial meanings, where ”costs”
are government costs for weapons, military salaries, training, health care, life insurances and
”gains” are the objectives of a government's policy. The WAR IS VIOLENT CRIME metaphor
reveals different types of gains and costs. In this definition, ”gains” are lives or freedom from
oppression and ”costs” are suffering, injuries and death (Lakoff 1991).

2.3 Metonymies

A metonymy is when an idea or a concept is replaced by a single word or feature that is

connected to it. The foundation of metonymies is conceptual as is also the case with

4
metaphors (Gibbs 1993: 259). They can be useful in political speeches as they reduce or
increase responsibility. For instance, using the metonymy The White House instead of the
President's name reduces the President's personal responsibility (Beard 2000: 26). In contrast,
the personal responsibility is increased by using a ruler of a state's name when referring to the
government or all the citizens in a country. Subsequently, “[t]he boundary between leader and
nation is removed so that the views of the leader become the voice of the nation” (Charteris-
Black 2005: 175). During World War II, Churchill served as a metonymy for a righteous and
heroic Britain (Charteris-Black 2005: 35). In both Gulf crises the name Saddam Hussein was
often used to refer to Iraq. Lakoff (1991) calls this THE RULER STANDS FOR THE STATE
metonymy, where one person gets the role of the villain fitting THE FAIRY TALE metaphor
(Lakoff 1991). According to Charteris-Black (2005), when the government of George W. Bush
formulated a response to the September 11 attacks, the THE RULER STANDS FOR THE STATE
metonymy was used and contributed in justifying what eventually led to the invasion of Iraq
in April 2003. This was rendered possible in part by connecting the abstract noun terrorism
with the proper noun Iraq as “Iraq was specifically picked out as the prototype of a state that
'sponsored terrorism'” (Charteris-Black 2005: 175). Additional reinforcement was made by
comparing Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler.

2.4 Analogies

Analogies, where contemporary situations are compared with historical events or myths are
common features in political speeches. Ideas and concepts are intended to be clarified in an
analogy by comparing them with supposedly well-known phenomena (Beard 2000: 27).
Analogies may be used to support an argument, if, for instance, real examples or precedents
are close in time or if it is an extremely sensitive issue (Charteris-Black 2005: 4). Charteris-
Black (2005) claims that during the Civil Rights movement, a characteristic of Martin Luther
King's speeches, was drawing analogies between the situation of the African Americans and
the oppression of the Hebrews in Egypt (Charteris-Black 2005: 68). In these analogies, King
managed to merge biblical time with present time and create a moral vision comprising all
Americans in a new American national identity free from ethnic segregation. In King's
speeches, biblical situations served as prototypes for contemporary circumstances, including
the messianic myth of King himself (Charteris-Black 2005: 61). This illustrates how powerful
the use of analogies can be. Moreover, according to Lakoff (1991), the American government
described the first Gulf crisis by analogy with World War II and Saddam Hussein as an

5
abominable and insane fascist analogous to Hitler. However, there is no evidence that Saddam
Hussein was irrational, nor that Kuwait was an innocent victim. Kuwait and Kuwaitis had
profited from the war between Iran and Iraq. Moreover, Kuwait had drilled oil from Iraqi
territory, while holding oil prices down by overproducing oil, further complicating the
stressed economic situation in Iraq, which was on the verge of bankruptcy. The rich Kuwait
imported cheap labor from other Moslem countries and its government was an oppressive
monarchy. Consequently, the country was disapproved of by many Arabs. Elements like these
were concealed when Kuwait was presented as an innocent victim and Saddam Hussein/Iraq
as an evil villain (Lakoff 1991).

2.5 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites

Linguistic elements are clearly not used for clarification reasons only, on the contrary, they
may be used to conceal elements in a situation. As is also the case with metonymies, the use
of pronouns may tell us a lot about how much responsibility a speaker wants to assume for an
idea. Pronouns are words substituting for nouns or noun phrases (Beard 2000: 24). The first
person singular pronoun I, for instance, clearly declares who is responsible while the first
person plural pronoun we makes the status of responsibility more unclear (Jones & Wareing
1999: 46). First person plural pronouns in the introduction of a speech aim at an appeal to the
sharing of interests between speaker and audience (Charteris-Black 2005: 4). According to
Charteris-Black (2005), the first person plural pronoun was effectively taken into use by
Winston Churchill when he described Britain's military politics as if they were his personal
views (Charteris-Black 2005: 34). Furthermore, to what degree a speaker wants to be related
to various ideas may also be shown by putting sentences in the active or passive voice. The
active voice demands an actor, or an active subject, while the actor does not have to be
mentioned in a sentence with passive voice (Beard 2000: 30). Charteris-Black (2005)
exemplifies this when he quotes Bill Clinton using the passive voice of the transitive verb
tear in the statement: “All over the world people are being torn asunder by racial, ethnic and
religious conflicts that fuel fanaticism and terror” (Charteris-Black 2005: 125). In this quote,
the responsible actors are not animate but “racial, ethnic and religious conflicts”. In a later
speech, Clinton combined the first person plural possessive pronoun our, with the active voice
of the same transitive verb. “Our purpose must be to bring together the world around freedom
and democracy and peace and to oppose those who would tear it apart” (Charteris-Black
2005: 125). In this statement the 'tearing apart' is done by animate actors, 'those who'. Thus, in

6
both statements it is implicitly stated that the ones who are responsible for the 'tearing apart'
and 'tearing asunder' are others than Clinton himself and that the ones who 'must' do the
'bringing together' include himself.

The two statements are interesting because they could serve as sound-bites as well. A sound-
bite is a short piece from a speech usually sent to media so that it can be reported as quickly
as possible. The sound-bite is chosen because it will sum up the content of a longer paragraph
in fewer words, suitable for a headline (Beard 2000: 37). The words (lexis) and the word-
order (syntax) in sound-bites are usually adjusted by the speech writers or politicians in ways
to make them suit each other. Consequently, the arguments are conveyed in sound-bites
because the sound-bites are easy to memorize. Sound-bites communicate clarity and self-
confidence, especially significant in issues like war, where a leader must find ways to
persuade the audience to support a particular policy. A sound-bite in conjunction with the
pronoun we communicates unity within the party as well as unity with the audience
(Charteris-Black 2005: 5-6).

2.6 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs

In order to be persuasive, political speeches concerning real war need to communicate

righteousness. Jones and Wareing (1999) argue that ”repeating certain phrases contributes
towards making the ideas contained in them seem 'common sense'” (Jones & Wareing 1999:
39). In long speeches word-repetition can be used to hold the speech together, but also to
emphasize moral values (Beard 2000: 39). A particular variant of repetition is the so-called
three-part lists, when new ideas or pieces of information are presented in three parts (Beard
2000: 38). According to Charteris-Black (2005), the first part is supposed to initiate an
argument, the second part emphasizes or responds to the first and the third part is a
reinforcement of the first two and a sign that the argument is completed, assisting the
audience by suggesting when it is appropriate to applaud. The three parts are significant in
speeches, because they follow a traditional social behavior in the western world (Charteris-
Black 2005: 6). Furthermore, in Western societies the number three is an important cultural
element: the Holy Trinity, the Three Kings and Lucky Number Three, to mention just a few.
Famous three-part quotes are the motto from the French Revolution liberté, égalité, fraternité
and Churchill's blood, sweat and tears (even though Churchill actually said blood, toil, tears
and sweat). Jones and Wareing (1999) refer to Goodman, who notes the redundancy of

7
“'triads, threes and eternal triangles' in cultures from all around the world” (Jones & Wareing
1999: 44). Presenting statements in groups of three is particularly appealing, thus, political
speakers use three-part lists to augment their arguments.

In addition, contrasts or antithesis are used to point out a difference between two ideas or a
difference in time; as in between then and now by stating what something is and then
contrasting it with what it is not (Beard 2000: 39). Charteris-Black (2005) argues that a
rhetorical strategy of President George W. Bush has been to describe the US as synonymous
with the civilized world in contrast to Iraq and sometimes also other Arab countries. The latter
are instead portrayed as associated with terrorism and so-called outlaw regimes. The implicit
statement is that the US and the civilized world operate according to a legal and righteous law
in contrast to other nations which are linked to criminal actions (Charteris-Black 2005: 181ff).
A similar rhetorical strategy can be found in Bill Clinton's second statement, quoted above.
Furthermore, this statement illustrates how a three-part list freedom and democracy and peace
in interaction with a contrastive pair Our purpose [...] bring together the world (We + positive
verb) - those who tear it apart (They + negative verb) communicate a morally correct
standpoint and how righteousness can be stressed by stating its opposite. This exemplifies the
importance of ethics, if a leader wants to convince a people of the rectitude of going to war.

