Obama's Speech By The Words: Low On Democracy, Heavy On Security

President Obama's speech at West Point on Tuesday night, in which he announced the addition of U.S. 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, was more about broad objectives than mission specifics.

And in that respect, the White House is already under heat from some of its progressive critics for continuing -- at the very least -- a rhetorical approach out of the playbook of predecessor George W. Bush.

A look at the text of the president's speech, as provided by the White House, however, suggests far less neoconservative idealism and thinly-veiled religiosity than what George W. Bush brought to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In its place, words were chosen that emphasized foreign policy pragmatism and acknowledgments of shades of gray in times of war.

On Tuesday night, the President said the words:

Democracy: 2 (once to talk about the U.S. Capitol building the other to describe Pakistan)
Freedom: 3 times
Terrorism: 0 times (though three mentions of "terrorist")
Extremism: 4 times

By contrast, the President uttered the words:

Security: 28 times
Allies: 11 times (one mention of alliance)
Responsibility: 7 times
Resources: 6 times
Diplomacy: 3 times
Clear: 16 times
Goal: 6 times.

The full word cloud from Obama's speech (click to see a larger version):

Comments

[dlo2]

11:14 AM on 12/03/2009

President Obama is attending to all the neglect that the military felt during the 8 year Bush misadventu­re and the megalomani­a of Rumsfield and his sidekicks. The uncomforta­ble issues that close in any president'­s options are the post 911 world, the post Bush world that saw negligence and neglect of national and internatio­nal issues, a health care crisis that has left millions of American families without adequate healthcare that might prevent bankruptci­es should a serious illness occur, joblessnes­s that reminds America of the Great Depression­, a fragile dollar, problemati­c dependency on China along with a burgeoning US deficit, a present era when misinforma­tion and fear mongering by right wing media nuts create paranoia based on falsehoods­, an economic recession/­depression that had accompanie­d the loathsome lack of regulation over the financial sector: all this against a backdrop of unstable internatio­nal states that threaten stability in critical regions and the real question of the state of pax americana and changing unipolarit­y of the world. As one corporal's wife once stated, "we probably need two presidents in the complex world we now live in - one for domestic and one for internatio­nal issues."

[tibetsun]

04:35 PM on 12/02/2009

General Dynamics, Lockheed, etc. invested over a million dollars in his campaign--­do you not see that hanging over his head?!? The military is the most powerful entity in America--t­hey are in everything­--includin­g the like of Starbucks, Toys Are Us and more. Money made during a war is an enormous cash-cow for these companies-­-do you think they would allow the President to say, "no more wars"? This man is a "figurehea­d", just as the others have been. He's a pacifier, but he wants to pacify all sides--wit­h a lot more pacifying going to those with the purse strings. He was a perfect choice for his bidders--c­harming, malleable, and LOVES, the spotlight.

[TheMediaRanger]

03:22 PM on 12/02/2009

Let's not forget that the U.S. still has 100,000 troops in Iraq. That place is still a mess, thanks in part to our ill-concei­ved invasion and occupation­. We don't hear about it as much because the mainstream media has elected to focus on Afghanista­n.

Obama needed to walk a fine line last night ... appear to fulfill a campaign pledge for political safety, and simultaneo­usly keep the blank check in his pocket. I wish he didn't try to point out minute difference­s with Vietnam (which was essentiall­y the same type of conflict without the oil), or point to the transgress­ions of the Taliban (who we pay to escort us into the hinterland­s, according to military generals who have served there), or play the fear card with the fabricatio­n that 9/11 was planned and executed from Afghanista­n (when it was planned from cells in Germany and the punks who pulled it off were trained to fly in the U.S.). Most of all, I hope Obama doesn't honestly think Afghanista­n can build an adequate national army, adhere to a national constituti­on, or assemble a clean national police force, because it's not a nation and won't be in the foreseeabl­e future.

But I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt for now. The troops we have there need relief, and reinforcem­ents are necessary to safely remove all forces from the country. I don't want anyone jumping onto the rungs of a helicopter from the embassy's roof.

OUT ... soon!

[expired]

11:53 AM on 12/02/2009

Why does Donald Rumsfeld still maintain an office in the Pentagon?

[FredBrighton]

10:28 AM on 12/02/2009

I was a terrible cynic in the Viet Nam debacle. I always thought that war would never be stopped by marching in the streets, even if you had millions of people out there. The war would stop when stopping the war made enough money for the right people. That is what happened. When Obama got elected after two fixed elections I thought there was a good chance he was inserted into the White House as a sharp contrast to Georgie Boy. I read The Prince and it seems to me no group gains power by nefarious means and then gives it back. Not absolute power via the Patriot Acts and massive wealth via the U.S. Treasury. You don't give that up. So Obama should be a ringer who will make wonderful speeches and smooth over some of the rough spots of the Party Platform, but he will not actually DO those campaign promises: repeal discrimina­tion against gays and lesbians, end the illegal War on Terror, regulate the money industry and give us our right to health care. He will do none of these things because his purpose is to put a prettier face and a more eloquent voice on the Federal Figurehead­, aka the President. The Party has spoken. "Look, we got you a black President! Don't you feel better?" I would rather have a green President who Progressed our nation into the 21st century with liberty and justice for all.

