9/11 George W. Bush’s Speech.

Anna Avdeyko

Communication Theories

Tess Slavickova

January 10 , 2007

Analysis of a Rhetorical Artifact Part 2



9/11 George W. Bush’s Speech.


Rhetoric is a social practice that encompasses two distinctly opposite and ambivalent meanings. Franci Bacon once said “ The duty and office of rhetoric is, to apply Reason to Imagination for the better mowing of the will…» however, in contemporary American culture, rhetoric has been seen as a decisive means of manipulating mass audience, rather than as a tool of communication. At times when political candidates speak out to the nation about political issues or election campaigns the people accuse them of being dishonest in order to get elected. On the other hand, we expect our leaders to reflect ourselves and satisfy our needs, particularly in times of crisis. In moments of despair and panic we dwell in rhetoric and anticipate our leaders to give us a structure in which we could understand reality. George W. Bush’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night, September 20, 2001 was delivered nine days after terrorists united with Al Qaeda and led by Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. The speech was not only addressed to the Congress, but to millions of abashed and helpless people all over the world. The speech illustrates an example of how nation compel rather that constrain political rhetoric in times of crisis. In moments of national panic people rely on their leaders to give them a feeling of security, unity and faith. This essay aims to discuses success of Bush’s speech to Congress on September 20 by analysis of rhetorical decisions made by the President and his advisers to meet nation’s needs- reassurance and meaning, as well as political consequences of Bush’s rhetoric in the long run.

On September 11, the destruction of the world Trade Center and devastation of the Pentagon Building in Washington D.C along with lose of thousands of human lives was hard to believe. Anyone who watched television at this moment realized significance of these horrific events. The nation and people worldwide knew that something horrible is going to happen, but what exactly these events meant for the most part depended on how the President in the following days chose to contextualize them, especially in his address to a joint session of Congress and to the nations worldwide on September 20.

During 2000 election campaign, recognition of George W. Bush as a president of United States of America divided the nation in views, those who approved him as the president and many people who took his political intentions to commercial in nature. All this suspicions over Bush’s presidency and his far from perfect rhetorical skills produced a lot of criticism and skepticism over his performance as a President “Newspaper headlines highlight Bush’s failure as a speaker: “At Night Bush-Speak Goes into Overdrive” and “As a Speaker Bush fails»… a poll reported that 50 percent of American people believed that people other than Bush were really running the country…” (Lutz, 2003). By September 2001 his image had not changed in a positive way. Moreover, his September 11 speech was to weak in comparison to the event. At this time, the helpless nation was more than ever looking for answers they were asking themselves or justification for the event. The President in his immediate response after the attack refused to give the people required confidence they were looking for, for example he identified the terrorists as “ folks” or that he wanted the leader of terrorist organization Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive”, all theses remarks seamed illusory, even worst unreasonable. He nether could find the right words and proportions for heartbreaking event, nor give the nation what they needed most, reassurance and inspiration. The appropriate voice was found later in the week at the National Cathedral on September 14 and a week later at the Washington Islamic Center. In his speeches Bush memorialized the dead, asserted the reason behind country’s intentions to fight back in order to eliminate the evil force of terrorist organizations embodying war behind their actions. He also mentioned the nation was united. Conversely, Bush himself and his respected advisors realized that it was not enough, in both speeches Bush could not achieve the right style to gather American nation together, finally realizing the chance Bush said “This is a defining moment. We have an opportunity to restructure the world toward freedom, and we have to get it right”(Zarefsky, 2004). Having presentiment that next speech could be a political opportunity to establish George W. Bush as an ultimate leader of American nation united, a joint session of Congress was chosen for a speech. Even though Bush’s speech addresses American citizens it was not limited to one audience. Many people worldwide who had access to television, radio or print media were able to follow the speech, apart from nations worldwide the speech was also addressed to foreign leaders, and the Taliban.