8
3 Presentation and Analysis

The presentation is divided into three main sections. First, each speech is analyzed separately
and then there follows a comparison of the two speeches. In each section quotes exemplifying
the rhetorical strategies presented in chapter two are analyzed and discussed. However, both
speakers often combine two or more strategies. Therefore, one quote may be parsed from the
point of view of more than one strategy. In order to limit the essay, the examples of rhetorical
strategies are restricted in number.

3.1 Remarks by John McCain to the Members of the Veterans of Foreign

Wars (VFW) April 7, 2008.
Full speech available in Appendix 1.

3.1.1 Metaphors

The main rhetorical strategy used by McCain is metaphors and the main metaphorical concept
that underlies many of his arguments is what Lakoff (1995) calls THE STRICT FATHER
MORALITY. Lakoff (1995) argues that this view of morality derives from a common
conservative ideal model of what a family should be. According to this view, the parent knows
what is best for the child. Morality has to be taught to the child by punishing immoral
behavior and praising moral behavior. Subsequently, the ideal family model is extended to
concern nations where the parent is equivalent to the leader of the nation, or one nation is
understood as the leader of other nations (Lakoff 1995).

The first quote is an example of THE STATE AS A PERSON and THE STATE IS A LEADER
metaphor; “...our nation showed its strength, and its deep sense of global responsibility.” In this quote,
the U.S. is presented as if it is a person who has strength and a sense of morality, similar to
the way a person has muscles and a mind. This sense of morality stretches as far as around the
world. Consequently, THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor is extended and becomes THE STATE
IS A LEADER metaphor. In addition, the nation is not just a leader of its citizens; it is a global
leader, THE USA IS THE MORAL LEADER metaphor.

The next quote reveals the speaker's view of Iraq. “Our goal is [...] an Iraq that can stand on its
own...” Iraq is portrayed as an immature person who needs to be brought up in order to stand

9
on its own in the same fashion as a child needs to be disciplined according to THE STRICT
FATHER MORALITY. McCain claims in this statement that the goal of the occupation is
independence of the occupied. Implicit values are manifested in this assertion as if
independence is a natural outcome of oppression and obedience. In addition, it is a certain
kind of independence, one that complies with the occupier's (the U.S. government) demands.

The specific demands are the safety and security of the U.S. This can be understood from the
next quote; “...America's future security [---] keep our country safe.” The war is explained as
keeping America safe from being attacked. However, there are no comments on how America
was threatened by Iraq in the first place. The speaker relies on unspoken presuppositions that
America was threatened by an Iraqi government who might have been in possession of
nuclear weapons, who might have had intimate contacts with terrorists, hostile towards the
U.S. and who might have been involved in the September 11 attacks. In actuality, this
information has never been confirmed.

However, it fits THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor as do the following arguments
that America is in fact helping Iraq; “...to protect another people's freedom and our own country from
harm. [---] ...and helping another people achieve peace and self-determination.” The implicit statement
in these quotes is that, along with THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor, the American
soldiers are heroes who are helping the Iraqi citizens who are victims of the evil villain: first
Saddam Hussein and his government, then his supporters who are terrorists and insurgents.
The peace that is to be achieved refers to a peace among the Iraqi people. Although there were
protests by groups of Iraqi citizens against their regime, there was not a civil war in Iraq when
the American government gave the orders to attack Iraq. The self-determination that McCain
wishes the new government of Iraq and the Iraqi citizens to attain derives from THE STRICT
FATHER MORALITY. According to this view, moral strength is achieved through self-discipline
to act morally and self-denial of immoral behavior (Lakoff 1995).

In the following quote THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor is combined with a
JOURNEY metaphor and additionally stressed by a three-part list; “...we have before us a hard
road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just.” Here, McCain conveys an assurance of the
action (war) to be purposeful, similar to the way a journey has a destination. The purpose is of
a particular kind, it is a good and moral purpose and therefore the actors (America/the
American soldiers) are heroes.

10
To portray the war as if it is a gamble brings about thoughts of winning or losing money.
While money represents a form of security, gambling represents a form of excitement. This is
an example of the GAMBLE metaphor in combination with THE USA IS THE MORAL LEADER
metaphor and a three-part list. “Our most vital security interests are at stake in Iraq. The stability of
the entire Middle East, [...] is at stake. The United States' credibility as a moral and political leader is at

stake.” In addition, if something is at stake, there have already been bets placed. Therefore, a
withdrawal will result in losing these bets and as long as you stay in the game there are
chances of winning. The gambling excitement overshadows the fact that the bets that are
placed are real lives and not just lives of soldiers, but lives of ordinary people who may never
have wanted war of any kind, not between nations and not within their nation.

3.1.2 Metonymies and analogies

McCain does not use metonymies to a great extent in this speech. However, one is the
recurring name of the military General Petraeus. “By giving General Petraeus [...] the time and
support necessary to succeed in Iraq...” The general's name personifies the American forces and
brings to mind a fatherly figure that marches along with loyal followers towards victory
(success in Iraq). Simultaneously, it reduces the President's responsibility and conceals the
fact that the American forces are soldiers trained to kill with weapons and bombs.

Charteris-Black (2005) argues that Winston Churchill became a metonymy for Britain during
World War II (Charteris-Black 2005: 34). However, when McCain uses Winston Churchill's
name in the speech, the implication is that he wants to persuade the audience that this war is
analogous to World War II. “"Never despair," Winston Churchill once said. And we did not despair.
We were tested, and we rose to the challenge.” According to Charteris-Black (2005), Churchill
created a heroic myth with rhetorical means in which Britain and its allies were presented as
forces of good in opposition to Germany which was referred to as forces of evil. The principal
argument in Churchill's myth was ”that Britain was not fighting purely for national self-
interest but was the embodiment of forces of good that would rescue mankind in general from
tyranny and barbarism” (Charteris-Black 2005: 34). McCain wants the audience to feel that
they are forces of good and the war in Iraq is rescuing the world from evil, similar to how the
world was “saved” during World War II. The analogy suits THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR
metaphor.

11
An example of a subtle analogy to previous wars is presented in the following quote: “We
could retreat from Iraq and accept the horrible consequences of our defeat.” The argument is that a
retreat from Iraq is negative. It draws an analogy to earlier wars and defeats in history which
have had horrible consequences for the losers. Without mentioning a particular war or time, it
brings to mind the debated retreat from the first Gulf war. McCain proposes that a retreat
equals a defeat and does not leave open to discussion whether a retreat could be more
beneficial to both countries than a maintaining of the occupation. Furthermore, the analogy
conceals the possibility that a withdrawal from Iraq can be seen as an attempt to stop the
violence and to put an end to the suffering of numerous people. Another war that comes to
mind is the Vietnam War and Iraq has also been described as another Vietnam. This analogy
reinforces McCain's personal involvement in that he was in fact wounded in Vietnam himself.

3.1.3 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites

In the following quote the first person singular pronoun, I, works in combination with the
analogy to the Vietnam War: “I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our
mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who

defend us.” In addition, the three-part list is framing the argument so that the listener
understands that the sentences belong together. The first I, draws attention to the fact that the
speaker himself was wounded in the Vietnam War. The second I, reinforces the mutual
understanding between speaker and audience. The Vietnam War was also much debated, just
as the war in Iraq is and has been. After returning home, the soldiers were seen as heroes by
some while others saw them as killers. The third I, summarizes the first two in a punch line
that appeals to the emotions of the audience.

The following quote further exemplifies how the use of first person pronouns denotes
personal experience and involvement. “From June 2007 through my most recent trip last month,
sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of

coalition forces fell by 70 percent.” In this example, the first person possessive pronoun, my, is
evidence that the speaker himself has actually been in the war zone and by the words most
recent, it is understood that he has been there more than once. The omission of a source hints
that the information is pure facts and not someone’s interpretation of certain data. The implicit
message is that the American forces are not involved in the so-called sectarian and ethnic
violence. However, no evidence is presented in the speech that supports the claim that the
presence of the American forces in Iraq in actuality has caused a decrease in violence. The
12
first person pronoun emphasizes personal involvement and responsibility that is supposed to
give credit to the speaker as a leader.

