Analysis Of The 9 / 11 Overreaction By Charles Krauthammer

People walked through the city of New York as they would on any ordinary day, except fate had a different course of action planned out for America. Being only 5 I can still remember that chaos and frightfulness that swept over America due to an act of terror. On September 11, 2001 the country faced an attack that exemplified the most evil of acts. At 8:46 a.m. a hijacked airplane crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Shortly after another plane lunged into the South Tower immediately causing the building to be engulfed in flames. Thousands of people were in these buildings doing anything they could to escape. Burning bodies could be seen jumping from the top flights of the towers. Firefighters and policemen became heroes as they put their lives to the side so that they could bring those trapped in the burning buildings to safety. During all of this a third plane crashed into the Pentagon and for the first time in history all aircrafts were to land at the nearest airport. Approximately an hour after the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, they both collapsed along with the innocent lives of those who were trapped inside. Ash and debris filled the city and those fortunate enough to escape. 2,753 people were killed in the collapse of the towers on one of Americas most deadly attacks to date. Not only did this attack take away thousands of lives and break the hearts of families across the country, it instilled a sense of fear and concern for the safety of being an American. The people were in need of a sense of direction to take following one of the Nation’s most tragic measures. After the three attacks it left everyone angry and confused to what was going on. They needed a sense of reassurance so that they knew the country was taking action swiftly and taking the precautionary measures to make sure nothing of this nature could happen on American soil again. He effectively displays kairos, logos, ethos, and pathos to get his message to transpire to America. President George Bush used this event to fuel a speech addressed to the nation that would define his presidency for years to come. How did George Bush’s speech help Americans come

The momentous tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001 has been engraved into the memories of United States citizens. What began as an ordinary day quickly evolved into an tragedy no one could have predicted: thousands of lives had been taken and countless more devastated and ruined by the acts of terror. Although unpredicted, the horrific and frightening news affected all. The four planes individually plummeted into their targets—two crashed into the Twin Towers, another struck the Pentagon, and the final hurtled into an empty field—eliciting a wave of panic throughout the nation. The jarring images of commercial airplanes hijacked by members of the terrorist group Al-Qaida managed to instill a fear. As the terrified country anxiously fretted about the future, President George W. Bush delivered a speech to address the nation in order to soothe the tensions and worry. In George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation,” the terrorist attack orchestrated against the U.S. is addressed with rhetorical devices such as parallel structure, imagery, and various appeals in order to inspire and heal the country.

September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.

The book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

When the twin towers were destroyed in New York City by the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden, a Country filled with panic, sadness, and anger was left behind. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed, and the families of the fallen suffered greatly. People demanded answers, and wanted justice. People also felt unsafe, and were unaware if it was reasonable to expect another attack. President George Walker Bush prepares a speech for congress to discuss the events that took place, and the plans that will take place because of these events. The objectives of the speech Bush was trying to accomplish were informing the nation what had happed on September 11th, he then noted that it was not Muslins to be blamed for the attack, the challenges that lie ahead, and our plan for the “War on Terror.” The President uses the canons of rhetoric to execute a speech that met his audience’s needs.

The September 11th terrorist hijackings and attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon caught the United States largely by surprise. Once the dust had settled, and the shock and horror of such an unprecedented event had waned, the American public began to ask questions. Names such as Osama bin Laden, countries such as Afghanistan, and organizations such as Al-Qaeda were brought into the public's consciousness for the first time. Through newspapers, talkback radio and television programs the nation asked ‘why do they hate us so much?' Others, such as those in the government and public service, asked ‘what could we have done to have prevented this?' It is

“The terrorist attack on America 13 years ago is one of the few events in U.S. history big enough to claim its date as its name. But Sept. 11, 2001, did not change the nation as abruptly as Dec. 7, 1941, or as dramatically as July 4, 1776. This time, there was no declaration of war or independence, just a warning that if we altered our ways, the terrorists would have won.”

In Steven Brill's Are We Any Safer, an article which appeared in the September 2016 issue of The Atlantic, the rhetor attempts to educate the audience on the issue of post 9/11 security, and whether or not it has improved safety. The writer responds to this exigence and makes rhetorical response effective by using ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience. The audience in which Brill is addressing is the American people. Americans were affected the most by 9/11, so they are the ones who will be attracted to this response. In the article Brill also expertly balances resources and constraints, a key part to any rhetorical response.

Recognizing the threat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups posed provided homeland security with the basis which is now important to state and local law enforcement agencies (Sheehan, Michael, 2011). After nearly a decade after the September eleventh, more than twenty terrorist related plots were uncovered by the federal government. As the war against terrorism continues, it has cost America the lives of more than six thousand service members and nearly 1.5 trillion dollars (Ortmeier, P, 2009).

In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks in American history, the September attacks of the world Trade Center in 2001, Americans are obligated to look at the mistakes that were made before and after the attacks, especially in recent lite of increased acts of terror globally. A critical mistake made before the attacks was the neglection of terrorism as a top priority in President George W. Bush’s administration. And after the attacks, inaction would also have been viewed negatively by the public, and so the government acted swiftly in retaliation to the attacks, resulting in the death of many brave American soldiers and a huge cost to the American taxpayer.

The shocking tragedy on September 11, 2001 altered the course of American national security. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was rarely debated as a hot topic, even within the small circle of policy elites (Kamarck, 2013, p. 34). The only prior homeland attack on America was Pearl Harbor and this was not on U.S. mainland. Many Americans were shocked that such a tragedy could occur on American soil and they are still shocked to this day. People are still recovering from this tragic event. The government knew that the country’s enemies still posed an enormous threat to the nation’s security. In response to the events that took place on 9/11, the United States Congress passed the USA/Patriot Act, which intensified the surveillance powers held by the federal government through the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies. This act increased national airport security procedures, metro security in most major U.S. cities, and extended the government’s capacity to spy on citizens.

After losing 2,977 lives one fateful September morning, we realized we left the doors to our country wide open to attack. As a result, we ramped up our security and instituted new programs to combat terrorism to make ourselves invulnerable to similar attacks. But as the government began to develop programs within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to prevent such an attack from ever happening again, the government began to infringe on the rights which were laid down in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Although the American government protected its people from another possible attack, the government itself attacked its own people by denying the rights which it formerly recognized.

The happenings of September 11, 2001 were tragic and heartbreaking, and in the presidential speech that George W. Bush gave nine days later, he ties ideas of American exceptionalism into the works. In his speech he adds that, “as long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be a time of terror” (Bush, 93). Here, he is trying to boost the morale of Americans by saying that we will come together and will be able to get over this since we are exceptional from the rest and have a lot of power. Bush then declares that they will go to war and are “confident of the victories to come” (Bush, 94). He is able to say that with confidence because they are a

On September 11 2001, an attack was made on United States. Four systematic terrorist attacks were pulled off by the group al-Qaeda simultaneously bringing down the World Trade Centre in New York and damaging the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As extensive and in depth as the cause for the attack may have been, September 11 is an event that has undoubtedly left its mark in American history. A turning point, as some would call it, of the political, social, and economic systems of the United States. Quickly following the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George W. Bush called for a “war against terrorism.” Instead, what truly occurred was an act of counter terrorism. After 9/11, the political system of America took a turn for the worst;

The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”