Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
George w bush's speech 9/20/19 rhetorical analysis
Rhetorical analysis essay on George Bushs speech
George bush post 9/11 speech rhetorical analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: George w bush's speech 9/20/19 rhetorical analysis
Doublespeak Doublespeak, whether intentional or unintentional is communication that is obscure, pompous, vague, evasive and confusing.() In most instances, doublespeak tries to achieve a particular objective as is the case in President Bush’s address to the nation on September 11, after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The objective of this speech is clearly to mollify the emotions of a frightened nation and at the same time set the tone for what is to come as a result of the attacks. In this speech one can find many examples of doublespeak. These examples seem to be intentional although they defy typical doublespeak in that the doublespeak is not intended for any personal gains and is not concealed with a lot of convoluted language. If one can understand some of the basic principles about making sense of media-speak then the domino effect of this type of speech can be reduced. One of the first statements President Bush makes in his speech can be classified as doublespeak. When he say’s “Our way of life, our very freedom came under attack,” he is indirectly saying that everything Americans are accustomed to and enjoy is at stake. With these simple words and the tone chosen to deliver them President Bush is strategically taking the emotions of the American people for a ride while making it clear that the American people are his target audience. An important principle for properly deciphering this instance of doublespeak is to unload first responses and get them out in the open so the rest of the message can be received clearly and unobstructed by inner thoughts. Other examples of doublespeak that fit into the same category as the previous one are when President Bush uses the phrases, “Foundation of America” and “Steel of American Resolve.” Both of these examples attempt to evoke an emotional response although, the emotions attempting to be extracted are different from those in the beginning of the speech. They differ because they set the tone for new offensive and secure feelings opposed to the original feelings of defense and endangerment. This example also illustrates how obscure doublespeak can be. President Bush regards the attacks as despicable and evil acts. The word evil is the doublespeak in this example. The way he uses this word automati... ... middle of paper ... ...nbsp; G-d is stronger than any human on earth. Walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil Not fearing the terrorists because of such a tragedy in close proximity. Every walk of life All races, genders, and cultures. Resolve for justice and peace We are going to war. Eliminating Mediaspeak: Is it Clear Now? Doublespeak is deceptive as are most of the examples mentioned from this speech. On the contrary, doublespeak as explored through this example is sometimes a necessary tool to address an issue in a manner that is politically correct. When the doublespeak present in this speech is eliminated the underlying themes are not entirely lost and the speech is still effective. I think given the circumstances the audience was pleased with the underlying messages delivered and probably expected them making it easier to decipher President Bush’s jargon. The speech could have been delivered without doublespeak and more directly, but the perception of the audience would likely remain the same.
Bush opens his speech by acknowledging the events of September 11, and those that lost the lives of loved ones and to those that gave their life trying to save others in the buildings. He appeals to those that remain strong by saying that, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.” His use of pathos helps Bush to calm and control the public in order to keep the country together. This
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. He implements this emotional appeal into his speech to involve all Americans--people living in the United States of America, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or culture, and to acknowledge that the American people have endured this together, and that they will continue to advance after this event with stronger resolve, stronger than ever. In addition, he implements personification to motivate and empower the American people. “Our nation, this generation, will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future” (Bush, 2001). “This generation”, again a synonym for the American people, with its unwavering resolve, will fight for its freedom persistently. He intimates that the future of America and of democratic freedom is in the hands of the American people: that the American people have the power to control their fate. The next sentence leads into America’s “philanthropically” democratic nature: “We will rally the world to this cause, by our efforts and by our courage” (Bush, 2001). This statement has been followed up by action only a few years later, when the United States intervened in the Iraqi War, Libyan Revolution, and even more civil wars to ensure the freedom of citizens from dictatorships, which in Islāmic nations, were militant groups, like the Hamas and Taliban. Lastly, the president utilized anaphora, specifically a tripartite structure, by affirming that the American people “will not tire”, “will not falter”, and “will not fail”. He implies that the American people will relentlessly fight for the worldwide establishment of peace and democratic institutions, a promise which America has kept even in the face of its own national crisis.
Bill Clinton’s rhetoric is two-fold. His problem is unique in that he must communicate in two different forums–in a public context to the American people and in a legal context to the House and Senate. This presents some unique problems. Although the two arenas are different, they are mixed–what the President says publicly can be held against him legally, and what he says in court is presented to the public through the media. Clinton’s challenge is to develop rhetoric that is optimum for the arena it is delivered in, but compatible with the other arena’s rhetoric as well.
