Rhetorical Analysis On 9/11

On September 11, 2001, an American tragedy occurred. Four passenger planes were hijacked by nineteen terrorists later identified as being affiliated with al-Qaeda. The impacts caused the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City to collapse and the western wing of the Pentagon in Washington, DC to catch fire. A fourth plane is believed to have been headed to the capitol, but when a group of passengers and flight attendants who were successful in their insurrection caused the plane to flip and crash into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives in the direct events and the following response efforts of the attacks. The people of the nation were confused, scared, angry, hurting, etc. An

Members of Congress, leaders of other nations and their citizens, as well as any other al-Qaeda affiliates happening to be watching were also in the audience. This September 20, 2001, speech carried weight that defined a presidency and affected the course of a nation. It was a fiery call to arms and cry for vengeance of the American people, a warning for those perceived to be enemies or allies of enemies, and fueled by explosive pathos. The focus of this particular analysis will focus on five types of political rhetoric. Three types of propaganda: Bandwagon, Glittering Generalities, and Transfer as defined by a founder of The Institute for Propaganda Analysis and Columbia University professor Clyde Miller will appear. Rutgers University English professor and journal writer William Lutz’s definition of euphemism and its distinction as a type of doublespeak will appear. The purpose of this essay is to thoughtfully analyze a few prominent elements of Bush’s September 20, 2001, speech under elements of propaganda and doublespeak as identified by Clark and Miller and what some of their [Clark and Miller] criticisms of the speech might

Lutz defined doublespeak as “Language that claims to communicate but doesn’t” (304). Euphemism is the first type of doublespeak as, “A word or phrase designed to avoid a harsh or distasteful reality” (305). Justice, it’s a rousing word, but what exactly does it mean or look like? In this context, it’s an euphemism for killing. Referring to killing as “justice” sounds noble when the acts themselves are not. In the American government system, justice usually involves the legal system, most notably the rights to trial and fair imprisonment. There are no trials held in an airstrike. This euphemism has allowed for multiple skirmishes with high foreign civilian and American troop casualties and few gains in the “war on terror,” all without many American civilians batting an eye or analyzing the real horrors of war. “Justice” segueing into a series of new, ethically questionable foreign policies tolling over a million Afghani civilians, two thousand American soldiers, and over two trillion dollars. As acts of terrorism continue to escalate, so does outcry about the policies immediately enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks. This “justice” has spawned more insurgent groups as a direct backlash to the ideal of stopping terrorism worldwide. This war rhetoric still continues to be