Similar to pronouns, the voice of transitive verbs may be useful when speakers want to
indicate to what degree they want to be connected with an idea. Transitive verbs are mainly
put in the active voice throughout the speech. The difference between the active and the
passive voice involves not only the verb phrase but also the clause as a whole. The following
example focuses on the clause as a whole and not on the active voice of the transitive verb
bring. “Four years of a badly-conceived military strategy had brought us almost to the point of no
return.” The actor of the sentence is not an animate object but instead it is four years of badly-
conceived military strategy. The construction of this sentence allows the speaker to implicitly
criticize President George W. Bush who was responsible for this military strategy. In addition,
it is implicitly stated that the war should continue until it is won. The phrase the point of no
return suggests that there are no other options, at least not any good ones. The pronoun us
refers to America or the American forces. In this quote, it seems as if the Americans,
including the speaker, are victims of the military strategy, when in fact they are the ones who
are acting it out and the speaker supports a continuance.

The next quote contains the passive voice of the transitive verbs tell and lead and omission of
the agent. “Many […] had their tours extended longer than they were initially told. Others […] returned
to combat sooner than they had been led to expect.” The omission of the agent makes it possible to
avert focus from who is responsible for the action (war). Implicitly, it is suggested that the
villain (Saddam Hussein and terrorists in Iraq) is responsible for the war, since it was stated
before that America is in Iraq by reason of altruism. Many and others refer to the soldiers.
They are portrayed as passive victims of the action.

The picture that McCain presents of the soldiers as being passive victims of the war goes
along with the main argument of the speech which can be summarized by the following
sound-bites; “...we must put the nation's interests before our own ambitions. [---] ...our country's
interests before every personal or political consideration.” The sound-bites include the first person
plural pronoun, we, and the possessive pronoun, our, suggesting a sharing of interest between
the speaker and the listeners. The nation is presented with THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor
as if America were a person who has interests and as if the government and the citizens of
America were one entity. In this case the nation/person is the parent in accordance with THE
13
STRICT FATHER MODEL, and since the parent knows what is best for the family (the country),
these interests should come before the interests of the children (the citizens). McCain argues
that the war is a factual situation that must be dealt with by the ones who know best (the
American government) and not as a situation that can or should be debated or questioned.

3.1.4 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs

The argument that the war in Iraq is a factual situation that ought to be fought and won under
any circumstances is repeated throughout the speech. This section exemplifies arguments in
favor of the war conveyed using three-part lists and contrastive pairs.

The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the
progress we have managed to make in the last year in preventing the worst from happening in Iraq,
of the very serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a hasty, reckless, and
irresponsible withdrawal.

In the first three-part statement progress is contrasted with what would happen if it were not
to be allowed, namely very serious difficulties and grave consequences. This indicates that the
war is a positive development in opposition to a withdrawal, which is negative and in fact
irresponsible. In the next three-part list the same argument is put forward in an appeal to the
altruism of the audience, stating that a withdrawal is equivalent to abandonment. “Instead of
abandoning Iraq to civil war, genocide, and terror, and the Middle East to the destabilizing effects of these

consequences, we changed strategies.” Note also that the names Iraq and the Middle East occur in
the same sentence as civil war, genocide, and terror, as if they naturally belong together. In
the following quote, however, words with connotations to altruism and compassion are
combined with the first person plural pronoun we, as if this is a natural combination. In
addition, the rhetoric in this quote has a repeated word pattern similar to Martin Luther King’s
famous “I have a dream” speech.

We owe them compassion, knowledge and hands-on care in their transition to civilian life. We
owe them training, rehabilitation and education. We owe their families, parents and caregivers
our concern and support.

The quote consists of three statements containing three-part lists held together by repetition of
the first person plural pronoun we and the verb owe. According to Salkie (1995), coherence
can be achieved by repeating key words. There are two methods to classify a key word. One is
that a paragraph could lose its sense if a key word was not repeated. Another is that key words
are usually included if the paragraph were to be summarized (Salkie 1995: 4). In this quote
the key words are we owe. The first person plural pronoun, we, indicates (yet again) that the
American government and its citizens are one entity, corresponding with the arguments in the

14
sound-bites. Lakoff (1995) argues that the idea of owing something to someone else is a
metaphorical concept in the minds of human beings where human interaction is
conceptualized as transactions and morality is understood in terms of accounting (Lakoff
1995). The argument in this quote is that the military veterans have given something to their
country when they risked their lives and health in order to protect America. Hence, America is
obliged to pay for this gift, according to the ideas of moral accounting.

In the next quote, the past is contrasted with the present. In addition, it is a contrastive pair of
defeat and success. “But there is no doubt about the basic reality in Iraq: we are no longer staring into
the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.” The argument is put
forward that there was a time before when the war in Iraq was about to fail and failure is
analogous to falling into a precipice, whereas now there is a high probability of a favorable
outcome. Simultaneously, the war is represented as if it has the figure of a person who used to
look down, giving an image of a depressed body expression, but now it looks forward and the
image of a prosperous and excited person comes to mind. These images conceal the real
situation in Iraq which is fear, poverty and suffering for numerous people.

The last quote is a contrastive pair combined with a three-part list and the first person singular
pronoun I.

I hold my position on Iraq not because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by this war but
because I detest war, and believe sincerely that should we fail in Iraq we will face an even sterner
test in the very near future, an even harder war, with even greater sacrifice and heartbreaking loss
than we have suffered over the last five years.

This is a convincing line of argument, where the impression is that the speaker is truly
expressing both personal and strong convictions, conceived by rhetorical strategies such as
the first person singular pronoun I. Moreover, it presents an image of the speaker as if he is
willing to take risks, even the risk of losing the possibility of becoming President. This is a
highly valued trait, according to the GAMBLE metaphor. In addition, it suggests the firm and
well considered policy which a leader of authority is assumed to have, corresponding to THE
STRICT FATHER MORALITY. This view of morality supports the main argument of the speech
that American citizens (children) should follow the one who knows best (McCain). However,
McCain is not the only candidate who claims to know best as the following section will show.

15
3.2 Remarks of Senator Obama: A Sacred Trust Kansas City, MO August
21, 2007.
Full speech available in Appendix 2.

3.2.1 Metaphors

The metaphors that underlie many of Obama's arguments are based on what Lakoff (1995)
argues is a common liberal view of the family summarized in THE NURTURANT PARENT
MORALITY. According to this view, each child will learn to know what morality is from being
loved, cared for and cared about by parent or parents as well as by teachers, peers and the
community. THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY produces adolescents and adults who
participate voluntarily in the community and who are jointly responsible for communal
matters (Lakoff 1995).

Therefore, when Obama uses THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor, as exemplified in the first
quote, the particular kind of person he refers to corresponds to this view of the family.
“America will be there for you just as you have been there for America.” Here, America is pictured as
a person who has a morality which is based on ideas of fairness, an equitable person. In the
second quote, THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor is extended to THE STATE AS A FAMILY
metaphor. “Because America's commitment to its servicemen and women...” According to this
metaphor, America can make commitments in the same way as a family member can make
commitments to other members of the family. The next quote uses THE STATE AS A FAMILY
metaphor, with the implication that there is a tie that links together the country with the
military veterans, in a way similar to how the members of a family are linked together. “When
we fail to keep faith with our veterans, the bond between our nation and our nation's heroes becomes

frayed.” Obama argues that a nation functions in the same way as a family does. The idea that
a nation can keep faith with its citizens derives from THE NURTURANT PARENT MODEL.

In the following quote America is presented as someone who both speaker and audience ought
to identify with. “That's not America. That's not who we are.” Should this person (America) behave
in ways that do not comply with people's convictions, it ought to result in an identity crisis
rather than only in a crisis of confidence. In the next quote the first person plural pronoun we,
refers to the American citizens, the speaker included. “We had a chance [...] to bring this country
together with unity of effort and purpose.” The argument uses THE STATE AS A FAMILY metaphor in
proposing that the citizens of America had the opportunity to bring this country together just

16
as family members are supposed to keep a family together, corresponding to THE NURTURANT
PARENT MORALITY. Obama argues further that the family (America) and the audience
(military veterans) has a history to be proud of.