These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” George Bush was president at the time when the 9/11 attack happened. George Bush wrote this quote for the thousands of lives that were hugely affected. To the kids worried about their parents while they are in school, to the worried husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters. The 9/11 attack did not only change the lives of people who lost a loved one, and the people who were there where the planes hit, but also people who just saw what was happening and people who heard about it, cried. The increase and patriotism and the rise in security will make people feel more secure and protected but it will never change the the amount of people affected by 9/11. Millions of people around the world know about what happened on September 11th, 2001. Millions of people will be changed
Obama speaks of America with courage and confidence in his first inaugural address by mentioning how previous Americans “faced down fascism and communism…with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions” (2009). By describing the troubles as well as the successes, Obama creates a sense of pride and patriotism. The president also uses haunting imagery to form fear in the audience such as “the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages” (2009). Both quotes perfectly intertwine with each other through the speech so the audience feels a variety of emotions while understanding the values of America and importance of freedom. Obama conquers the method of pathos by putting himself into other peoples shoes while having them step into
There are many reasons why people use euphemism as mentioned by William Lutz in “The world of Doublespeak” states that “euphemism is an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid the harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality” (390). However as mentioned by Lutz in “The world of doublespeak” when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive, it becomes doublespeak” (391). For example instead of saying we killed three people they would use the phrase we exterminated three intruders to mislead and confuse people especially the uneducated. Also as stated by William Lutz in “The World of Doublespeak” indicates that “when you use a euphemism because of your sensitivity for someone’s feelings or for a recognized social or cultural taboo, it is not doublespeak” (390). For instance, imagine someone told you I heard your grandpa died that would sound harsh, but if someone said I heard your grandpa passed away that sounds more respectable which is not considered doublespeak. Lutz finds the People who are responsible for euphemism doublespeak tend to be people that try to cover up the unpleasant, which are mainly the government, armies and the news. Next as stated by Lutz “it is a language designed to alter our perception of reality”
Throughout history leaders of nations worldwide have utilized different methods of persuasion to try and influence peoples’ thinking or justify their actions. The way a leader addresses a nation is crucial in times of war, hardship, or traumatic events and this may play a role on the outlook of the people. The terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001 prompted two U.S. Presidents, George Bush and Barack Obama, to take steps that were meant to protect the American people and U.S allies. Both Presidents waged war, which so far has spanned three presidential terms, on people who were thought to be terrorists and many lives were lost. The purpose of this blog is to examine the methods of persuasion used by both Presidents in their effort to justify their actions and the ongoing need for U.S troops in the Middle East.
Witham, Larry. “Muslims See Wordplay as Swordplay in Terrorism War.” The Washington Post. 24 July 2002. Web. 3 October 2012.
On more than one occasion, President George W. Bush has described the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as fostering “a monumental battle of good versus evil.” In this battle, there has been no doubt in his mind (or in ours) regarding who is on the side of good and who is on the side of evil. Though some have winced at the President’s use of such absolute moral terms to portray the tragic events of that fateful day, others have applauded his courageous use of such unfashionable discourse as entirely appropriate, even suggesting that it implies the demise of the cultural scourge of postmodern moral relativism.
President Bush used a copious amount of rhetorical strategies in his speech. He used many forms of personification, anaphora and metaphors. Personification is used to get people to comprehend what the country has at stake here when he says, “Freedom and fear are at war.” Anaphora is used when he wanted to make a point by disclosing, “The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time, the great hope of every time…” He used metaphors to describe to this glorious nation what they could do by proclaiming, “...our generation, will lift a dark threat of violence of violence from our and our future.” Overall the President's tone was sombre and proactive because what he was talking about was the worst situation anyone could imagine in America. While being sombre he was also proactive because he knew we couldn’t just sit there and let it happen again and he was letting the people know he wasn’t going to.
First, the intensification components which are present in the text help to ingrain an idea that is distorted because the president says and reinforce the key information that he wanted that the country knew. The repetitions have an idea of persuasion behind its use, and the audience finally takes the elements which have been repeated as the truth. In this text there are crucial words such as “Union”, “Leadership”, “I thank you”, “Americans”, “American people”, “friends”, “we”, “I ask you(r)” among others, the main aim of this words is to create a feeling of unity against a common enemy, Al Qaeda. The repetition is not only used to create good feelings, but also to fill with fear and terror into the citizenship. The examples of them are mainly at the second part of the speech, they are very strong words such as “war”, “terror”, “kill”, “hate”, “terrorist” or “terrorism”. The association is also used in order to appeal to the audience’s feelings. There was a passenger, Todd Beamer, he was considered a hero and the president uses his image and his wife’s one for the purpose of making the audience feel empathy with the grieving wife. The president says that Al Qaeda “commands them to kill Christians and Jews, (to) kill Americans” and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children”, using this he reinforces the feeling of empathy and hatred to Al Qaeda because they have attacked to the vulnerable groups. The composition of the speech helps to intensify all that the speaker is trying to express; at the beginning he uses a solemn tone, then, he starts to speak about Al Qaeda and the attack, his words indicate that there is hatred and anger.
The propagandist also speaks confidently. He gives the impression of knowing what he is talking about…” Robert J. Gula, Nonsense (Axios Press, 2007), 23. Obama states that his administration can and will take steps to improve our competitiveness on our own, he is showing that he is very confident that his administration can and will improve the competitiveness. He mentions if we provide the right support “America can be number one again. And that is how America will be number one again.” He is letting his audience know; with his help, he can help America become number one again. One of Obamas strategies to engage his audience is Repetition, as stated in Dr. Bennet’s website “Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.” Bo Bennet “Argument by Repetition,” 2016, accessed May 22, 2016, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com. Throughout his speech Barack Obama would constantly say, “Pass this jobs bill” he repeatedly let his audience know, that both parties have approved this. This bill will help the middle class, our veterans, children’s educations, small business homes, teachers, and most importantly the unemployment insurance. He is letting his audience know that this bill needs to be passed. This is a strategic verbiage. Barack Obama states that this bill needs to be approved to help the veterans; he let the viewers know
President Bush’s speech was directed towards an audience of northern Arizonan republican supporters. Bush continuously uses the rhetorical appeal of pathos, the appeal to the audience’s emotions, to gain support from the crowd and connect them to the issues he addresses on an emotional level. The best example of such an issue is the promise of creating a new forest policy. By raises an issue that the audience was emotionally concerned with, Bush is able to persuade the audience to his purpose as well as relate them to it on an emotional level. It was likely that there were people in the audience who were directly affected by the recent forest fires in Arizona who felt very passionately about the topic of a new national forest policy. The appeal of emotion became a very effective tool in motioning the audience in the direction of his purpose, mainly the gain of support for the republican candidates in the next Arizona election.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'; How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America." The Washington Post. N.p., 25 Mar. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
When in 1990, President George HW Bush used the phrase “new world order”, his words had an ominous ring both because they implied that this would be an American-d...