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

explanation, answers, plans, were needed from someone with credibility, ethos. Bush’s speechwriters employed numerous elements of rhetoric in the crafting of a response to the tragedy. The audience was incredibly diverse, with the American people being in the metaphorical front row seats.

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

be.
The most prominently and perhaps artfully used type of propaganda in the speech was Bandwagon. At first glance, one would think that the propaganda type was Plain Folks Propaganda. Used recurrently was the term “we” and “our” along with other unifying and dividing words such “us,” “they” and “them.” Plain Folks Propaganda as defined by Miller “Is a rhetorical device used to win the audience’s confidence by making the rhetor appear to be people like ourselves” (214). The president is American, was emotionally wounded and angry, and desired action to be taken. However, as to the state of the Union, “No such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people” (2). Such words unify—and make the President’s words and thoughts seem to be the very thoughts of the people themselves. Miller defined Bandwagon as, “A device to make us follow a crowd, to accept the propagandist’s program en masse. Because he wants us to “follow the crowd” in masses, he directs his appeal to groups held together by common ties of nationality, religion, race, environment, sex, vocation” (215-216). Not many platforms are bigger than a speech before a joint session of Congress and both national and international television. If the nation is collectively making these decisions, it causes any naysayers to Bush’s actions to be viewed as unpatriotic in a time when the sense of patriotism is high. These naysayers include critical thinkers who would like more information and options other than impending war to be discussed. Silenced are any opinion and rendered useless is any option that is not the president’s—under the guise of all these actions being the American public’s desires as well.
Almost as recurrent and unifying as “we” and “our” is freedom—and its attack as a negative connotation of Glittering Generalities Propaganda. One would think freedom had suffered mortal wounds; not the people in the buildings and planes. Miller defined Glittering Generalities as “A device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue by use of “virtue words.” Here he appeals to our emotions of love, generosity, and brotherhood” (212). Virtue words such as “Freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other” (25), appear often in the latter parts of the speech. Freedom appears in every founding national document and patriotic verse, from the Constitution to “God Bless America.” Freedom as an entity is never really defined, but is a powerful “truth” all the same, with its extended identity of America under attack. Phrases such as “Attack on freedom,’ are a negative connotation and use of usually positive glittering generalities. Such verbiage evokes anger and fear that a virtue can be lost, stolen, or taken. Stating that freedom is under attack and at war with terror calls the nation to protect these virtues, and to be righteous in doing so. This rhetoric under the name of freedom is not uncommon among American politicians and cultural history. Tapping into national pride and history from as far back as the Mayflower and her pilgrims, freedom is an American core value. It has sustained emotional morale in times of destruction and war, and even if not stated overtly, drives many decisions in Americans’ daily lives. To even imply that anyone—even just a handful of men against a nation millions strong—would try to take an intangible ideology gives rise to a knee-jerk reaction of fear and anger. These powerful emotions were given an outlet of war, and with the sense of patriotism high, it was accepted. The use of critical thinking, logos, was overwhelmed and ignored. Those words spoken and received so readily on September 20, would launch Americans into a drawn-out war. Perhaps most regrettable would be the answers found in time. Unaccounted for in the rhetoric is the fact that the attacks were in response to American foreign policy and actions. Freedom was never really the target of the attacks.
Introduced in the speech were a masterful example of Transfer Propaganda and a new Cabinet-level position of government—the Office of Homeland Security and its director, Tom Ridge. “And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend” (33).Governor, patriot, veteran, these words sound like the descriptors of a good and trustworthy man. A man that Bush also says is his friend. “A device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept” (213) as stated by Miller. Bush is a president, so he should be trustworthy, and Ridge’s title make him sound respectable. Except patriotism is not something you can put on your resume, and it does not qualify someone as a competent head to a new department of government created in little over a week’s time. The use of symbols is common in transfer propaganda, such as holy symbols and political representation. Just as Lady Liberty is a symbol of American freedom and jurisdiction, Ridge is a figurehead symbol of American action in the wake of the attacks. As is a police shield a symbol of heroism, specifically, the police shield of George Howard—one of the fallen responders to the attacks. Towards the end of the speech, after he has said some comforting words for the grieving, Bush pulled out Howard’s shield. Bush then stated that he would carry the shield to remind himself of those who had died and of his mission. Howard’s mother had apparently given it to him as a memorial of her son. It is a masterful move. While transfer is usually used to imbue something other than the propagandist, in this case, it is used otherwise. Carrying the police shield of a fallen responder implies that Bush is grieving just as those who lost loved ones, and is as brave as the responders. Perhaps those few lines may not be examples of sinister propaganda use. However, rounding out a speech full of war rhetoric and bandwagon with a reminder of comfort and home, is ethically questionable.
“Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (6) is perhaps the most defining sentence of the speech and blatant use of doublespeak in the entire speech.

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

echoed in today’s administration, such as the travel ban targeting Middle Eastern civilians. The nation and its policies on dealing with terror have become much more extensive, but have gained virtually no ground. While justice is an ideology without a face, this actions clearly are not justice, but rather horrors that could have at the very least been mitigated had critical thinking been applied. This pathos rhetoric has fueled repercussions extending past one decade and likely into another.
The purpose of this essay was to analyze a few prominent elements of Bush’s September 20, 2001, speech with elements of rhetoric as defined by Miller and Lutz and is by no means exhaustive. Critical thinking is an imperative part of the fully realized life. This extends from deciding what to have for dinner or leading a nation. It is easier to lead those who do not know how to lead themselves, with those who lead this way often lacking to consider their followers’ best interests. The consequences of Bush’s speech and the actions and attitudes it launched still resound more than sixteen years later.