We know that the America we live in is the legacy of those who have borne the burden of battle. You
are part of an unbroken line of Americans who threw off the tyranny of a King; who held the
country together and set the captives free; who faced down fascism and fought for freedom in Korea
and Vietnam; who liberated Kuwait and stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans; and who fight
bravely and brilliantly under our flag today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here, THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor is combined with two three-part lists, to
point out that America and its armed forces have rescued the world on several previous
occasions. The argument is that the hero, in accordance with this metaphor, is America and
the American soldiers (and, as a consequence, the audience).

3.2.2 Metonymies and analogies

Soldiers wear uniforms and Obama refers to the American soldiers by using the uniform as a
metonymy. “But we know that the sacred trust cannot expire when the uniform comes off.” This is a
vivid metonymy to this audience, since the uniform is a symbol of their identity. It appeals to
their self-concept which mostly operates at an unconscious level in the mind. It can be
understood that when the uniform comes off refers to when the soldiers return to civilian life.
These people know from experience how they are treated when they wear the uniform in
contrast to when they are civilians. Many military veterans have witnessed to the difficulty
and anxiety of returning to civilian life after foreign missions, not merely on account of
physical injuries but also of psychological post stress symptoms.

In the previous example Obama used a metonymy to refer to the audience. In another
statement he uses a metonymy to refer to the enemy; “... a threat can come from a pile by the side
of the road, a seemingly friendly face in the crowd, or a mortar lobbed into a base.” The enemy is
pictured as a friendly face representing a pleasant facial expression of a stranger who may in
fact be a smiling madman or an unpredictable assassin, hiding anywhere one goes.

There are few metonymies in Obama's speech. The ones that can be found are not there to
alter the case of responsibility, as metonymies often do, instead they seem to aim at evoking
the emotions of the audience. It seems as if this is also the case with the main analogy “A
Sacred Trust”. This sound-bite and likewise title of the campaign keeps the speech together. It
brings about ideas of his campaign as if it is a holy mission of confidence. It draws an implicit

17
analogy to the Civil Rights movement and the campaign of Martin Luther King. It raises the
status of the campaign to a virtually divine level and implies that a president is entrusted with
a solemn responsibility towards the citizens similar to the responsibilities a preacher would
have towards his parishioners. It could be argued that this analogy is Obama's main rhetorical
strategy. Repeating words such as faith, sacred and trust together with a rich use of three-part
statements result in a rhythm in his speech analogous to Martin Luther King's speeches.

One analogy addresses the audience as if they were linked to the soldiers who first organized
the military veterans. “Over 100 years ago, a handful of veterans from the Spanish-American war came
together in places like a tailor shop in Columbus, Ohio”. The argument goes that when Obama is the
leader, the veterans will be heard, analogous to the way they began to be heard after that war.
However, the Spanish-American war has more similarities with the contemporary situation
than the organization of the military veterans. During the Spanish-American war, the citizens
of the U.S. were led to believe that their nation supported a Cuban insurgence toward the
Spanish regime. In reality, political and economic conflicts were the real reasons behind the
war. During this time, the American press attacked the Spanish regime in Cuba aggressively
and when there was an accidental explosion that sank an American naval ship in Havana, it
was reported in the U.S. as a Spanish attack. Consequently, the American opinion was all for
going to war against Spain. There are similarities to the September 11 attacks, even though
they were not accidents, and to the behavior of the government of George W. Bush and media
reports of both Gulf wars. The implicit argument is that the Spanish-American war was wrong
as is also the war in Iraq.

3.2.3 Pronouns, voice and sound-bites

Obama proposes a different approach to the situation (war) in Iraq using the first person
singular pronoun I. “That's why earlier this month, I laid out a comprehensive counter-terrorism
strategy.” The implication is that Obama is willing to take personal responsibility for his war
strategy. However, he provides references to sources in support of his arguments. “I will act
with proper regard for the costs and consequences of action, based on the advice of military

commanders...” By outlining the military commanders, the responsibility becomes shared.

Moreover, it appeals to the audience by revealing that the speaker has confidence in their
leaders. There is a frequent use of the first person singular pronoun I, and the possessive
pronoun my, in Obama's speech. The choice of pronouns increase personal responsibility, as
stated before. Subsequently, the presented policies seem to be his personal views as well as
18
the views of the nation.

In contrast, the use of the passive voice of transitive verbs seems to depersonalize
responsibility and point out the complexity of causes when it comes to the vast problems in
the world. “A new age of nuclear proliferation has left the world's most deadly weapons unlocked by
more and more countries, with thousands of weapons and stockpiles poorly secured all over the world.”

By using the passive voice of the transitive verb unlock, the actor in the sentence, more and
more countries, becomes the agent. According to this assertion, it is the rapid growth of
nuclear knowledge that is causing the insecurity in the world, not the upper echelons of
governments. Responsibility is equally involved in the following quote where the transitive
verb mark is put in the passive voice. “The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been marked by
repeated and unpredictable deployments.” The statement puts forward THE WAR IS A PERSON
metaphor as if the wars are the victims when the real victims are human beings.

It is argued that the speaker is not against war, only against certain people's definition of the
enemy. This is exemplified by the following quote. “One reason to stop fighting the wrong war is so
that we can fight the right war against terrorism and extremism.” This sentence works well as a
sound-bite in that it concisely sums up the main argument of the speech. It uses THE FAIRY
TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor combined with a contrastive pair. This metaphor is
appealing to this audience, since it promotes their occupation and justifies their participation
in wars. The contrast between the right and the wrong war reveals that the speaker is not
against war in general but merely against the war in Iraq. The next quote presents the sound-
bite in a three-part list: “That's not right. That's not keeping our sacred trust. We must not leave these
men and women behind.” The quote defines the national identity according to what kind of
morality it should have. Implicitly, it is a religious morality, tentatively Christian morality.
Obama wants to convey that he knows what is wrong. Therefore, he must also know what is
right. That is why his campaign is a sacred trust and not just a political campaign.

3.2.4 Three-part lists and contrastive pairs

It is repeated throughout the speech that Obama's campaign is a sacred trust. This message is
implicitly suggested in the following quote, where the speaker makes use of three-part lists to
state examples of problems from all over the world.

Killing fields in Rwanda, Congo and Darfur have offended our common humanity and set back the
world's sense of collective security. Weak and failing states from Africa to central Asia to the Pacific

19
Rim are incubators of resentment and anarchy that can endanger those countries and ours. An assertive
Russia and a rising China remind us - through words and deeds - that the primacy of our power does
not mean our power will go unchallenged.

THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY is manifested in phrases such as our common humanity
and collective security. Concurrently, the position of America as a superpower is appointed in
the primacy of our power. This power is threatened by weak and failing states. It is implicitly
suggested that those are causing the conflicts and wars around the world. In spite of the
world's sense of collective security, the implication is that America is superior to other
nations. The following contrastive pair is based on the conceptual metaphors THE STATE AS A
PERSON and THE USA IS A MORAL LEADER. “I see an America that is the strongest nation in the
history of the world - not just because of our arms, but because of the strength of our values, and of the

men and women who serve.” Here, Obama puts forward his personal commitment to the vision of
America as a leader of the world on account of its high morality (values) corresponding to
THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY in contrast to being an authoritarian leader (arms).

In the next quote, a three-part list is combined with the third person plural pronoun they to
define what the enemy is like. “They distort Islam. They hate America. They kill man, woman and
child.” This statement includes THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor. Obama proposes
that others are the villain, others are the ones that hate, not we. The fact that all participants in
a war kill and destroy people's lives is concealed. Furthermore, THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST
WAR metaphor is used in the next quote. This time, the pronoun they refers to the military
veterans, implicitly the audience. “They have done everything we have asked of them. They have won
every battle they have fought. They have built schools and trained battalions.” Here, Obama appeals to
the audience's perceptions of acting as heroes and helping another people.

The following quote contrasts physicality (limb) versus morality (pride) where the latter is of
higher value, along with THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY. Additionally, it is supported by
THE FAIRY TALE OF A JUST WAR metaphor. “Young men and women who may have lost a limb or
even their ability to take care of themselves, but will never lose the pride they feel for serving their

country.” Obama celebrates the audience's patriotism and self-sacrifice. He argues that they
will never lose the pride in serving their country, similar to the way martyrs do in spite of
personal suffering. This argument goes along with Obama's main argument of the speech that
it is not wrong to fight a war as long as it is fought for the right purpose (the sacred trust).

