Rhetorical Analysis of President’s Address To The Nation Post 9/11

President George W. Bush’s address to the nation September 9th, 2001 could be summarized as a well thought out speech that in the beginning was about letting the nation know that terrorist have attacked our country. He then promptly focused on how the persistence of attacking and anger from the terrorists was no match for the brute like strength and unified people. He proposed that the struggle to split the United States from the

President George Bush’s letter to President Saddam Hussein is a convincing segment intended to persuade Hussein to remove his forces from Kuwait before conflict ensues. Some critical readers believe that Bush does not provide a rational argument, but this paper is taking the standpoint that Bush not only is rational, but cogent. President George Bush is able to effectively convey his forceful message to President Saddam Hussein, expressing that Iraq must leave Kuwait through the use of establishing credibility, strength, repetition, and persuasive appeals by explaining that the world will not tolerate war and violence any longer.

The author of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” focuses on using unfair appeals to emotion: biased language. In the first paragraph of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” the author writes “no amount of Administration spin can hide the ugly reality in Iraq” (3). Biased language is shown here by claiming the

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.

Around 8:00 pm on January 12, 2016, millions of American citizens turned their TVs to

After the death of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with the intent to have all U.S. forces removed by the end of 2014. Recent events in the Middle East are raising questions as to the desirability of this withdrawal in its entirety.

As stated above, this examine paper attempts to provide a broad description of Bush’s “war on terror” rhetoric. I examined all presidential weekly radio addresses from September 11, 2001 until August 7, 2004, the televised public statement made by the president on September 11, 2001, and the three State of the Union addresses since September 11, 2001 . For purposes of this paper, since I am only interested in the symbolism Bush draws upon when speaking on the war on terror, I limited the public statements I examined to those after September 11. Additionally, time constraints forced limitations on how much of the President’s public statements I was able to scrutinize. The president, of course, makes many more public statements than weekly radio addresses and the annual State of the Union. Press briefings and campaign trail speeches are also a major component of presidential rhetoric, and any complete study of Bush’s “terror” language would look at these statements.

In a speech given by President Bush, he called the surge “A new way forward”, which indirectly confirmed to many that the White House was aware of the military shortcomings in Iraq. Although the Bush administration most likely had the best of intentions, there are a few key reasons the Iraqi surge did not have sustained positive results. The surge strategy was to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000; these troops would be used in urban civilian areas where military forces have had a difficult time clearing out neighborhoods. The surge was initially a success, however, after several months it became clear the success was short-lived, and the overall strategy was short sighted. Members of Al Qaeda simply left the region while it was heavily occupied, only to return when the U.S. threat had vacated the area. There was a survey conducted by Iraq, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens felt that daily living conditions had not changed they were in favor of American troops leaving their country. Although the primary goal of improving the lives of citizens was not fully realized, there is a bigger flaw with the surge, it had aimed to reduce American and Iraqi casualties, as well as lower the number of Al Quad attacks. As already stated, these surges did have some fleeting success, which were able to produce statistics that briefly pacified many critics of the war,

“If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” These were the first words spoken that would give any inclination towards what was soon to come. In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he referred to the Middle East as an “axis of evil,” a term that would be used for the next ten years, throughout the devastating war with Iraq. Millions of American’s views on Iraq were clouded by the malicious actions of the few nineteen suicide bombers on September 11, 2001, and other preconceptions about the Muslim people. Consequently, today many people think that the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq was successful, removing Hussein’s regime and restoring freedom in Iraq. However, they probably aren’t aware of the massive impacts the war has had on Iraq and less importantly, America. The U.S./Iraq war has had a devastating impact on the social and economic states of Iraq, and has contributed to the U.S. pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the military.

