This passage quickly defines the two major themes which will be reinforced in all subsequent statements: the actions of September 11 as specific terrorist attacks against freedom, and the martyrdom of those just like �us� in an attack against freedom.

Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.

The media-carried visual images of September 11 were powerful, and were seen by the entire nation. To invoke them here is to invoke once again the very first emotions felt upon seeing those images: shock, followed by anger and a need to retaliate � untempered by later consideration. Indeed, at this point the speech is shaped toward quite the opposite: one must maintain and hold the initial anger, use that anger to shape the future response. This and the following passages may well have been one of the single most powerful triggers for the later anti-American-Muslim actions. One does not awaken powerful emotions of anger and retaliation and then expect them not to have an immediate outlet.

These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

On this first day and on later days, one of the major questions is �Why?� Bush here tells us that the attacks were intended to frighten the United States into �retreat�, presumably from the ideal of freedom (although it is never explicitly said), but that the ideal, the foundation upon which the country has been built, remains strong. The implicit equation is that since the United States equals freedom, an attack on the United States must equal an attack on freedom. No other option can ever be considered, after this equation is made. I almost totally disagree with this assessment, and will address each point of disagreement as those points are made more directly in future speeches.

Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

Again a simple equation, contrasting two opposites of human nature into evil/the very worst and the best. I do not hesitate to use the word �evil� in the context of the acts of September 11, nor do I have any objection whatsoever to the reinforcement of the ideal of caring for complete strangers (that would be perhaps the only �good� thing I saw come out of this � although it says something that it required something of this nature to evoke it) � but this determined and specific contrast, along what is already suspected to be religious lines, is dangerous.

Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C., to help with local rescue efforts. Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington, which had to be evacuated today, are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.

I linked together these sentences into a rather long passage (and the next passage could have been added as well, except that it brings in another dangerous precedent) because they all address the question, �What is being/can be done?� This falls into three categories: what are we doing to deal with the immediate disaster, what are we doing to return life to normal, and (reinforced in the next passage) what are we doing to make sure this does not happen again. The first �what are we doing� passage also resonates the third point: �Our military is powerful, and it�s prepared.� Only then does the passage return to the �first� priority of emergency teams and getting help to those who have been injured � and even then the immediate actions are tied directly with the idea of protection from future attacks. The United States has bought fully into the victim mentality, and has entered a state of siege. (Military strategists would say that both besieging and being besieged are ultimately losing tactics in modern warfare. I would agree, but based on the psychology of an increasingly narrow definition of what constitutes �winning� and �losing�, and an increasingly stunted ability to consider other options. For anyone to �win�, here: we must get beyond this idea of �winning� and �losing�.) The second category is more curiously addressed: returning life to normal consists of ensuring the government, federal agencies, and financial institutions continue to function without interruption. In defining these specific institutions (and no others) both as necessary in a �return to normal� phase and as potential future targets, these specific institutions (and no others) have now been equated with embodying the American way of life. Nowhere else has �freedom�, democracy, and capitalism been so directly linked. Later passages and speeches will tie in the religious element specifically to these ideas. A crusade is slowly evolving here: but in what God�s name?

The search is under way for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

This ties in to that third point: what are we doing to make sure this does not happen again? The really dangerous statement is the last sentence: which potentially allows any action against any country which has ever �harboured� those who have committed acts against the United States. Until September 20, subsequent Bush speeches attempted to tone this point down: I believe the most recent version is �those who willingly and knowingly� harbour � Yet �terrorist� is a very flexible label, ultimately defined by those targeted by any given act. Here it is the United States � and only the United States � which does the defining. There are many, even in the United States, who would argue that some of those who have organized �terrorist� acts against other countries are being currently harboured by the United States. Has the United States ever considered their extradition, however much proof is compiled? Does this refusal not indicate that the United States too is �willingly and knowingly� harbouring terrorists?

I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.

Reinforcing that these words are not solely the words of the President, but also those of the American people (through their members of Congress) � and that they are not the words of the American people alone, but also have been reinforced and supported internationally. That the support given at this point is support only for shared grief in loss is not mentioned: creating the implication (and pressure upon other nations) that the viewpoint and actions to be taken are internationally sanctioned also. Having been publicly reinforced and reinterpreted in this manner, the support is more likely to be expanded to support any and all future actions as well: what is known as a �creative truth�. Putin�s �must not go unpunished� is a notable exception to the �support in grief against an inhuman act� tone of nearly every other international condolence � and one of the few times the United States directly draws from a source not normally acceptable to reinforce domestic popular support. It was not all that long ago that the United States was publicly condemning precisely the same �must not go unpunished� when it was applied to acts against the Soviet Union.

Tonight I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me."

The word carefully left out of the first sentence of this passage is �American�: �for all [Americans] who grieve�, �for the [American] children�, �for all [Americans]�. There have been many others who have grieved over the decades, whose worlds have been shattered, whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. Many times those losses were at American hands. Where, then, were the prayers? And, again: the word �evil� is reinforced � through reference to a Biblical quote referencing Israel�s slavery (victimisation) under Babylon: which was once located 50 odd miles south of Baghdad, capital of Iraq. Would not something from Job have been more appropriate? unless, of course, the aim was to reinforce righteousness of future action against a non-Judeo-Christian nation.

This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

And the Biblical quote neatly sets up the next passage, with its determined emphasis on �justice�, �enemies�, and defenders of �freedom�. How must �justice� is needed before someone decides to stop the cycle?

Thank you. Good night and God bless America.

Salaam aleiqum. Peace be with you. God�s peace and blessing upon all.

Introduction
Prayer service, Washington National Cathedral, September 14
Address to a Joint Session of Congress, September 20



� 2003 Kyle Altis

Home   Crossroads   E-Mail