20
3.3 Comparison between the speeches

There is a distinction between how the two speakers utilize rhetorical strategies. This section
will compare how each speaker makes use of the linguistic strategies that were studied in this
essay.

Concerning metaphors, both speakers make use of THE STATE AS A PERSON metaphor.
However, Obama’s speaks of a different kind of person than the one McCain describes in his
speech. The nation/person that Obama describes is one who the audience will want to identify
with and who has fairness and empathy as the values of highest priority based on THE
NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY. McCain describes the American nation/person as a leader of
authority and the Iraq nation/person as an immature child based on THE STRICT FATHER
MORALITY. Moreover, both speakers use THE FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR metaphor in a
similar way. However, they define who the villain is differently. Obama uses the metonymy a
friendly face to describe the villain as an unidentified terrorist hiding in the crowd while
McCain asserts that Iraq is the villain.

When McCain uses a metonymy it concerns responsibility. His main metonymy, General
Petraeus, reduces the government’s responsibility for the war. It can be argued, however, that
neither a friendly face nor General Petraeus are metonymies at all. A friendly face may just as
well be an example of a figurative language and the name of General Petraeus may be used
to indicate a closeness or friendship between him and McCain.

McCain draws analogies to World War II, Vietnam War and the first Gulf War. Obama uses
analogies differently. Religious connotations occur repeatedly in his speech. It can be argued
that Obama’s main rhetorical device is the analogy to the Civil Rights movement, which is
frequent throughout the speech, often in subtle nuances by reiterating expressions such as the
sacred trust and keep faith with analogous to the words preachers could use during religious
sermons.

The choice of pronouns may be useful when the matter of liability can be questioned. McCain
scarcely uses the first person singular pronoun I when the issues regard responsibility.
Obama’s frequent use of the first person singular pronoun I contributes to make his speech
seem personal although it is political. He is careful to refer to sources in support of his

21
arguments while McCain omits the sources and prefers to use the first person plural pronoun
we, when presenting war strategies. Altogether, McCain uses less first person singular
pronoun I, than Obama. The occasions when McCain uses this pronoun are when he
emphasizes personal involvement. Neither McCain nor Obama uses the passive voice of
transitive verbs to a great extent. As exemplified before in sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, when they
do use the passive voice of transitive verbs, they avoid stating who is responsible for the
action in the sentences.

It can be argued that the frequent use of metaphors in both speeches is because they are
somewhat difficult to criticize in the media. Because most metaphors are conceptual they are
hard to pinpoint in a few lines. Media is often limited by space or time. Discussing
metaphorical concepts is quite complex and needs more space than a newspaper article may
provide. The scarcity of metonymies and the passive voice of verbs may be because the
speeches are written, co-written or edited by professional speech-writers who are much aware
of the double meaning that this usage of language reveals. It is possible that strategies such as
these are refrained in order to convey the politics and avoid criticism from the media.

A summary of Obama’s arguments is in the sound-bite that his campaign is a sacred trust and
so is the right war. He wants to persuade the audience that there is a right war in contrast to a
wrong one. He uses three-part lists and contrastive pairs to put stress on THE FAIRY TALE OF
THE JUST WAR metaphor. McCain uses three-part lists and contrastive pairs to emphasize that
the war in Iraq has undergone progress. The words progress and success are repeated
throughout his speech. Furthermore, he uses contrastive pairs and the conceptual GAMBLE
metaphor to distinguish success from defeat. The implicit statement is that McCain asserts
that the war in Iraq should continue until America wins or that the American forces will stay
in Iraq until it is asserted that no acts of reprisal will take place in the future. McCain’s
arguments can be summed up in the sound-bite that the audience should put the nation’s
interest before personal ones. The implicit message is that the citizens of America should
likewise submit to the government.

The main difference between the speeches is the divergence of opinion on morality that
underlies the arguments. McCain’s main argument is that the war in Iraq is right and should
continue. Most of his arguments are based on THE STRICT FATHER MORALITY. Obama argues
from the point of view of THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY that the war in Iraq is wrong
22
and the right war ought to be fought somewhere else. People who feel comfortable with a
president who refuses further debates about the war in Iraq and who claims that once a nation
(person) has entered a war (game/journey), it has to stay in it until it is won (reached its
destination), will find McCain's arguments more convincing. On the contrary, people who
oppose or at least want more debate about the war in Iraq will probably find Obama's
arguments more convincing. Both candidates use as many rhetorical strategies as the other but
Obama refers to sources in support of his arguments and his frequent use of the first person
singular pronoun I makes his speech seem more honest. Therefore, his speech is likely to be
conceived as more convincing.

23
4. Summary and Conclusion

The aim of this study was to examine and expose implicit statements in the language of
politics and to point out examples of linguistic strategies that impose moral or ethical values
on people. Chapter one consisted of an introduction where the topic language influences of
political speeches was briefly described. The second chapter presented an overview of the
rhetorical strategies that were studied in the essay. The strategies that were analyzed were
metaphors, metonymies, analogies, pronouns, the active or passive voice of transitive verbs,
sound-bites, three-part lists and contrastive pairs. Chapter three outlined a presentation and
analysis of each speech followed by a comparison of the two speeches. The presentation
exposed an emphasis on strategic use of metaphors, pronouns, three-part lists and contrastive
pairs in both speeches and a scarcity of metonymies and the passive voice of transitive verbs.
The analysis revealed some implicit statements that, it could be argued, impose certain moral
values on the audience. The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that linguistic
divergences between how different speakers present their arguments and their views are
possible to discern. These differences reveal attitudes of various kinds, such as what more
precisely are their priorities as far as war is concerned. To summarize, being aware of how
politicians use rhetorical strategies in order to convince an audience of the rectitude of war is
of high importance. As the main findings of this study revealed, the principal disparity
between McCain's speech and Obama's speech is their implicit views on morality, THE STRICT
FATHER MORALITY and THE NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY. These views are never argued
openly although conveyed as a basis for justifying each speaker's arguments for or against the
war in Iraq compared to the war against terrorism.

24
List of references
Primary sources

McCain, John. 2008-04-07. Remarks By John McCain To The Members Of The Veterans of
Foreign Wars
[Link]
[Link] (viewed Dec. 10, 2008)

Obama, Barack. 2007-08-21. Remarks Of Senator Obama to The Members Of The Veterans
Of Foreign Wars
[Link] (viewed
Dec. 10, 2008)

Secondary sources

Ball, A. R. & B. G. Peters. (2000) Modern Politics & Government. 6th ed. London: Macmillan
Press.

Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.

Charteris-Black, J. (2005) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor.

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1993) Process and products in making sense of tropes. In: Ortony, A. (ed.),
Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 252-276.

Jones, J. & S. Wareing. (1999) Language and Politics. In: Thomas, L. et al. (eds), Language,
Society and Power. London: Routledge, pp. 31-47.

Lakoff, G. (1991) Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.
[Link]
html (viewed Dec. 10, 2008)

Lakoff, G. (1995) Metaphor, Morality, and Politics. [Link]

(viewed Dec. 28, 2008)

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

Salkie, R. (1995) Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

25
Appendix 1

Remarks by John McCain to the Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
April 7, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as
prepared for delivery to the members of the National VFW Headquarters in Kansas City,
Missouri, at 9:45 a.m. CST:

Thank you. It is an honor to be here today. I'm always grateful to be in the company of
Americans who have had the burden of serving our country in distant lands, and the honor of
having proved your patriotism in difficult circumstances. Your example is a constant reminder
to Americans that we have obligations to our country that are greater than our personal
ambitions, and that our self-respect will owe more to how faithfully we keep those obligations
than any other success we achieve in life. Among those obligations is to debate honestly
issues that involve America's future security because so many Americans have sacrificed
everything to keep us secure. All that is asked of the rest of us is that we do not dishonor their
sacrifice by treating the cause they served so bravely as an opportunity to argue without
wisdom; to divide us without care for the consequences; to advance our individual or partisan
interests at the expense of America's security.

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq.
Four years of a badly-conceived military strategy had brought us almost to the point of no
return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for
survival, and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the
offensive. Entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists and were deemed all but
lost. Faced with the prospect of defeat, we had two fundamental choices. We could retreat
from Iraq and accept the horrible consequences of our defeat. Or we could change strategies
and try to turn things around. It was, I believe, a critical moment in our nation's history, and a
time of testing for our nation's political leadership.

