6.1.1 America, the Innocent

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush conceptualized the United States not only as a victim that had experienced “a national tragedy” (Bush 2001/09/11a), but as an ‘innocent’ victim. Numerous instances emphasize this point. In remarks he made on September 16, 2001, for example, Bush spoke of barbaric enemies that “would fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people,” and that he, the president, was “concerned about the lives of innocent Americans” (Bush 2001/09/16). On other occasions Bush referred to “acts of violence against innocents” (Bush 2001/09/17b, cf. 2001/10/25), the “deliberate murder of the innocent” (Bush 2001/11/10b, cf. 2001/11/10a, 2002/03/11, 2002/03/15) and “crimes against innocent people” (Bush 2001/09/19a, cf. 2001/11/08); he talked about “killers of innocents” (Bush 2001/10/07, cf. 2001/10/06, 2001/10/11a, 2001/11/06, 2002/03/15) and people who “destroy innocent folks” (Bush 2001/10/08); he spoke about an enemy “targeting innocent civilians for murder” (Bush 2002/06/01) and an enemy that had “declared war on innocent people” (Bush 2001/09/26b, cf. 2002/02/13). As a consequence, the president underlined the duty to protect “the innocent against violence” (Bush 2001/11/29). Although ‘innocence’ already has strong positive connotations, Bush strengthened this aspect by ascribing it to a certain group of people. Here, “the innocent Americans” were:

innocent moms and dads, the people who yearn for freedom and normalcy in their life. (Bush 2002/01/25)76

The use of ‘moms’ and ‘dads’ was certainly meant to emotionalize the matter. After all, moms and dads care for the little ones, and babies constitute the ultimate embodiment of innocence.

The use of terms such as ‘innocent Americans’ helped to reaffirm an unsettled ‘self’, which, in the aftermath of 9/11, was tormented by the question as to why these atrocities had been committed. Reiterating America’s innocence did more, however, than stabilize an insecure ‘self’; it absolved the ‘self’ of guilt and avoided critical engagement. It became no longer necessary for the American people to ask ‘why do they hate us’ or ‘what have we done to deserve this’, as it provided the answer. It reassured the ‘self’ by affirming that ‘we are innocent; the atrocities were unprovoked; the attackers acted out of pure evil and because they hate our freedom’ (see section 6.1.4). More precisely, claiming that “the victims of September 11th were innocent” (Bush 2001/10/17b) circumvented the need to question whether the people in the World Trade Center had actually been attacked vicariously as agents of an oppressive economic system that fueled hate in the world. In the same way, it remained silent about the fact that the workers at the Pentagon represented the dominant military might of the United States. Rather, general terms such as ‘innocent Americans’ or ‘the innocent’ helped to generalize the matter and constituted the U.S. as innocent. At the same time, it posited the American people as a whole as victims, and attributed the atrocities solely to the evil of the terrorists. As this was stated as fact, there was no need for the administration in Washington to elaborate on this point, and much less to accept any form of responsibility (Jackson 2005: 83–85). Instead, the impression of victimhood was strengthened by statements such as “we did not seek this conflict” (Bush 2001/09/29) or, in reference to the ‘War on Terror’, “we did not ask for this mission” (Bush 2001/10/07, cf. 2001/11/10b). This becomes even more clear through the use of the passive in statements such as “war has been waged against us” (Bush 2001/09/14). Bush argued that the United States had been attacked for its goodness, for what made it exceptional. Consequently, it was clear that the ‘other’ was an evil aggressor targeting an innocent ‘self’. After all, the ‘other’ was driven by its lust to kill (see section 6.2.1). Bush argued that the terrorists “murder innocent people for the sake of murder” (Bush 2002/02/16) and in doing so, the enemy “prey[ed] on innocent” and “unsuspecting people” (Bush 2001/09/12c, cf. 2001/10/26). Statements like these manifested the enemy’s dastardly nature and at the same time concealed the inability of America’s intelligence apparatus to prevent the 9/11 attacks. In general, the emphasis on American innocence combined with the notion of “great suffering and sorrow” (Bush 2001/10/11b) aggravated the crimes of 9/11 and made them even more condemnable. It maximized the differences between the victims, who were represented as inculpable and ingenuous, and the perpetrators, who were portrayed as perfidious individuals with base motives who had committed an “unimaginable horror” (Bush 2001/11/08). Moreover, victimhood also implied the right to choose an answer to these attacks. Therefore, Bush’s framing not only relieved America of the burdening question of what had caused the atrocities, but also of any moral responsibility for the use of force in reaction to them (Jackson 2005). Moreover, defining the attacks as “acts of war” (Bush 2001/09/12c, cf. 2001/09/15, 2001/09/17a, 2001/09/19b, 2001/09/20, 2001/09/25) widened the latitude for severe military retaliation.

