Intertextuality and the 24-Hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's U.N. Address

Introduction. The Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell’s U.N. Speech

1 introduction The Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell’s U.N. Speech x Whether the orators of news have an art of inquiry and communication adequate to their mission is a question of large importance. —Lloyd Bitzer, “Political Rhetoric,” 1998 O n the morning of 5 February 2003—a Wednesday—Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council in New York City. In a nearly 90-minute PowerPoint presentation , Powell argued that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction from inspectors in direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. These weapons posed a significant threat to world peace, Powell suggested, not only because Iraq had its own history of violent aggression, but also because Iraq had ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network—a group 2 Introduction that might use such weapons without compunction. Powell concluded that the Security Council had an urgent responsibility to disarm Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership. As he put it: Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing—at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to theAmerican people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11th world. . . . We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body. (UN/2.5/CP) After uttering these words, Powell thanked the Security Council president—and from a certain perspective, his speech had ended. However, from the perspective of this book, the rhetorical life of Colin Powell’s speech had only just begun. Within ten seconds of Powell’s concluding remarks, his speech was being reanimated and re-represented by reporters and political pundits in a live “Special Report” on NBC News. Later that evening, NBC devoted nearly twenty more minutes of coverage to Colin Powell’s address on the Nightly News program with Tom Brokaw. On NBC, one could not only see Powell’s presentation—pictures of unmanned aerial vehicles, videos of Mirage jets—but could actually hear him, too, decrying the “sinister nexus” between Iraq and al-Qaeda. And, of course, NBC wasn’t the only one. Within twenty-four hours of Powell’s speech, the New York Times had published about a dozen articles—reports, analyses, and editorials—all devoted to “The Powell Indictment” (as the Times called it). A picture of Powell holding up a model vial of anthrax appeared above the fold on page A1. Meanwhile, on the Internet, CNN.com published additional stories about Powell’s speech, summarizing his arguments, redisplaying still shots of his PowerPoint slides—and fitting everything into a running narrative theme: “Showdown: Iraq” (see figure). All along bits and pieces—and, indeed, large chunks—of Colin Powell’s address were rearticulated and reassessed, stretched and condensed, analyzed and synthesized, twisted and distorted—but, above all, kept alive in journalistic discourse. Colin Powell's U.N. Speech 3 Figure 0.1. Banner displayed on CNN.com during the months preceding the Iraq War No, the rhetorical life of Colin Powell’s speech did not end when he stopped talking. Perhaps it changed colors, changed shapes, but there it was: recontextualized—and resuscitated—for the sake of an American public still deliberating about the prospect of war. In fact, not only was Powell’s speech kept alive by journalists, but, in a sense, it was brought to life by journalists. Like mad Dr. Frankenstein , the journalists tried to force Powell’s speech into existence prematurely. For more than a week before the address—indeed, right up to the moment Powell opened his mouth—they discussed the speech, promoted it, previewed it, gave it form, even evaluated it in advance. For instance, the morning before Powell spoke, CNN.com knew that he would “detail travels in and out of Iraq by al-Qaeda operatives” (CNN/2.5/NA). Meanwhile, the Times foretold intercepted...