In the year that has passed, our nation showed its strength, and its deep sense of global
responsibility. Instead of abandoning Iraq to civil war, genocide, and terror, and the Middle
East to the destabilizing effects of these consequences, we changed strategies. We sent to Iraq
additional troops, many of them on their third or fourth tour, and a great, seasoned general to
lead them, with a battle plan that, at long last, actually addressed the challenges we faced in
Iraq.

Within six months, the men and women who have made such enormous sacrifices for the rest
of us dramatically turned around the situation in Iraq. From June 2007 through my most
recent trip last month, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent.
Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent. The dramatic reduction in
violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and
economic life for the average Iraqi. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local
and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and
sectarian violence are returning. The "Sons of Iraq" and Awakening movements, where former
Sunni insurgents have now joined in the fight against Al Qaeda, continue to grow.

Iraq's political order is also evolving in hopeful ways. Four out of the six laws cited as

26
benchmarks by the U.S. have been passed by the Iraqi legislature. A law on amnesty and a law
rolling back some of the harsher restrictions against former employees of the Iraqi
government have made it possible for Iraqis to find genuine reconciliation. They should also
encourage both Sunni and Shi'a to feel they have a stake in Iraq's future. The legislature has
devolved greater power to local and provincial authorities, where much of the real work of
rebuilding Iraqi society is taking place. Much more needs to be done, and Iraq's politicians
need to know that we expect them to show the necessary leadership to rebuild their country.
For only they can.

The job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished. Iraqi forces recently battled in Basra
against radical Shi'a militias, supported by Iran, a fight that showed both the progress made by
the Iraqi security forces -- a year ago, they could not have carried out such operations on their
own -- and the continuing need for coalition support. The situation in southern Iraq remains
unsettled. There continues to be a significant flow of money and weaponry from Iran into
Diyala Province, Baghdad, Basra and elsewhere in support of the Iranian-backed Special
Groups, the Jaysh al Mahdi, and the Badr Organization. Sunni terrorists and insurgents
continue to maintain bases in Mosul and elsewhere in Ninewah Province.

But there is no doubt about the basic reality in Iraq: we are no longer staring into the abyss of
defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success in Iraq is the
establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat
to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. It is the advance of religious
tolerance over violent radicalism. It is a level of security that allows the Iraqi authorities to
govern, the average person to live a normal life, and international entities to operate. It is a
situation in which the rule of law, after decades of tyranny, takes hold. It is an Iraq where Iraqi
forces have the responsibility for enforcing security in their country, and where American
troops can return home, with the honor of having secured their country's interests at great
personal cost, and helping another people achieve peace and self-determination.

Today these goals are within reach. "Never despair," Winston Churchill once said. And we did
not despair. We were tested, and we rose to the challenge. Some political leaders close their
eyes to the progress that the surge has made possible, and want only to argue about the past.
We can have that debate. I profoundly disagree with those who say we would all be better off
if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Americans should be proud that they led the way in
removing a vicious dictator and opening the door to freedom, stability, and prosperity in Iraq
and across the Middle East.

But the question for the next President is not about the past, but about the future and how to
secure it. Our most vital security interests are at stake in Iraq. The stability of the entire
Middle East, that volatile and critically important region, is at stake. The United States'
credibility as a moral and political leader is at stake. How to safeguard those interests is what
we should be debating.

There are those who today argue for a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Some would withdraw
regardless of the consequences. Others say that we can withdraw now and then return if
trouble starts again. What they are really proposing, if they mean what they say, is a policy of
withdraw and re-invade. For if we withdraw hastily and irresponsibly, we will guarantee the
trouble will come immediately. Our allies, Arab countries, the UN, and the Iraqis themselves
will not step up to their responsibilities if we recklessly retreat. I can hardly imagine a more
imprudent and dangerous course.

27
Over the past year, the counterinsurgency strategy of General Petraeus has been based on the
premise that establishing greater security in Iraq is indispensable to advancing political
reconciliation and economic reconstruction; to making diplomatic progress in the region; and
to preparing the Iraqi military to assume its responsibilities to defend the sovereignty of Iraq
and the authority of its elected government. Should the United States withdraw from Iraq
before that level of security is established those goals will be infinitely harder if not
impossible to attain. Al Qaeda in Iraq will proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke
sectarian tensions in Iraq into a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and
destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would be a failed state that could become a haven for
terrorists to train and plan their operations. Iran's influence in Iraq -- especially southern Iraq
-- and throughout the r egion would increase substantially and encourage other countries to
seek accommodation with Tehran at the expense of our interests. These likely consequences
of America's failure in Iraq would, almost certainly, require us to return to Iraq or draw us into
a wider and far costlier war.

The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment
of the progress we have managed to make in the last year in preventing the worst from
happening in Iraq, of the very serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences
of a hasty, reckless, and irresponsible withdrawal. If we are honest about the opportunities and
the risks, I believe they will have the patience to allow us the time necessary to obtain our
objectives. That honesty is my responsibility, and it is also the responsibility of Senators
Obama and Clinton, as well as Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Doing the
right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always the easiest thing. But when 4000
Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of
our failure in Iraq, it is a necessary thing. In such a grave matter, we must put the nation's
interests before our own ambitions.

The fact is, we now have a great opportunity, not only to bring stability and freedom to Iraq,
but to make Iraq a pillar of our future strategy for the entire region of the greater Middle East.
If we seize the opportunity before us, we stand to gain a strong, stable, democratic ally against
terrorism and a strong ally against an aggressive and radical Iran.

Over the next 18 months, Iraq will conduct two landmark elections -- for provincial
governments and for the national government. On my most recent trip to Iraq, I met dozens of
shopkeepers, workers, city council officials and others, who want Iraqis from all backgrounds
to elect local leaders charged with making decisions that reflect the needs and desires of the
local populations -- not the preferences of Baghdad elites. If we sustain the current progress,
those elections can be held in relative freedom and security for the first time since the fall of
Saddam. We should welcome a larger United Nations role in supporting the elections under
the capable leadership of its Special Envoy, Steffan de Mistura, who is already playing a key
role in mediating disputes in areas like Kirkuk.

Throughout this period, we must continue to help the Iraqis protect themselves against the
terrorists and the insurgents. We must press ahead against the radical Shi'ite militias and the
Iranian-backed Special Groups, and support the Iraqi government's efforts to defeat them. We
must continue to support the Sunni volunteers of the Iraqi Awakening as they stand up to Al-
Qaeda in Iraq, especially in the ongoing battle for Mosul. And we must continue to build the
capacities of the Iraqi Security Forces so that they can play an increasingly strong and neutral
role in suppressing sectarian violence.

28
All this will require that we keep a sufficient level of American forces in Iraq until security
conditions are such that our commanders on the ground recommend otherwise. It also means
we must increase levels of reconstruction assistance, so that Iraq's political and economic
development can proceed in the security that our forces and Iraqi Security Forces provide.
Above all, it means we must once again reject, as we did in early 2007, the calls for a reckless
and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces just at the moment when they are succeeding.

Economic progress is essential if the security gains in Iraq are to be sustained. The once silent
and deserted markets have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates
continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the
attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi
government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ
Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services. The international community
should augment Iraqi efforts by broadly enhancing the proven success of microfinance
programs to spur entrepreneurship at local levels throughout the country and Iraq's Arab
neighbors should invest in regional stability by using the fruits of their oil exports to directly
invest in Iraq. As these efforts begin to take hold in Iraq, it will be -- as in all countries -- the
private sector that creates the vas t majority of jobs and propels the growth that will end
reliance on outside aid.

I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests
there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible
force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops.
And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not
believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep
if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous
consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is
the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.

I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war.
And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend
us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By
giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and
support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It
is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the
last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our
responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of
action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an
advantage in the next election.

We all respect the sacrifices made by our soldiers. We all mourn the losses they have suffered
in this war. But let us honor them by doing all we can to ensure their sacrifices were not made
in vain. Let us show an appropriate humility by recognizing that so little is asked of us
compared to the burdens we imposed on them, and let us show just a small, but significant
measure of their courage, resolve and patriotism by putting our country's interests before
every personal or political consideration.

War is a terrible thing. You know that better than most; you who have borne the heartache and
deprivations of war so that our country might be secure in its freedom. I hold my position on

29
Iraq not because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by this war but because I detest war,
and believe sincerely that should we fail in Iraq we will face an even sterner test in the very
near future, an even harder war, with even greater sacrifice and heartbreaking loss than we
have suffered over the last five years.

