Posted: September 14th, 2017

Analyzation of two drafts

 
Read through the two drafts of the paper analyzing the Obama speech. Write about the changes. What was changed, and why? What where the effects of the changes, and how can they be categorized?
Collaborative Group
Professor Miller
English 5B
18 February 2014
Draft One
A Strong Voice—A Strong Speech
Six years into a chaotic, combative war, nearing a total of over 4,000 Iraq casualties, many Americans were disappointed and mourning the loss of our fallen heroes that fought bravely to defend and protect the United States of America. Former senator, current President, Barak Obama was one of those people who brought the discussion to the President in office. The highlights of his speech included powerful claims with repetition that push them to be memorable to all listeners, realistic goals that backed up his overall statements, and provided new strategies to prevent further war. These key points helped provide strength and determination throughout his speech to capture the attention of those in power and the American people, and convince them to work towards a well-planned end to the US involvement in the war.
“It is time to bring a responsible end to the US involvement in this conflict.” Former senator Obama uses his words to bring reason as well as emotion into his speech to get the American people on his side during the Iraq war. Without this, his argument would have been extremely dry and unoriginal. Including these strategies helps back up his side on a very controversial topic.
Speaking to the President about an important issue, it is important to provide realistic goals that can be achieved. As a senator, at the time, Barak Obama had to build his own credibility on the senate floor, and he did this in his speech by providing realistic and credible sounding advice. Senator Obama did this, demanding a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He stated a plan of having all combat forces removed by the date of March 30th, 2008. With a goal like this, it brings more strength to his overall speech because it shows his determination. It also shows his understanding of the situation, as he is able to state specific and clear goals.
A possibly less strong way Obama attempts to build his own credibility with the reader is repeating that he had warned and predicted the negative effects that he describes in the speech. Statements such as “like I said five years ago” and “I wish I was wrong” provide the credibility that only an observation of time can really build, but his arrogant tone might be a bit off-putting to the general American public or the senators he hopes to convince to join his side on the issue. He also separates himself from these past mistakes by repeating that he previously warned those in charge and included future advice to prevent further war. He argues that “planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war” after to combat the large costs and weakened position from which the country will not easily recover. Overall, the credibility built by his statements of past warnings, descriptions of how he has turned out to be correct, and the plans he has for the future are successful tactics for building credibility despite the possible alienation of an audience through his accusatory comments.
Throughout his speech, Senator Barak Obama there is little use of logos and not much evidence to support the claims he’s stating. In his speech, he is trying to convince congress to pull out of the war without real logical support. The only time he really uses logos to support his claim is when he says, “they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort—money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland and our competitive standing as a nation.” This is not sufficient evidence to fully support his claim throughout this speech.
In Obama’s 2007 speech, he accuses the president of the issues going on with the war. Obama successfully uses repetition and organization to emphasize the tragic issues of war and bring them into focus. He uses repetition throughout his speech to set a certain tone for his audience. By using, “the sacrifices of war are immeasurable” many times throughout his speech feels like he wants to let the President know that he should end the war.
President Obama uses language that cause the audience to hear the speech in a whole different context. His specific word choice puts blame on the president and anyone else who encouraged the US involvement of the war. Obama states, “History will not judge, Mr. President, the architects of this war kindly.” Why he uses “architect” is to give imagery to the audience of politicians, encouraging war in a secretive, puppet master sense. Obama uses the phrase, “Mr. President often, to point the finger at him without sounding disrespectful as he would if he instead said, “President Bush will go down in history as a warmongering fool!” Was this successful?—Write conclusive statement.
Some of his figurative language has double meanings and leaves you thinking deeper into the conversation. A profound line in this speech was “find our way out of the desert.” This symbolizes a lot because we were literally in a desert, fighting a war. Next in the speech he says, “History will not judge… the architects of this war kindly.” He’s saying that history is going to judge the people that started this war. When you look back on the war, was there really a purpose?