June 7 2005, 42 Iraqis reported slaughtered in revolt related savagery, 67 individuals reported harmed in four bombings - three in the northern town of Hawija and one in Baghdad, 3 US officers executed, 1 remote prisoner taken, 40 outside prisoners accepted to be alive in confinement, 20 presumed agitators caught in Tal Afar, 8,000 Iraqi troops, 30,000 US troops working in Baghdad, 1,800,000 barrels of oil created, 25 percent of Iraqis totally subject to government nourishment hand-outs, 50 percent of Iraqis with no entrance to safe drinking water. Women and honorable men, welcome to a typical day for an Iraqi. Taking after the September 11 fear based oppressor assaults on the world exchange focuses in America, there has been a sentiment anxiety and a need to get revenge on those dependable. This response however has streamed into what we now know as the war in Iraq. Being an Australian, it is simple for us to be tricked by the media and media representations of these issues. We just realize what we see and what we see is not generally reality. President George Bush has intense issues. Prior to the main organization of troops to Iraq, Bush put forth various clear expressions about the reason the United States expected to seek after the most radical activities any country can embrace - demonstrations of war against another country. Presently plainly a number of his announcements seem, by all accounts, to be false. President Bush tended to the United Nations on September 22nd

When we invaded Iraq George W. Bush said some things that Saddam Hussein would have, if he was to expect an invasion from the U.S., find freighting. George said this, ‘explicit Saddam, we’re taking him out.’ Iraq was a relatively stable country for the many ethnic conflicts. Saddam was suspected to have WMBs, which was a lie. One reason for the invasion was this suspicion, another was the vast amounts of oil in the region. The oil could help the economy and the need for oil from other countries in America. The invasion would lead to over 600,000 civilian

President Obama spoke on the attack and death of 5 police officers in Dallas, while on his business trip in Warsaw. In his speech he looked distraught and firm on his stance he made it clear that he believed the attack is in no way justifiable under any circumstances. Obama also lightly touched on the clear rage civilians have for the police since the increased number of police brutality incidents and the most recent ones that started the protest in Dallas. In his speech he urged the people of America to recognize that no one’s life is more valuable than any others and that no one should be categorized and condemned in a group because of their skin tone or profession. Since he’s been away he has had to take time to address the incidents in the United States. Many wondered if he would cancel his future events and return to the white house but looking back at similar past situations the best guess is that he will stick to his strict schedule.

In his 2009 Inaugural Address, President Barack Obama gave an impassioned speech filled with extended metaphors along the lines of movement, travel, and a journey. In fact, much of his economic language throughout the first 100 days of his presidency followed this theme. Obama’s use of these metaphors served to characterize the economic crisis, unite the American people, and frame his perspective on the role of the presidency. Thus, through analysis of his rhetoric, we learn that metaphors really do matter.

Bush’s most controversial line includes his statement, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people” (Bush 2003). At the time of this speech, 9/11 was only two years fresh in America, by appealing to the emotions of this American tragedy, Bush was able to pinpoint many Americans on his side. While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is commonly known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the rule of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, although establishing Iraq as a threat, the bridge between Iraq and terrorism does not appear plausible. However, with paranoia at it’s peak, Americans were attracted to the statements made by Bush for the comfort and security of their homes and nation. Bush presumed his actions and overall desire of war would be disguised by his overpowering statement “weapons of mass destruction”. The tragic day, 9/11, was embraced on as an ostensible reason for stampeding public opinion and accepting US military attacks on Iraq. While Bush utilized many forms of doublespeak, he also attempted to appeal to the audience's emotions by

“The greatest glory in living lies not in never failing, but in rising everytime we fall.” -Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.The U.S. was at war with their enemies in Iraq in March 2003. George W. Bush said Hussein was hiding nuclear weapons that can cause millions of deaths. Obama said he didn’t want the troops to be fighting so he brought them home. Then in 2011 he withdrew the rest of the troops because it cost money to prepare the troops and there are too many deaths. Removing the troops from Iraq was a mistake because ISIS is growing stronger and we need more than 3,500 troops to defeat ISIS.