It is every veteran's hope that should their children be called upon to answer a call to arms, the
battle will be necessary and the field well chosen. But that is not their responsibility. It
belongs to the government that called them. As it once was for you, their honor will be in their
answer not their summons. Whatever we think about how and why we went to war in Iraq, we
are all -- those who supported the decision that placed them in harm's way and those who
opposed it -- humbled by and grateful for their example. We know how little has been asked
of others compared to their service, and the terrible sacrifice made by those who have not
returned to the country they loved so well. They now deserve the distinction of the best
Americans, and we owe them a debt we can never fully repay. We can only offer the small
tribute of our humility and our commitment to do all that we can do, in less trying and costly
circumstances, to help keep this nation worthy of their sacrifice.

The sacrifices made by veterans deserve to be memorialized in something more lasting than
marble or bronze or in the fleeting effect of a politician's speeches. Your valor and devotion to
duty have earned your country's abiding concern for your welfare. And when our government
forgets to honor our debts to you, it is a stain upon America's honor. The Walter Reed scandal
recalled, I hope, not just government but the public who elected it, to our responsibilities to
the men and women who risked life and limb to meet their responsibilities to us. Such a
disgrace is unworthy of the greatest nation on earth. As the greatest leaders in our history,
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, instructed us, care for Americans who fought to
defend us should rank among the highest of national priorities.

Those who have borne the burden of war for our sake must be treated fairly and expeditiously
as they seek compensation for disability or illness. We owe them compassion, knowledge and
hands-on care in their transition to civilian life. We owe them training, rehabilitation and
education. We owe their families, parents and caregivers our concern and support. They
should never be deprived of quality medical care and mental health care coverage for illness
or injury incurred as a result of their service to our country.

As President, I will do everything in my power to ensure that those who serve today and those
who have served in the past have access to the highest quality health, mental health and
rehabilitative care in the world. The disgrace of Walter Reed must not be forgotten. Neither
should we accept a situation in which veterans are denied access to care due to great travel
distances, backlogs of appointments, and years of pending disability evaluation and claims. I
believe that we should give veterans the option to use a simple plastic card to receive timely
and accessible care at a convenient location through a provider of their choosing. I will not
stand for requiring veterans to make an appointment to stand in line to make an appointment
to stand in line for substandard care of the injuries you have suffered to keep our country safe.
Whatever our commitments to veterans cost, we will keep them, as you have kept every
commitment to us. The honor of a gre at nation is at stake.

As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are
fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as
the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. Many of them have had their tours extended
longer than they were initially told. Others who had already served two or three tours returned

30
to combat sooner than they had been led to expect. It is a sad and hard thing to ask so much
more of Americans who have already given more than their fair share to the defense of our
country. Few of them and their families would have greeted the news without feeling greatly
disappointed, and without offering a few well deserved complaints in the direction of those of
us who have imposed on them this additional hardship. Then they shouldered a rifle and
risked everything -- everything -- to accomplish their mission, to protect another people's
freedom and our own country from harm.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country served so well by such selfless patriots.
God bless and protect them.

31
Appendix 2

Remarks of Senator Obama: A Sacred Trust Kansas City, MO August 21, 2007

Thank you, Commander Kurpius, for that introduction and for your leadership, and let me
acknowledge the incoming National Commander George Lisicki. I want to thank all of the
members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America for inviting me here
today. I'm glad to see Rich Coombe, the State Commander for Illinois. And let me say a word
of acknowledgment to the 90,000 Illinoisans who are VFW members.

To America's veterans, our country must speak with one voice: we honor your service, and we
enter into a sacred trust with you from the moment you put on that uniform. That trust is
simple: America will be there for you just as you have been there for America.

As a candidate for the presidency, I know that I am running to become Commander-in-Chief -

to safeguard this nation's security, and to keep that sacred trust. There is no responsibility that
I take more seriously.

We know that the America we live in is the legacy of those who have borne the burden of
battle. You are part of an unbroken line of Americans who threw off the tyranny of a King;
who held the country together and set the captives free; who faced down fascism and fought
for freedom in Korea and Vietnam; who liberated Kuwait and stopped ethnic cleansing in the
Balkans; and who fight bravely and brilliantly under our flag today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Keeping faith with those who serve must always be a core American value and a cornerstone
of American patriotism. Because America's commitment to its servicemen and women begins
at enlistment, and it must never end.

Without that commitment, I probably wouldn't be here today. My grandfather - Stanley

Dunham - enlisted after Pearl Harbor and went on to march in Patton's Army. My mother was
born at Fort Leavenworth and my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line. After my
grandfather stood up for his country, America stood by him. He went to college on the GI Bill,
bought his first home with help from the Federal Housing Authority. Then he moved his
family west to Hawaii, where I was born, and where he and my grandmother helped raise me.
He is buried in the Punchbowl, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, where 776
victims of Pearl Harbor are laid to rest.

I knew him when he was older. But I think about him now and then as he enlisted - a man of
23, fresh-faced with a wise-guy grin - when I see young men and women signing up to serve
today. These sons and daughters of America are the best and bravest among us. And they are
signing up at a time when the dangers that America faces are great.

Since the end of the Cold War, threats from distant corners of the world increasingly pose a
direct danger to America. Killing fields in Rwanda, Congo and Darfur have offended our
common humanity and set back the world's sense of collective security. Weak and failing
states from Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim are incubators of resentment and anarchy
that can endanger those countries and ours. An assertive Russia and a rising China remind us -
through words and deeds - that the primacy of our power does not mean our power will go
unchallenged. A new age of nuclear proliferation has left the world's most deadly weapons
unlocked by more and more countries, with thousands of weapons and stockpiles poorly

32
secured all over the world. At the dawn of the 21st century, the threats we face can no longer
be contained by borders and boundaries.

That is the lesson of 9/11. We will never forget the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 - more
than we lost at Pearl Harbor. The threat did not come from a dictator, a state, or an empire - it
came from stateless terrorists. These violent extremists are a small minority in the Muslim
world. They distort Islam. They hate America. They kill man, woman and child. And they
seek a repressive caliphate that would resemble Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Our brave young men and women have signed up to make these burdens their own. They have
come face to face with the threats of the 21st century, and they have been asked to bear an
evolving and ever-increasing load. Peacekeeping missions. Intelligence gathering. Training
foreign militaries. Earthquake and tsunami relief. Fighting with Afghan allies to topple the
Taliban. Persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq. The U.S. military has answered when
called, and the verdict on their performance is clear: through their commitment, their courage,
and their capability they have done us all proud.

What we need is civilian leadership that lives up this service. We had a chance to deliver a
decisive blow to the Taliban and al Qaeda and to bring this country together with unity of
effort and purpose. Instead, we went to war in Iraq - a war that I opposed - with no plan for
how to win the peace, shifting our focus, straining our military, splitting our country, and
sacrificing our global standing.

I want to be clear. Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq. They have done everything
we have asked of them. They have won every battle they have fought. They have built schools
and trained battalions. I know there are honest differences about the next steps that we should
take. And the truth is - there are no good options.

All of our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq. And no
matter how brilliantly and bravely our troops and their commanders perform, they cannot and
should not bear the responsibility of resolving grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. No
military surge can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq
and the region. Iraq's leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.
The only thing they seem to have agreed on is to take a vacation. That is why I have pushed
for a careful and responsible redeployment of troops engaged in combat operations out of
Iraq, joined with direct and sustained diplomacy in the region. And that is why I will continue
to push the President to change our policy.

One reason to stop fighting the wrong war is so that we can fight the right war against
terrorism and extremism. And my judgment - based in part on the clear findings of the
National Intelligence Estimate - is that the most direct terrorist threat to our homeland comes
from al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's why earlier this month, I laid out a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. That plan
has five elements. First, we need to end the war in Iraq and focus on the terrorists in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I would re-enforce our mission in Afghanistan with at least two
brigades. Second, we need to develop our capabilities to take down terrorist networks and
secure nuclear weapons. Third, we need to dry up support for extremism, because we cannot
win the long war unless we win more hearts and minds in the Muslim world. Fourth, we need
to restore our values, because as the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, torture sets back

33
our mission to keep the people on our side. And fifth, we need to protect our homeland by
setting common sense priorities.