Obama uses logic to argue that money used to fund this pointless war could be used to strengthen our homeland. He sends a clear, strong message with the impression of being the president’s fault. The war in Iraq has long been going for too long and we are wasting resources and American lives. Throughout the speech, Senator Obama ultimately retained credibility, going with the use of his powerful repetition statements, statistical information, and plan of determination. Senator Obama took his assertive will power to capture the readers’ attention (President, senators, and American people) with a motive to bring the troops home. Overall, senator Obama achieved this and by that he now fully had the world’s attention and interest in what he’d do next.
Although President Bush sent our troops to war in Iraq, senator Obama thinks differently. Senator Obama sees the war as meaningless and not really having a point to it.
Collaborative Group
Professor Miller
English 5B
26 February 2014
Draft Two
A Strong Voice—A Strong Speech
Five years into a chaotic, combative war, nearing a total of over 4,000 Iraq casualties, many Americans were disappointed and mourning the loss of our fallen heroes that fought bravely to defend and protect the United States of America. In 2007 former senator, current President, Barak Obama was one of those people who brought the discussion to the President in office. The Iraq war was a highly debated topic with good points from the multiple sides. However, Obama created one of the stronger oppositional speeches during that time. Highlights include powerful claims with repetition that push them to be memorable to all listeners, realistic goals that backed up his overall statements, and provided new strategies to prevent further war. Emotion also drives much of his argument with his framing story of a man who was severely crippled while serving and the effect it has had on his life and his family’s. These key points helped provide strength and determination throughout his speech to capture the attention of those in power and the American people, and convince them to work towards a well-planned end to the US involvement in the war.
Toward the middle and end of the speech, Obama makes strong statements that work up the emotions of the audience. These statements work, as the audience is not only President Bush and the senators but the American people as well. Working on the emotions of the President’s and senator’s constituents makes them feel more pressure toward his purpose. Obama calls out, “it is time to bring a responsible end to the US involvement in this conflict.” This clear and quotable statement brings fire to the audience and pushes those in power toward his desired outcome—and end to US involvement in Iraq. The speech becomes more impassioned with other emotional appeals such as
To win our wider struggle, we must let people across this planet know that there is another, more hopeful alternative to the hateful ideologies the terrorists espouse — and renewed — and a renewed America will reflect and champion that vision.
This appeals to the pride and compassion of the American people and pushes the politicians he addresses with strong force to accept his stance. Bringing these types of emotional appeals, which are very logical, into his speech gets the American people on his side. Without this, his argument would have been extremely dry and unoriginal. Including these strategies helps back up his side on a very controversial topic.
Because much of the speech uses emotional evidence to illustrate his claims, it is somewhat lacking in appeals to logic. Obama must depend on the logic of his ideas instead of imperial evidence to convince the skeptical reader. While trying to accomplish his purpose to convince congress to pull out of the war, statements such as “they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort—money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland and our competitive standing as a nation.” The weakness here is that he has not really taken a research-based approach to the discussion. Yes, this would be better to spend money on homeland security and services, but he uses no numbers or research to support the possibility of this. This is not sufficient evidence to fully support his claim throughout this speech.
Speaking to the President about an important issue, it is important to provide realistic goals that can be achieved. As a senator, at the time, Barak Obama had to build his own credibility on the senate floor, and he did this in his speech by providing realistic and credible sounding advice. Senator Obama did this, demanding a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He stated a plan of having all combat forces removed by the date of March 30th, 2008. With a goal like this, it brings more strength to his overall speech because it shows his determination and the specificity builds more credibility with the politicians and voters. It also shows his understanding of the situation, as he is able to state specific and clear goals.
A possibly less strong way Obama attempts to build his own credibility with the reader is repeating that he had warned and predicted the negative effects that he describes in the speech. Statements such as “like I said five years ago” and “I wish I was wrong” provide the credibility that only an observation of time can really build, but his arrogant tone might be a bit off-putting to the general American public or the senators he hopes to convince to join his side on the issue. He also separates himself from these past mistakes by repeating that he previously warned those in charge and included future advice to prevent further war. A stronger appeal is his argument that “planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war” after to combat the large costs and weakened position from which the country will not easily recover. This creates a credible voice that is not in direct opposition to his audience. Overall, the credibility built by his statements of past warnings, descriptions of how he has turned out to be correct, and the plans he has for the future are successful tactics for building credibility despite the possible alienation of an audience through his accusatory comments.
Repetition and organization to successfully emphasizes the tragic issues of war and bring them into focus. He uses repetition throughout his speech to set a strong, while indignant, tone for his audience. By using, “the sacrifices of war are immeasurable” many times throughout his speech gives emphasis to the sacrifices instead of the gains. This will be what a listener remembers. He also repeats “Mr. President” throughout to put blame on the president and anyone else who encouraged the US involvement of the war. One example of how he directs the accusations toward the president is his statement that “History will not judge, Mr. President, the architects of this war kindly.” This often repeated phrase “Mr. President’ points the finger at President Bush without sounding disrespectful as he would if he instead said, “President Bush will go down in history as a warmongering fool!” This is a successful way to direct the audience’s accusatory gaze away from the senate as a whole and toward the President. The added pressure is meant to push his purpose for the end of war.
Along with the previously mentioned language choices, Obama uses figurative language that works on the figurative and literal level which leaves the reader thinking deeper into the conversation. A profound line in this speech was “find our way out of the desert.” This symbolizes a lot because the images of this war are of soldiers suffering in sand and heat, fighting a war. On the figurative level, though, the desert represents desolation, death, thirstNext in the speech he says, “History will not judge… the architects of this war kindly.” He uses “architect” to give imagery to the audience of politicians, encouraging war in a secretive, puppet master sense. Again, the figurative and literal meaning create a strong image for the listener. The architect is a cold and calculating designer, and the average person, who he’s addressing, could be intimidate by the image of politician as war designer. The mention of history’s judgment creates a permanence to his vilification of the people who created the war. This use of metaphor is very strong and helps to create that lasting fear of both the setting of the United States current war and the cruel, careless creators.
Obama uses logic to argue that money used to fund this pointless war could be used to strengthen our homeland. He sends a clear, strong message with the impression of being the president’s fault. The war in Iraq has long been going for too long and is wasting resources and American lives. Throughout the speech, Senator Obama ultimately retained credibility, going with the use of his powerful repetition statements, statistical information, and plan of determination. Senator Obama took his assertive will power to capture the readers’ attention (President, senators, and American people) with a motive to bring the troops home. Overall, senator Obama achieved this and by that he now fully had the world’s attention and interest in what he’d do next.
Language is power, and Obama’s speech uses this power to motivate a terrified group with what they care about in order to promote the end of the US involvement in Iraq. Despite his occasional arrogant tone, the speech powerfully chastises a group of people who are characterized as careless and foolish designers of a disaster that could have been avoided. This scolding brings the focus of the people to the politicians’ failures and reminds these voters that they are the ones making the sacrifices of the war, which are immeasurable.

ORDER TODAY AND GET A DISCOUNT!!