September 11, 2001 the
World Trade Center was attacked by a radical group of terrorists,
al-Qaeda. George W. Bush, the president
at the time of the attack, gave a speech nine days after the event. His use of language and diction contributes
to the speech’s effect on the population and heightens his promise to
Americans. Ten years after the attack,
Noam Chomsky wrote an essay contradicting Bush’s actions and condemning the
United States to “American exceptionalism” which is very much accurate.
George W. Bush uses rhetoric after the attack of 9/11
through his descriptive words and tone of voice. In the beginning of his speech, Bush uses ‘we’
to address the American population instead of talking directly from his point
of view. His use of this pronoun
institutes a feeling of inclusiveness and unity between the American people
which contributes to his uplifting and reassuring tone. The encouraging tone follows in, “Tonight we
are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned
to anger, and anger to resolution.
Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our
enemies, justice will be done,” (Bush 1).
I have found that uplifting attitudes towards events spur more support
than violent and accusing tones. I
believe Bush begins and finishes with a reassuring attitude to get the support
of the population and make everyone feel safe and secure. Bush uses normal diction, along with regular
vocabulary in order to address as many people as possible in the United
States. His speech also includes many
anaphoras to give it a strong and powerful message. Later on in his speech, Bush includes many
facts about the terrorists involved in the attack to inform citizens and to
make it known that the United States will stop them. Bush’s promise to Americans is that, “every
terrorist group of global reach will be found, stopped, and defeated,” (Bush
4). He supports his promise through his
answering of common questions about what to do and what al-Qaeda is about. Bush is very stern and commanding towards the
terrorist regimes by using harsh language which help his reassuring attitude
towards America that we will not be attacked again. All of these aspects of Bush’s speech
contribute to his reassuring and later commanding tone and attitude to support
his promise to Americans.
Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, has a very different
point of view than Bush and is critical of the United States and its actions
during the years following 9/11. The
United States is built on democracy and freedoms. These are the main practices we promote and use
throughout history and in the present.
However, Chomsky makes a point on how our country is at times a
hypocrite and follows “American exceptionalism.” Made clear by Bush, the United States will
attack any government or country that supports terrorism or harbors terrorists. However, Florida allowed Orlando Bosch, an
international terrorist, to live in the state, supported by the first George
Bush who pardoned Bosch from any punishments.
According to George W. Bush, “the sovereignty of states that provide
sanctuary to terrorists,” should be revoked (Chomsky). Florida remained unscathed even though it
violated the rule of not harboring terrorists.
Similarly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden violated international
law by not allowing the terrorist a fair trial (a right the United States
supports greatly). If the circumstances
are in American favor, like killing bin Laden, our country will not follow law
and do whatever it takes to accomplish our goal. Finally, the United States
committed the, “supreme international crime—the crime of aggression,”
(Chomsky). Due to Bush invading Iraq
with armed forces, America violated law and began a war because it was in
America’s best interest to do so. The
United States takes part and exploits “American exceptionalism” because it
allows us to accomplish our goals, even though we don’t abide by our own
values.
Bush, George W. “President George W. Bush’s Address to
Congress and the Nation of Terrorism”. 20
Sep. 2001. Address.
Chomsky, Noam. Was
There an Alternative? Huffington Post, 6 Sep. 2011. Web. 10 Sep. 2015.
You make some very compelling points. As I read all these posts I'm thinking about how complex not only the situation in America in the second part of September 2001 was, but also how complex all of our international relationships are. I keep thinking back to Bush's mention in his speech of our humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Our plural culture--accepting people of all backgrounds and faiths, makes it hard to make a unilateral decision that will make everyone happy. Perhaps ironically, the freedom to do just that--form a government that accepts only one idea, a state which follows the strict dictates of a particular branch of Islam--was the goal of Bin Laden and most of his fellows.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your final sentence, it ties together the points you're making throughout your post very nicely. Your analysis towards the topic was a very interesting approach because you focus a lot on the point of view and perspective of the writer, which is so important to keep in mind when discussing political topics. Of course American officials are most likely going to view whatever actions Americans take as the wiser choice, but that unfortunately isn't the case. I think Bush's intentions were to enhance the nationalism in Americans, as we were struggling with great loss during the latter months of 2001. However, Chomsky was able to step back and look at the bigger picture, considering he wrote his article a decade after the attack, and therefore chose to pick out the faults in our actions. I personally feel the healthiest approach towards such a sensitive topic is some sort of middle ground. It is of course important to remain nationalistic and proud of our country, but if we only see ourselves as the victims, then we will never experience any sort of change or get any closer to a unified, terrorist-free world that Bush claims we are aiming for.
ReplyDelete