In laying out this strategy, I am guided by the understanding that there is no more awesome
responsibility that is placed in a President's hand than protecting our country and our security.
I believe that this strategy is one that we must pursue, guided by the principle that we must act
swiftly and strongly against clear and imminent threats to our security. I will act with proper
regard for the costs and consequences of action, based on the advice of military commanders
and with a clear statement of purpose and policy to the American people. Because a President
can choose to go to war, but the country must be prepared to sustain it. That depends upon
knowing why we are fighting, what clear goal we are fighting for, and how we plan to win the
peace.

And as we implement this comprehensive strategy, and phase out of Iraq and bolster our
mission in Afghanistan, I believe we can then focus on rebuilding our military and taking
better care of our servicemen and women. In an Obama Administration, I will ensure that
America goes to war with the armed forces it needs. Our troops should not be over-stretched.
We need to ensure that our ability to respond to threats around the world is never
compromised. And I will always respect - and not ignore - the advice of military commanders.
But I will also make clear that when I am President, the buck will stop in the Oval Office.

We know our troops will answer the call. But we must issue that call responsibly. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan have been marked by repeated and unpredictable deployments. Aircraft
bound for home have been turned around. Soldiers and Marines have served two, three or four
tours. Retention rates of West Point graduates are approaching records lows. We need to keep
these battle-hardened majors and captains so they can become tomorrow's generals. We need
predictable rotations. We need to deploy troops at an appropriate state of readiness.

I will add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to relieve the strain on our ground forces. I will
maintain our technological edge and invest in the capabilities we need to succeed in the
missions of the 21st century. That means training for critical languages like Arabic, for civil
affairs, and for increased Special Forces. And I will heed the call for greater civilian capacity.
Our troops, trained for war, are serving as water and electricity experts in Baghdad and
agricultural advisors in Kandahar. The finest military in the world needs civilian partners who
can carry out critical missions. We need to strengthen and integrate all aspects of American
might.

And this is not just about programs and policies. It's about people. Part of our sacred trust
with the men and women who serve is also providing the equipment they need. We've had
troops deploying to Iraq who had to buy life-saving equipment on-line. That's not America.
That's not who we are. As President, I will ensure that every service-member has what they
need to do the job safely and successfully.

And the strain of service is great in a place where a threat can come from a pile by the side of
the road, a seemingly friendly face in the crowd, or a mortar lobbed into a base. Just the other
day we learned there were at least 99 suicides in the Army last year - the most in a quarter
century.

To keep our sacred trust, I will improve mental health screening and treatment at all levels:
from enlistment, to deployment, to reentry into civilian life. No service-member should be

34
kicked out of the military because they are struggling with untreated PTSD. No veteran
should have to fill out a 23-page claim to get care, or wait months - even years - to get an
appointment at the VA. We need more mental health professionals, more training to recognize
signs and to reject the stigma of seeking care. And to treat a signature wound of these wars,
we need clear standards of care for Traumatic Brain Injury.

We also need to provide more services to our military families. Let me thank the VFW for
helping families with everything from repairs and errands to calling cards that bring a loved
one nearer. Efforts like Operation Uplink make a huge difference. You are filling in some of
the painful spaces in peoples' lives. And anyone who has visited our military hospitals has
seen wonderful spouses who don't see visiting hours as part-time. That's why I passed a bill to
provide family members with a year of job protection, so they never have to face a choice
between caring for a loved one and keeping a job.

I have also fought to improve shameful care for wounded warriors. I led a bipartisan effort to
improve outpatient facilities, slash red tape, and reform the disability review process - because
recovering troops should always go to the front of the line, and they shouldn't have to fight to
get there.

But we know that the sacred trust cannot expire when the uniform comes off. When we fail to
keep faith with our veterans, the bond between our nation and our nation's heroes becomes
frayed. When a veteran is denied care, we are all dishonored. It's not enough to lay a wreath
on Memorial Day, or to pay tribute to our veterans in speeches. A proud and grateful nation
owes more than ceremonial gestures and kind words.

Caring for those who serve - and for their families - is a fundamental responsibility of the
Commander-in-Chief. It is not a separate cost. It is a cost of war. It is something I've fought
for as a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And it is something I will fight
for as President of the United States.

It's time for comprehensive reform. When I am President, building a 21st century VA to serve
our veterans will be an equal priority to building a 21st century military to fight our wars. My
Secretary of Veteran's Affairs will be just as important as my Secretary of Defense. No more
shortfalls - it's time to fully fund the VA medical center. No more delays - it's time to pass on-
time VA budgets each and every year. No more means testing - it's time to allow all veterans
back into the VA. I will immediately reverse a policy that led the VA to turn away nearly 1
million middle and low-income veterans since 2003.

The VA will also be at the cutting edge of my plan for universal health care, with better
preventive care, more research and specialty treatment, and more Vet Centers, particularly in
rural areas.

I will revamp an overburdened benefits system. The VFW has done a remarkable job helping
more than 120,000 veterans a year navigate the broken VBA bureaucracy, but you shouldn't
have to do it alone. I will hire additional workers, and create an electronic system that is fully
linked up to military records and the VA's health network.

One of the most admired principles of the U.S. military is that no one gets left behind. Yet too
often America does not keep faith with this principle. On any given night, more than 200,000
veterans are homeless. We're already hearing about hundreds of homeless Iraq War vets.

35
That's not right. That's not keeping our sacred trust. We must not leave these men and women
behind. My principle will be simple: zero tolerance. Zero tolerance for veterans sleeping on
the streets. I've fought for this in the Senate, and as President I'll expand housing vouchers,
and I'll launch a new supportive services housing program to prevent at-risk veterans and their
families from sliding into homelessness.

I'll also keep faith with America's veterans by helping them achieve their dreams. We need a
G.I. Bill for the 21st century. An Obama Administration will expand access to education for
our veterans, and increase benefits to keep pace with rising costs. All who wear the uniform of
the United States are entitled to the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the G.I.
Bill.

And our sacred trust does not end when a service-member dies. The graves of our veterans are
hallowed ground. When men and women who die in service to this country are laid to rest,
there must be no protests near the funerals. It's wrong and it needs to stop. .

Over 100 years ago, a handful of veterans from the Spanish-American war came together in
places like a tailor shop in Columbus, Ohio. At the time, America had no medical care, no
pensions for its returning warriors. Folks could raise their voice, but Washington didn't listen.
So these men banded together and started a movement. They cared for each other and made
the case for their rights. They founded local organizations all across this country. In 1915
there were 5,000 members. Today, you have nearly 2 million members.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars represents the best of America - the courage to fight for our
country abroad, and coming together at home for a cause.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that "To fight out a war, you must believe something
and want something with all your might."

The Americans who fight today believe in this country deeply. And no matter how many you
meet, or how many stories of heroism you hear, every encounter reminds you that they are
truly special. That through their service, they are living out the ideals that stir so many of us
as Americans - pride, duty, and sacrifice.

Some of the most inspiring are those you meet at places like Walter Reed Medical Center.
Young men and women who may have lost a limb or even their ability to take care of
themselves, but will never lose the pride they feel for serving their country. They're not
interested in self-pity, but yearn to move forward with their lives. And it's this classically
American optimism that makes you realize the quality of person we have serving in the
United States Armed Forces.

I know all of us don't agree on everything. I have heard those of you who disagree with me. I
want you to know that I respect the views of all who come to this hall today. I will listen to
them as a candidate, and I will listen to them as President. And I will be clear that whatever
disagreements we have on policy, there will be no daylight between us when it comes to
honoring these men and women who serve, and keeping faith with our veterans. This is not a
partisan issue. This is a moral obligation. This must be a beachhead for bringing our country
together.

Some like to say this country is divided. But that is not how I choose to see it. I see a country

36
that all of us love - a country that my grandfather served, and that my father crossed an ocean
to reach. I see values that all of us share - values of liberty, equality, and service to a common
good and a greater good. I see a flag that we fly with pride. I see an America that is the
strongest nation in the history of the world - not just because of our arms, but because of the
strength of our values, and of the men and women who serve.

As President Franklin Roosevelt said in his final inaugural: "The Almighty God has blessed
our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to
strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has
become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world." With that strength comes great
responsibility - to join our strength with wisdom, and to keep that light of hope burning as a
beacon to the world. And there is no responsibility greater than keeping faith with the men
and women who serve, so that our country serves them as well as you have served us. Let that
be our calling. And let history find us never wanting.

As prepared for delivery

One Day to Change the World

37