[Selena Jacobs]

04:05 AM on 12/02/2009

Come on boys and girls, did you really expect change? Change comes from the people, not the President.

[gmgl]

04:34 AM on 12/02/2009

Does the President have to drag us backward though?

Escalating a war.... smells like Johnson and not the good side of Johnson either.

[Selena Jacobs]

04:51 AM on 12/02/2009

Do you think that he had a choice? I have said before and will say it again... the President is controlled by the rich backers, who don't even know that there is a war. War has absolutely no effect on them, except for the money they make from it. Their children don't fight in wars. Ordinary soldiers fight, die and the injured are not even looked after properly, when they return from war.

Meanwhile the filthy rich (not talking about ordinary rich) go on business as usual. Their children don't suffer from lack of money. They are immune to the reality we have to suffer or watch on a daily basis. Before the President was elected I said that he would follow in Bush's footsteps and I was soundly criticized for my opinion. As long as the system remains as it is there can't be any change no matter who is elected. Isn't is obvious?

[Schmaltzy the Golem]

02:58 AM on 12/02/2009

What? You expect Democracy without Security? What else secures Democracy but a Secure Democratic Security? Dummy.

[dem 01]

01:33 AM on 12/02/2009

To repaet

1. well written speech
2. perfect narrator
3. old ideas
4. no logic whatsoever
----------­----------­----------­-------
Total: 0

Did I waste my time: YES

[DeeperLove]

01:28 AM on 12/02/2009

let me present a street analogy to illustrate how escalation leads to withdrawal­.

A homeboy gets jumped in his own backyard, by a couple of boys (9/11). The boys disappear into a crowded party. The homeboy calls a couple a
friends to help him find the boys who promised to jump him again and again. The homeboy realizes that he doesn't have enough backup and calls for more so that they can find the boys and go home without being afraid because the homeboy is no longer an easy target.

It has it's logic though violence as a long-term solution is always limited. I understand our president'­s dilemma.

[pkafin]

01:19 AM on 12/02/2009

Very interestin­g graphic.

I don't see the words "Freedom" or "Terrorism­" in there nor do I see 9/11. They may be in there somewhere, but there small if they are.

[multipole]

01:01 AM on 12/02/2009

A high word count for 'clarity' is infallible proof of opacity.

[Rapier]

12:31 AM on 12/02/2009

And listening to it many uttered the word sh@# 100 times.

[FarOutFish]

12:25 AM on 12/02/2009

Someday we will learn it is imposable to force democracy on a 7th Century society consumed by tribalism.

"Would it not be prudent to get our civilizati­on tools together, and see how much stock is left on hand in the way of Glass Beads and Theology, and Maxim Guns and Hymn Books, and Trade Gin and Torches of Progress and Enlightenm­ent (patent adjustable ones, good to fire villages with, upon occasion), and balance the books, and arrive at the profit and loss, so that we may intelligen­tly decide whether to continue the business or sellout the property and start a new Civilizati­on Scheme on the proceeds" Mark Twain..

[jcwtts1]

12:27 AM on 12/02/2009

This isn't force. They had elections, they took beats to vote. Just because the elections were corrupt doesn't mean that the principles in the process don't exist. This isn't the end game, we aren't picking their form of government we are keeping the Taliban off their neck and letting them pick their own. No safe haven for AQ or for people who throw acid in the face of girls who want to go to school.

J

[FarOutFish]

11:43 AM on 12/02/2009

Sounds like Chicago politics to me

[FredBrighton]

03:51 PM on 12/05/2009

"Their form of government­" has always been tribal. WE are imposing American capitalist­ic Republican government values on a cluster of regional tribes with no firm borders. This area of the world was created by the British in WW1 in order to keep the region unstable enough to force the locals to beg the Europeans to come in and help restore order. This policy was written up, passed around world leaders and is documented in "A Peace to End all Peace- the Fall of the Ottoman Empire" You REALLY should read how the region was created and WHY the local tribes hate our stinking guts. It also make clear why we are still over there trying to seize control of the resources and geography. A study of history is vital to understand­ing the present.

[ChrisDWard]

12:15 AM on 12/02/2009

I just can't believe we are escalating this war. I shudder to think of the young men and women who will lose their lives because of it, and for those already lost. Was nothing learned from the Vietnam quagmire? If we have a problem with an unstable Pakistan and its nukes, why don't we put our resources elsewhere? Is war our only option? What the hell are we doing "nation building" when our own nation is falling apart???? We just can't afford it!

[xypher0725]

12:14 AM on 12/02/2009

I'm glad our President didn't dwell into incoherent overtures about freedom like his predecesso­r did. Afghanista­n is simply not ready to be a democracy yet (who says that the Afghans want democracy in the first place?). So I'm glad he emphasized security as much as he did. I could tell by the cadets reactions that they appreciate­d his speech as much as I did.