Thomas 1

"We Are a Country Awakened to Danger and Called to Defend Freedom",

But is Our Fight in this Election Just Against Foreign Terrorists?
Innocents are being slaughtered without thought or care. They are being killed in
bombings, by planes, and even by buses careening into crowds of people. Innocent individuals
have no choice but to sacrifice their lives while the world attempts to stop the cause of all of this
suffering: terrorism. Terrorism is not new nor radically different than it has been in the past;
rather, this past year the terror-filled, terror-evoking attacks have only seemed to increase in
frequency around the world, making us all aware of our failure to eradicate something we,
Americans, agreed just over 15 years ago to destroy. Terror saturated the hearts of the
American people like never before during the events of September 11, 2001. Islamic radicals
hijacked commercial flights and successfully flew 3 planes into the Pentagon and the New York
World Trade Center towers. Those attacks killed almost 3,000 people, injured thousands of
others, destroyed lives as well as infrastructure, and resulted in billions of dollars of damage.
Americas recently elected president George W. Bush responded with a series of inspiring
speeches that culminated in his speech to Congress on September 20 , "We Are a Country
Awakened to Danger and Called to Defend Freedom." In fact, Bushs speech and rhetorical
devices are still enormously applicable today, proving still effective when compared to the
rhetoric of the current presidential candidates as well as a popular culture icon, Katniss
Everdeen. For better or for worse, President Bushs address to Congress after 9/11 was and still
is rhetorically powerful in attitude, timing, and enthymeme as he draws the support of the
American people by supplementing his larger rhetorical elements with more specific, effective
literary devices such as metaphors, allusions, comparisons, and omniscience.
George W. Bushs presidential authority is strengthened because his attitude in his
speech is relentless; aided by his use of metaphor and repetition, Bush does not falter in his
resolve to stop terrorism once. Throughout his speech, Bush claims that terrorism will be
defeated, declaring harshly that terrorism will eventually end in historys unmarked grave of
discarded lies (Bush). Not only does Bush make a clear, bold statement, but Bush emphasizes
his unforgiving attitude using figurative language. He metaphorically describes that terrorist
tactics will eventually be killed and buried without a gravestone marker, to be forgotten,
signifying that terrorism is not only completely devoid of dignity but also that it holds no
importance in world history. Bush is trying to allay the fears of his people, many of whom just
lost loved ones and are now scared for their own lives, by presenting an image of complete
eradication of the source of that fear: terrorists and terrorism alike. In addition, President Bush
repeatedly acknowledges his relentless mindset, hoping to drive his emotional attitude both into
the hearts as well as the minds of the American people through his use of repetition; he even
declares outright that I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for
freedom and security for the American people (Bush). President Bush is vehemently trying to
build confidence in those who he has sworn to lead and defend, us the American people, by
making the repeated claim that he, the leader of our country, will never give up in seeking
retribution for our losses and seeing the end of terrorism. Naturally, Bush hopes that if he
reminds the American people of the values they supposedly cherish, including freedom and
security, they will make the same decision as him to not stop until terrorism, the combined
enemy, is defeated and their values protected. Having an unwavering, positive attitude, such as
Bush, can be critical in supporting ones authority, especially when holding one of the worlds
most prominent leadership positions, the presidency of the United States of America. Yet, where
else have we recently seen such unstifled confidence, and do we entirely agree with a leader
who says he or she has all of the answers and does not confess faults easily to the American
public?
Our former presidents timing in his address, however, was also critical for gaining
maximum support; his descriptions and up-to-date claims about terrorism were sustained by his
th

Thomas 2
use of comparative and omniscient statements. Bush tries to further unite the American people
against the group that both physically and mentally threatens our country by describing who that
enemy really is. He states that Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime (Bush). Bush
wants to clearly define the current enemy in the eyes of the American people by making a
comparison to a notorious, mutually disliked group of people, the mafia. By comparing a head
group of terrorists to an already well-known, well-defined group for the American people, the
mafia, a group known for their criminally-run businesses, Bush can instill the idea that Al
Qaedas business is all about causing terror. And terror is not usually something people support,
especially if its directed towards themselves. After defining the enemy, Bush then comes one
step closer to convincing the American people to help him fight and defend against that enemy,
terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.
Bush further assures the American nation of the true identity of our current number one
enemy by providing omniscient statements about these terrorist organizations. Bush
authoritatively states that the terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to
kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and
children (Bush). Even if only the people directly affected by the attacks of 9/11 were the ones
prepared to fight against terrorism before, now since Bush has lumped all terrorist organizations
together by main objective, he has everyone who counts him or herself as a Christian, Jew, or
American rallied against this hateful group in defense of their own lives. However, Bush then
continues on to detail the vast number of terrorists, giving examples of where they go to train
and then hide in wait to plot evil and destruction (Bush). Bush makes these omniscient
statements boldly and unflinchingly as if he has talked at length with these terrorists about their
specific aims and plans or even as if he has learned from God himself about these facts. In
effect, as Bush continues to give more detail, he only inspires the citizens of America to trust
and side with him more as he appears to be a well-informed leader, conspicuously well
prepared to strategically plan an attack against this undeniably evil enemy. However, how far
should the American people be willing to go against such hateful groups, even if we are only
focusing our attacks on the supposed radical Islamists? What if a presidential candidate speaks
omnisciently but doesnt even get the facts right much of the time or actually aids our enemies in
the first place, even if accidently?
Both impressively and then consequently not as much, both George Bushs timing and
his enthymeme seem to still be applicable and effective today: terrorist organizations have not
stopped killing people, and Americans, including Bush, still believe that their way of life is best
and deserves to exist above all others. Bush declares that the Taliban must act, and act
immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate (Bush) By hinting
at premises that the American people agree with, that American values including life and liberty
should be applied to everyone or that anyone elses disruptive way of life should be abolished,
Bush effectively earns the agreement and support of the American people to fight terrorism. To
exemplify Bushs enthymeme as well as its effectiveness today, the strikingly parallel
enthymeme of a currently beloved popular culture icon, Katniss Everdeen, will be examined.
Katniss stars as the protagonist in the world-wide acclaimed book and film series The Hunger
Games, created by the American author Suzanne Collins. Katniss leads the post-apocalyptic
American districts in a fight for their freedom against President Snow and the Capitol who try to
keep the people contained behind walls and who kill anyone whom does not follow their strict
demands. These demands include participating in the Hunger Games, which is basically an
annual, publicized massacre of children. President Snow and the Capitol are equated to terrorist
organizations in the eyes of Katniss and the people she represents in Panem, the country that
arose from the apocalyptic ashes of America. In the 4 film of this series, Katniss uses powerful
rhetoric that suggests her enthymeme, declaring to Snow and the Capitol that You can torture
us, and bomb us, and burn us to the ground, but do you see that? Fire is catching! and if we
burn You burn with us! (The Hunger Games). Katniss, like most other American nationalists,
th

