10 October 2016

9/11 Rhetorical Analysis

In times of crisis, people look towards a leader. Someone who stands tall and stands

proud. Someone who looks in the face of danger, yet is not intimidated. On September 11th,

2001 a crisis beyond words shook the entirety of the United States. Four planes were hijacked;

one crashing in central Pennsylvania, the next crashing into the Pentagon in D.C., and the other

two struck the World Trade Towers in New York City. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 took the lives

of 2,996 American men, women, and children (Walters,1). Naturally, the people looked toward

the person whom they elected to office, George W. Bush. He was then President, but nothing

could have prepared him for the role he had to play in healing America.

Three days after the attack, President Bush visited Ground Zero himself and gave an

impromptu speech out of a bullhorn that would forever be a part of his legacy. By displaying a

much needed sense of hope and charismatic quality while also playing off the raw emotion

around him, President Bushs famous speech rallied the nation to believe that the United States

was still a force to be reckoned with. Fast forward 14 years and travel across the ocean, Nice,

France endured a terrorist attack on November 13, 2015. Several mass shootings and suicide

bombings outside cafes and restaurants took place as retaliation at the French for their airstrike

on ISIL targets. Although the death toll of 130 was not as large as that of 9/11, the French people

needed to feel strength from their leader all the same. President Francois Hollande delivered a

midnight speech similar in style to President Bush, calling out the terrorists for their horrific

actions but more importantly calling out to the french people for their strength. Both Presidents
utilized the rhetorical structures of ethos, pathos, kairos and commonplace in order to move their

respective countries forward.

In the most basic definition of the word, ethos is the credibility of the speaker. The

speakers in both occasions happen to be the presidents of their respective territories, which holds

a tremendous amount of ethos in their job title alone. They occupy the highest office in their

country so that demands immediate respect from their constituents. In other words, when the

president speaks, the people listen. Another facet of ethos is built around the setting and attire of

both speakers. When President Bush visits Ground Zero he is in plain clothing, adorning dress

slacks and a windbreaker. Had he not been president, this casual look could have allowed him to

pass as an average blue collar worker, which was very fitting because he was surrounded by

rescue teams. The rescue workers prompted him to speak and so a bullhorn was passed forward

and President Bush climbed on top of the rubble. The people felt like he was right there with

them, reminded that he may be the President but he is first an American. This helped establish

Bushs ethos on a more personal level. On the other end of the spectrum, President Hollande of

France delivered a more formal speech to his people. He donned a crisp suit and tie speaking at a

podium of the terror attacks. It was the first time President Hollande addressed the public about

the atrocities that were occurring, so it was vital that his stature was composed and authoritative.

The way in which both speakers conducted themselves was important to the way their speeches

were received.

Although these events happened in different countries and years apart, they both made

people feel a tremendous amount of emotion; fear for their lives, anger for the terrorists who

committed the atrocious acts, heartbreak for those who died, and hope for the future. During that
fragile state, both President Bush and President Hollande played on the raw feeling around them.

Regarding Bushs speech at Ground Zero, a fireman yells that he cant hear the president. The

president responds saying, I can hear you. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And

the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon (American Rhetoric,1).

Immediately the crowd burst into applause and cheers. It only took four simple sentences to light

a fire in peoples hearts again. By subtly assuring Americans that they are not alone in this fight

and then condemning the terrorists, President Bush effectively utilizes pathos to soothe the

public while keeping retribution on their minds. President Hollande uses a similar strategy when

addressing the people of France. During his midnight speech he says, What the terrorists want is

to scare us and fill us with dread. There is indeed reason to be afraid. There is dread, but in the

face of this dread, there is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilize

its forces and, once again, will defeat the terrorists (McDermott,3). Mirroring President Bush,

Hollande acknowledges the depth of the situation but also reinforces the idea of strength as a

country. He denounces those responsible for the crime and states clearly that the nation will

respond loudly. These tactics were used at an appropriate time when people were vulnerable and

needed confirmation that their countries were still strong despite the massive loss they all felt in

their hearts.

There is no doubt that these speeches were not only effective, but also necessary due to

circumstances. Unfortunately, the kairos of both situations ultimately led to the reason that they

were in fact successful. Both the United States and France had been specifically targeted and

attacked by terrorists, taking so many lives with them. Each country was in a horrifically fragile

state, with people feeling no sense of direction forward and more importantly leaving a gap in
hearts where there once was hope. There would be no Bullhorn Speech and no midnight

address from these presidents had both countries not suffered the way in which they did.

However, the attacks did take place and President Bush as well as President Hollande fulfilled

their roles as leader when they stood strong and reminded their people to do the same. President

Bush initially addressed the workers cleaning up the debris at Ground Zero but his speech

quickly found its way to the news for all to see. With his arm around a fireman, he stood at the

place where every Americans heart was beating for. The place where so much had been lost in a

matter of hours. The combined setting of Ground Zero and the kairotic event gave his speech the

power it needed to tap into peoples sense of pride and optimism. In contrast, President Hollande

did not deliver his speech at the source of the attacks due to the fact that they were unsure if and

where they were still occurring. I do not think that this ultimately hindered the effectiveness of

his message because he still had a live broadcast while the attacks were possibly still occurring.

He mentions this early in his speech, As I speak, terrorist attacks of unprecedented proportions

are underway in the Paris area. There are dozens killed, there are many injured. It is a horror

(McDermott,3). The ongoing terrorist attacks still created a kairotic event that made President

Hollandes words so much more powerful because they were so much more necessary.

I think commonplace is evident in both speeches. The United States and France had been

attacked by terrorists, and as leaders, President Bush and President Hollande created a feeling of

patriotism and hope within their people. Everyone was running through the same list of

emotions, with anger and sorrow at the forefront. President Bush tells the American people that

he is mournful for the families who lost loved ones and powerfully rallies spirit when he says the
terrorists will hear from us soon. President Hollande speaks in a similar way saying that not only

do people need to show compassion for the victims, but also show unity that they would rebuild.

The terrorist attacks that struck the United States and France will forever be a part of

history. The events undeniably hurt both nations, but with the help of their leaders each country

healed. President Bushs bullhorn speech and President Hollandes midnight speech had far

greater impacts than either men could have known and the powerful message of hope and

strength that flooded both touched all who heard it. For this reason I believe that both civic

artifacts utilized ethos, pathos, kairos, and commonplace to create the most effective speech and

message within the situation.

 Works Cited

"Bullhorn Address to Ground Zero Rescue Workers." American Rhetoric. N.p., n.d. Web.

09 Oct. 2016. <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/

gwbush911groundzerobullhorn.htm>.

By Quentin McDermott, Ali Russell and Elise Worthington. "Hollande Vows 'merciless'

Fight after Deadly Attacks." ABC News. N.p., 15 Nov. 2015. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-14/paris-attacks-president-hollande-our-

fight-will-be-merciless/6941202>.

Walters, Joanna. "9/11 Health Crisis: Death Toll from Illness Nears Number Killed on

Day of Attacks." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 11 Sept. 2016. Web.

09 Oct. 2016. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/11/9-11-

illnesses-death-toll>.