War of the Words: To Qualify Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Bush On the brink of two different wars, two United States’ Presidents rose up to the challenge of calming the American people and fighting for the belief of justice. A day after devastation on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gives his “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation”. At the beginning of a terrorist crisis in 2001, George W. Bush announces a “‘War on Terror’ Declaration”. Both Presidents have many similarities in common, yet their differences set them apart with uniqueness. These two speeches, separate by nearly sixty years, weave an outright and assertive tone into their diction and detail. Within both Presidential speeches diction is used to similarly inform and alleviate the American people. Franklin D. Roosevelt admits he and the U.S. government were “deceived” (5) by a “deliberately planned” (5) attack which, he declares, will be remembered with “infamy” (2). Roosevelt targets Japan with spiteful and traitorous words letting Americans know he too is vengeful and offended by the attack. George W. Bush gathers nations together for the “fight of all” (35) against the “murderers” (13) of al Qaeda to stop their “evil and destruction” (16). George W. Bush cons the idea of al Qaeda being a natural embodiment of evil, boldly shaming the group for their atrocities to show his disagreement with al Qaeda’s beliefs. Likewise, he and Bush reveal the enemy with malice statements, providing model images of the enemy for Americans to accept and channel their hate towards. Both Presidents know of the panic and fear the American people now have, therefore they each use powerful words to portray fearlessness of the enemy. According to Roosevelt, the actions of the Japanese empire “... ... middle of paper ... ... Roosevelt’s address on Pearl Harbor. The amount of detail given is imperative because it provides Presidential power over the mindsets of Americans. Although both Presidential speeches are in different eras, they still had an equal effect of empowering the United States. The similarities enforced past ideas while the differences present new ones. A considerable similarity is the fact the speeches were given just before the United States of America went to war. A major difference between these two Presidential addresses is the way they persuade Americans to commence war: Franklin D. Roosevelt uses heated anger to fuel the fire of the American hearts and in contradiction George W. Bush guides Americans to battle with visions of unity and alliance. Although the speeches have an equal amount of similarities and differences they complement each other as day and night.
This paper will discuss similarities between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor that describe the Presidential responses to the attacks, as well as investigate the roles that class, culture, religion, and nations of superiority played in these attacks on the United States.
And to this day, these values hold up and serve as the basis for all aspects of our country, whether it range from politics to social issues. But on September 11, 2001, these fundamental principles that stand for freedom were put into serious jeopardy by maniacal terrorists who refused to accept the progressive role that America played on a global scale. But as America slowly began to recover from this tragedy, the responsibility to lift the American spirit was left to the hands of the politicians who we ironically know to cause so much chaos and bipartisan gridlock. Nonetheless, world leaders such as Rudy Giuliani eased the pain for the American populous in a manner that called for reform in order to prevent an attack like this from ever occurring on American soil. Ultimately, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rudy Giuliani makes effective use of tone, rhetorical devices, and logical and emotional appeals to soothe the wounds that the
Wake Forest University, Spring 2002. Web. The Web. The Web. 29 Jan. 2014. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech.
Rhetorical Analysis of President Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech. The Pearl Harbor address to the nation is probably one of the most famous speeches made throughout history. In this essay, I will evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech and show that his speech is a successful argument for the United States of America. I will focus on the speaker's credibility, all the different appeals made throughout the speech, as well as the purpose and the audience of the speech.
The attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7th, 1941, was and still is an event that will forever be deep-rooted in the mind of every American. After the tragic surprise attack on American soil by the Japanese, Americans throughout the country were looking for a sense of unity. The President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, recited a moving and powerful speech the day after the attack. Although the speech was specifically targeted at the Members of Congress in an effort to persuade the declaration of war with Japan, the speech was also written to be televised to the entire country. When the attack comes to mind, the powerful speech that mustered the nation together slowly follows. Every famous speech uses specific rhetorical devices in order to persuade and convince the intended audience. FDR’s use of ethos, pathos, and logos, successfully triggered the emotions of all U.S citizens and effectively provoked the idea of America declaring war on the Empire of Japan.
Also, using facts to give himself a sense of credibility. The speaker in the speech is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He is addressing the nation on the occasion that Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese forces. The audience in which he is addressing this occasion to is the American people. His purpose for addressing the nation was to persuade them that war must happen.
Rhetorical analysis assignment: President’s Address to the Nation. Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling on all citizens and all nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the Middle East struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed.