George’s W. Bush’s speech embodies several significant rhetorical decisions. Each feature of the speech facilitated the president to establish glorious rhetorical response to a sequence of terrorist attacks on American soil that echoed people’s values and ideals “ Mr. Bush rose to the occasions, finding at times the eloquence that has eluded him in the past… the “theatre” of the occasion made Bush finally seem “presidential”.” (Zarefsky, 2004). All features of the speech, for the most part, attempt to justify American military response. Even though the attacks were not military, most noteworthy rhetorical decision of September 20 speech was Bush’s chose to put the situation in genre of war. He described the attacks as a beginning of war that in tern gave him a lot of advantages in his future politics, “ on September 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” proclaimed the president (). Classification of what took place as “acts of war” created national unity and justified the reason for military action. The immediate reaction would not be achieved had he described the attacks as crime or a diplomatic crisis.

In his well-organized speech Bush gives the important answers on whom and why, but also punctuates the discourse with questions, followed by answers.” What is expected of us?” or “How will we fight and win this war?» () These questions might be the same ones, the citizens are asking themselves. This conversational style gives the audience a feeling that Bush is one of them and has to deal with the same problems. It makes them relaxed and more open to what he is saying. The answers then “We will direct every resource at our command, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network”() allows the President to develop the speech in a way that would explain the public why the country should take immediate action.

Statistical distribution of consequences of the terrorists attacks to the nation showed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the one who is guilty of what had happened on September 11 and allowed the President to win over American nation by evoking feelings of sympathy and horror “ Nor we will forget the citizens of other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis: more than 130 Israelis: more than 250 citizens of India: men and women form El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan: and hundreds of British citizens”(). The purpose of reviling these numbers along with implementation of pathos throughout the speech helped the president persuade the American public first and than a joint session of Congress

Pathos is one of the main features in Bush’s speech. Especially his use of names is significant. For instance, he mentions Todd Beamer who was a passenger that tried to fight the terrorists on the plane that crashed near Somerset County. He further mentions George Howard who was a policeman that died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. To stress the situation further more, he shows the public Howard’s police shield that his mother gave him, in order to always remember tragedy of that day. “It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end». () By mentioning concrete examples and personifying the event, he is giving the tragedy a face and the people someone they can relate to. Another great use of pathos is the fact that he is mentioning grieving children throughout the speech, which in Bush’s words symbolizes inocence. “We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo”(). Also, by mentioning Muslims in a positive way he counterweights the nationalism associated with wars and directs attention at the “ collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda”() He further asks the Americans to be tolerant and respect the differences which guarantees victory to the terrorists. “We are in a fight for our principals and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethic background or religious faith”. () By further outlining a low level of scarifies to the war, Americans automatically “enforced” to rely on the president’s decisions how to fight “war on terrorism”, “live your life and hug your children”, “pray for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniforms and our great country”. () By giving the nation a role of observer in spectacle of war, bush indicates that it would be not “ one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.” (), in order to preserve psychology of war in minds eyes for the administration military and economic moves against terrorism.

Another rhetorical strategy used by the president was implementation of anaphoras. This strategy is often used by Bush and fairly obvious not only in his speech to Congress but in any other speech given by him. Usually, an anaphora is an effective strategy because it makes a sentence, indeed the whole passage, more memorable for the audience. For example while explaining why terrorists hate Americans, he said “ They hate our freedoms-our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” () Another example is “we will not tire, we will falter, and we will not fail.”() Explanation for terrorists’ motives was the most controversial and weakest part of the speech, the president did not explain why in the world there is an antipathy to American culture but simply said that Americans good and terrorists are evil. Perhaps, to make the unsound passage sound he had to use powerful rhetorical strategy – anaphora. In order to make his statement even more powerful and steer away any doubt he used tripartite structure by linking terrorism with “they are the heirs of all murderous ideologies of the twentieth century… . They follow in the path of fascism, nazism, and totalitarianism”