Thomas 3
believes that if her way of life is challenged, then the opposing partys way of life should then be
eradicated since her way of life is assumed to be the most correct. Yes, both Katniss and Bush
supposedly would allow for another way of life to co-exist with their ideal, but only as long as it
would not interfere with their way of life. President Bush and Katniss Everdeen, the Mockingjay,
share one thing strongly in common, their enthymeme: whose principles and values should be
defended and those that should not.
Bushs rhetoric truly is paralleled by Katnisss rhetoric in enthymeme. Both Bush and
Katniss make the ultimatum that if the terrorists do not stop their violent ways, then the terrorists
and any related parties will be dealt with in violent ways as well, such as the Taliban who are
supposedly hosting terrorists. Bush and Katniss both have the underlying premise that good
American lives are worth more than the corrupted human souls that are involved or happen to
be near the declared enemies. Unfortunately for George Bush, this premise has scarred his
legacy today as many innocents have died in the crossfire of Americas war on terrorism as
America has invaded and bombed terrorist-hosting countries. However, contrary to the real life
consequences of Bushs enthymeme, when Katnisss led districts bomb the Capitol in the end of
The Hunger Games film as part of their final attack in storming the Capitol, many innocent
children are killed, including Katnisss young sister. However, unlike Bush, Katniss Everdeen is
a fictional character and has been given leniency. Although Katniss, like Bush, was willing to
stop the terrorists President Snow and the Capitol at all costs, she was not the one who had to
make the decision to bomb the main building at the Capitol when it was full of children; one of
her best friends, Gale, was able to act as a scapegoat instead, taking all the blame. President
Bushs leadership did not, unfortunately for him, have the same outcomes. Although Americans
may still believe that everyone deserves freedom, that does not mean the American people
were happy when towns full of innocent people, supposedly hiding terrorists, were bombed.
Apparently the end does not justify the means; therefore, it is imperative that we must not forget
that we have not yet reached the end of terrorism and we still have the chance to choose the
means of getting there.
President Bushs address to Congress after 9/11 still is rhetorically powerful in attitude,
timing, and enthymeme as the American people chose to support him as he supplements his
larger rhetorical elements with more specific literary devices such as metaphors, allusions,
comparisons, and omniscience. Only reflecting back on his presidency now do we see how
Bush gains the traction necessary with Congress and the American people to fight terrorists and
bomb them in their own homes, which ironically scars his legacy in the minds of those same
American people forever. However, if Bushs image is still so scarred today despite his
promising beginnings at least in speech delivery, then how much worse could our next nations
president be if our two primary candidates already have proven their hate and corruptness in
their speech? Innocents are being slaughtered without thought or care. They are being killed in
bombings, by planes, and even by the United States armed forces in cities and countries that
our government has determined host terrorists. If we the American people choose to elect
leaders who are already inconsistent in their attitude or sexist and racist in their enthymeme,
then how much worse off could their presidency be then Bushs presidency who started off with
great amounts of support from the American people?
Terrorism does not seem new nor radically different than it has been in the past, yet we
seem to be contributing more to it ourselves. Millions of innocent citizens are fleeing as they
wish to avoid the conflict we have turned on their countries, such as Syria. Therefore, even as
we are a driving force against terrorism, are we not also striking terror into the hearts of men,
women, and children that are caught in the crossfire? At the very least we could take
responsibility for our actions, follow through with our beliefs, and welcome the refugees that we
are partially responsible for causing to flee into our home country. Bush clearly had the premise
that the American people believe that every human life matters, and that we only try to stop
those people that would try to detract from the dignity of human life and diversity by trying to

Thomas 4
eliminate everyone elses agency. Terrorism must be defeated, but perhaps we must also look
inward at the United States of America to stop each terrorist that could exist in each of us,
especially the leaders we choose to elect. If neither of the primary presidential candidates seem
qualified to lead our country, will we be brave enough to fight against the terror and vote for a
third-party candidate? Or will we choose the lesser evil and regret our choice if his or her
actions in presidency cause more innocent lives, American or otherwise, to become at risk of
being corrupted or even completely destroyed?

Works Cited
Bush, George W. "We Are a Country Awakened to Danger and Called to
Defend Freedom." Bush's Address to Congress. U.S. Capitol,
Washington District of Columbia. 20 Sept. 2001. Selected Speeches of
George W. Bush. White House Archives. Web. Oct. 2016.
Hunger Games: The Mockingjay Part 2. Dir. Francis Lawrence. Perf. Jennifer
Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson. 2015. Film. Web.