9/11 Rhetorical Analysis

No one imagined on the morning of September 11th, 2001 for there to be an attack on US soil. The morning started out just like any other morning. However, that all changed when 4 planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists groups. Two of the four planes crashed into the World trade Center in New York City. One shortly after collided into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The fourth plane made a crash landing in a field in Pennsylvania. Thus killing all 40 passengers and crew aboard. One that day, we lost a total of 2,996 American lives due to the 9/11 events (statisticbrain). The American people, were frightened and angry. They needed answer not rumors. If rhetoric is situational, as Bitzer states, the opportunity existed for a rhetor to step

forward and address information to Americans in need. George W. Bush, as president, was the only logical rhetor to fill that need. According to New York Times columnist D.T. Max, Bush presented various minor that were not fully successful speeches leading up to his speech before congress and the American public on 20 September 2001. Political speeches (and politicians) often resort to rhetorical devices called propaganda, doublespeak, and fallacies; thus, their content is fodder for analysis. We turn to experts for direction with information on these topics: Miller, Lutz, and Clarke. Clyde Miller was a professor at Columbia University who was also a cofounder of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1937. William Lutz is an English professor at Rutgers University as well as an editor for a journal on the topic of doublespeak which introduces a borrowed term from George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. A thoughtful consideration of Bush’s 9/20 speech provides solid evidence that Miller, Lutz, and Clarke would criticize the speechwriters for excessive use of propaganda, doublespeak, and logical fallacies.