Bush and
Chomsky use different methods of rhetoric and different tones to get their
points across to the audience. Chomsky uses harsh language and is very
straightforward with his points, while Bush has a more uplifting tone which helps
the audience engage with the topic. Bush is writing his speech only a couple of
days after the event had occurred and wants to present the topic in a calm
manner without scaring the public. He uses anaphoras
when he thanks the public, helping them understand that they also have a part
of bringing the country back together after the attack and finding a way to stop
terrorism, “eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows” (Bush 5). Chomsky, on the other hand, is writing about
the event ten years after it happened, so he is harsher with his ideas and
believed that Osama should have gotten a trial.
According to Chomsky, the actions by the United States
constitute “American exceptionalism”, which is the idea that the United States
is inherently different from other nations. The US, after capturing bin Laden,
killed him, and threw him into the water. Chomsky believes that he deserved a
trial and an autopsy, whether he was a terrorist or not. If Osama was given a
trial, Chomsky explains that we would have known for sure who committed the
attack and who was innocent. It was an act based on American exceptionalism
because America is accepting the acts from the laws. Chomsky gives the example of what would have
happened if the Iraqis were the ones who had assassinated Bush and dumped his
body in the Atlantic. They would have done it after proper burial rights, which
did not happen for bin Laden. In his case, the American’s violated the law by
not giving him a fair trial. A few days before the assassination of bin Laden,
Orlando Bosch, a terrorist, was granted a “presidential pardon by Bush over the
objections of the Justice department” (Chomsky 6). This trial did not also follow the laws of a
fair trial.
In Bush’s speech, Bush tells the public that the US will
pursue nations and will give every nation the option to choose the side of the
terrorists or the side of the Americans. Every nation that supports terrorism
will be considered their enemy (Bush 5). Unlike Chomsky, Bush doesn’t really go
into details with what actually happened or if their actions were wrong. He
wants to keep everyone supporting the government so continues to talk about
what they will be doing to stop terrorism altogether. Bush also mentions how he
isn’t going against any group as a whole but just terrorism. He calls it the “world’s
fight” and says how everyone needs to work together to bring terrorism
down. The American exceptionalism entitled
us to start a war and was practiced because Americans accepted the acts from
the laws. They created laws that would sometimes not be enforced and was also accepted if it wasn't enforced.
You are definitely right about the differing tones!
ReplyDeleteAs for your final paragraph, well, Bush doesn't give too many details at that point because he didn't have them yet. It's actually surprising to me, in retrospect, that he was so clear in specifically issuing a direct challenge to the Taliban, even just nine days after the attacks.
I like how you go over each point made by the two and then go further with possible reasoning. Wondering how the two arguments could have been different based upon if they were written in different times is interesting. Maybe their views would have changed?
ReplyDeleteGreat response! You thoroughly answered the question and made some really good points. I really like how you closely compare both Bush and Chomsky as it helps bring some perspective to the argument. Hearing both sides together really allows you to see everything from their different tones and language to their varying POV's.
ReplyDelete