Roosevelt used personification in his speech in different ways such as he personifies his actions while his presidency in using phrases such as “but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn”. Roosevelt described something so that others can understand, he talked about the failure of America during the Great Depression. Roosevelt also talked about his plans in helping America while his presidency, “I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require”. In other words, he is emphasizing a point which it will be consider personification. Franklin D. Roosevelt also used diction in his First Inaugural Address in order to demonstrate his word choices in introducing the New Deal. America was facing severe economic issues during the Great Depression, farmers find no markets for their produce, savings of many years in thousands of families were gone and a host of unemployment citizens were facing the grim problem of existence. Roosevelt wanted actions for citizens and actions were given. Roosevelt give out examples of diction such as “let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”, Roosevelt repeated his chosen words in some point of the phrase to achieve an artistic effect which is best known as diction. Another rhetorical device that Franklin D. Roosevelt used in his speech was antimetabole. Roosevelt used this rhetorical appeal in his speech in order to demonstrate his actions in helping America. Roosevelt talked about the desperate Americans in need of a change “the nation asks for action, and action now” where the words that Roosevelt claimed for a recover. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted America achieve after a severe crisis and he put himself in task by putting people to
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair delivered speeches shortly after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia, which occurred on September 11, 2001. Former President George W Bush utilized pathos, anaphora, and personification in his speech to convey an optimistic tone. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, addressing the same topic, utilized mild invective and parallel structure to express an affirmative tone. Throughout the speech, the former President George W. Bush strives to empower Americans by instructing them to remain resolute, but to “go back to [their] lives and routines”. He uses the personal pronoun we and the common pronoun us repeatedly to indicate that the people of the United States, who either saw the event on television or experienced this event firsthand, were and still are involved in this national tragedy.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
While Lincoln’s speeches were great and well thought out, Roosevelt’s speeches were more persuasive and full of imagery that swayed audiences and help attention captive. Roosevelt had a way with words that Lincoln did not have. Roosevelt’s speeches were more upbeat and tried to lift spirits while Lincoln’s speeches saddened many. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Two presidents in history whose speeches made a lasting impact on
The presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were, essentially, defined by their experiences with war. Wilson, after narrowly winning a second term in office in 1916, was faced with the onset of World War I. Roosevelt – first elected in 1932, the first of his four terms – entered office while the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression and then led the United States through most of World War II. Though the two world wars began in two very different international settings, the two presidents appeared to share an ideological view and supported the proposal of an international institution that could make the world safe for American democracy. Despite their similarities, however, Roosevelt’s views on international order changed as the United States entered the war. While both presidents had an idealist, Wilsonian view in regards to the international stage and, more specifically, international institutions, Wilson and Roosevelt differed slightly. Wilson fervently believed throughout his presidency that international institutions were necessary in the developing international scene, whereas Roosevelt, towards the end of his presidency, began to question Wilsonian vision. While Roosevelt’s opinion on international institutions shifted, however, the two presidents ultimately opened up the rest of the United States to Wilsonian thinking.
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
The speech “War Message” by former president Woodrow Wilson is one of the most memorable speeches of all time. He is able to capture the audience’s attention and really make them listen with the help of many rhetorical elements. Woodrow Wilson is by far one of the best presidents this nation has ever seen and also one of the best speakers of all time. The magnitude of this speech and what it is about gives it such an appeal without even trying. The rhetorical elements of this text such as ethos, pathos, and logos are what gives this speech its credibility, its powerfulness, and its persuasiveness.
So while the two’s speeches are different in their approach, there is still a vein of similarity in the way the tone and mood of the speeches develop. This same hopeful and inspiring mood in both speeches make them impactful to their audience and help develop an important belief. That the world could become a place where someone does not have to worry about whether their neighbour will attack their home the next or the next week or anytime in the future. By being alike in their manner of speaking about “freedom from fear”, Roosevelt and Obama help to sway their audience to believe the same way. They show that if two people from different times can agree on a peaceful future, perhaps that future is more likely to happen. A similar approach to such an important topic helps build hope in the people of the world and allows them to believe and fight for a time where they do not have to fight nearby nations. In fact, these two speeches and their similar message amazes me and persuades me to believe that, with an extreme amount of hard work, a peaceful world could be a reality in the far future. Based upon my observations around the current world, peace between all nations is a far-fetched