Bush’s framing reproduced the strong sense of innocence that has traditionally represented an inherent aspect of the American conception of ‘self’. The myth of the ‘innocent nation’ is one of the most powerful among a range of myths that have defined American life and constituted the American self-image throughout the country’s history. The ‘innocent nation’ thereby builds on other foundational myths such as ‘nature’s nation’ – according to which America is in a natural state of being, unaffected by history’s burden and thus spotless. Furthermore, it makes reference to America as the ‘chosen nation’, chosen by God as a blessing to the world (Hughes 2003: 6–8; cf. Tuveson 1968; Stephanson 1995: xii; Morone 2003; Webb 2004; Esch 2010). Clearly, the belief in purity and the representing of a ‘Christian nation’ chosen by God easily corresponds with the idea of innocence, and this position was particularly strengthened during the twentieth century by the country’s experience of World War II. America’s encounter with Nazism was viewed as a battle against evil, this enabled the American ‘self’ to be conceptualized as the very opposite of it: the ‘self’ was good, righteous – and innocent. ‘Innocence’ is thereby one of the many ideographs used by Bush that furthered binary oppositions. When Bush spoke of the innocent ‘self’, it already signified that the ‘other’ was guilty, even if this remained unsaid. Moreover, since Bush spoke in absolute terms, the ‘other’s’ guilt was absolute. Such representations demonstrate that the brighter the constructed image of the ‘self’, the darker that of the ‘other’, and vice versa. The following sections highlight further features of this dichotomy.

6.1.2 America, the Great Nation

In his speeches after 9/11, President George W. Bush made great effort to emphasize the goodness of the American people. Therefore, he frequently used a grammar consisting of a binary structure to more strongly contrast the ‘self’ (that was good and caused good) with the ‘other’ (that was evil and caused suffering and death):

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. (Bush 2001/09/11b)

Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country, with courage and concern for others. Because this is America. This is who we are. (Bush 2001/09/15)

We are fighting evil with good. (Bush 2001/10/25)

This good nation understands that in order to fight evil, you do so with acts of kindness and goodness. (Bush 2002/01/25)

These statements portrayed the reaction of the American people as noble, even when the country was facing malice. Bush reported that America was “renewing and reclaiming” its strong values through the tragedy (Bush 2001/11/08). In times of tragedy and crisis, he argued, the country looked into the mirror and saw its better ‘self’ (Bush 2002/01/29). Overall, Bush claimed exceptionalism for his ‘great nation’. Courage and concern for others were said to characterize American identity, and this was proof of greatness. In gathering positive attributes, Bush referred to ordinary people who were “working their hearts out” (Bush 2001/09/12b) and to rescuers who had worked “past exhaustion” (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/09/15, 2001/09/20, 2001/10/15) in order to serve others. He defined the American people as “generous” (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/10/06, 2001/10/07, 2001/10/13, 2001/10/15, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/29, 2001/11/21; 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29), and “kind”, as caring for those in need (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/09/12b, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/23, 2001/11/08, 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16, 2002/03/15); they were said to have shown “love and their willingness to help” (Bush 2001/09/12b), “sympathy” (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/09/20) and “compassion” for one another (Bush 2001/09/16, cf. 2001/09/26a, 2001/09/27, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/08, 2001/10/09, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/23, 2001/10/25, 2001/11/08, 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16, 2002/09/11), as well as a profound “love for the country” (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/09/19b, 2001/09/26a, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/15, 2001/10/17a, 2001/12/04) and the “decency of a loving and giving people” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/09/12b, 2001/09/16, 2001/09/26a, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/25, 2001/11/08, 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16). Bush condensed all of these qualities of American identity by telling emotional stories of selfless deeds. A strong example of this was the speech he gave for the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance on September 14, 2001 in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.:

In this trial, we have been reminded, and the world has seen, that our fellow Americans are generous and kind, resourceful and brave. We see our national character in rescuers working past exhaustion; in long lines of blood donors; in thousands of citizens who have asked to work and serve in any way possible. And we have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice. Inside the World Trade Center, one man who could have saved himself stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend. A beloved priest died giving the last rites to a firefighter. Two office workers, finding a disabled stranger, carried her down sixty-eight floors to safety […]. In these acts, and in many others, Americans showed a deep commitment to one another, and an abiding love for our country.(Bush 2001/09/14)

These personal stories were taken as symbolic of American greatness. The enumeration of efforts undertaken to save or assist victims of the 9/11 attacks illustrated the irreconcilable distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’. As Bush emphasized, “more than anything else, this separates us from the enemy we fight,” and he continued, “we value every life, our enemies value none – not even the innocent, not even their own” (Bush 2002/09/11, cf. 2001/10/29, 2001/11/06, 2001/11/08). While “the true nature of these terrorists” was clear from “the nature of their attacks” (Bush 2001/11/06) – “the true nature of America” (Bush 2001/10/11b) was illustrated by stories like the one above, stories that highlighted love and kindness, selflessness, and willingness to make sacrifices. These characteristics, it was said, meant America was a “fabulous country” (Bush 2001/09/16, cf. 2001/09/27, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/24, 2001/12/04) based on “fabulous values” (Bush 2001/09/27); “a compassionate nation” (Bush 2001/10/04, 2001/10/09, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/23), “a tolerant nation” (Bush 2001/10/17a), “a wonderful nation” (Bush 2001/11/08), “a great nation” (Bush 2001/09/11b, 2001/09/12b, 2001/09/16, 2001/09/19a, 2001/09/19b, 2001/09/25, 2001/09/27, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/15, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/24, 2001/11/08, 2001/11/21, 2002/02/13, 2002/03/15), and therefore, overall, the “greatest nation on the face of the Earth” (Bush 2001/10/17a, cf. 2001/10/17b, 2002/01/14, 2002/01/25, 2002/02/16). “The true strength of our country,” Bush reasoned, “is much greater than our military. The true strength of America are the hearts and souls of loving American citizens” (Bush 2002/03/15, cf. 2002/02/16). The way in which the American people manifested the “exceptional character of the nation” led Bush – although it was him who evoked and constituted these qualities discursively – to affirm that he had “never felt more certain about America’s goodness” (Bush 2001/10/15). The president stressed this by deploying adverbs and adjectives expressing moral superlative. While the nation was ‘fabulous’, ‘wonderful’ and ‘great’, Bush emphasized that he was not even able to describe “how fantastically” he felt “about the people of this country” (Bush 2002/02/16) as they had responded so “magnificently” (Bush 2001/11/08, 2002/01/29) to the tragedy. In this context, the American people was not only constructed as warm-hearted, giving and courageous, but as the soil for heroism (Bush 2001/09/16, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/15, 2001/10/17a, 2002/01/29, 2002/03/11). In his Address to the Nation on November 8, 2001, Bush stated:

We have gained new heroes: Those who ran into burning buildings to save others, our police and our firefighters. Those who battled their own fears to keep children calm and safe – America’s teachers. Those who voluntarily placed themselves in harm’s way to defend our freedom – the men and women of the Armed Forces. (Bush 2001/11/08)

Again, in this framing, Americans were people who saved the lives that terrorists wanted to destroy, and who defended the freedom terrorists hated. These examples helped to illustrate the exceptional character of the American people. It is not surprising that Bush referred to the police and the firefighters in his statement, since they are first on duty in cases of (national) emergency; at the same time, the notion of the ‘armed forces’ and, as quoted below, the ‘men and women in uniform’ underlined the state of war. Attributing heroic characteristics to these groups was rather easy77; however, the description of teachers, as well as, in other statements, medics, and civilian government employees as heroes, demonstrates Bush’s attempt to broaden the attribution of heroism to greater sections of the population. Moreover, as was the case with ‘innocence’, there were instances where Bush used a grammar that implied generalization:

The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people.(Bush 2002/01/29)

In this statement, the brave people whose actions might indeed have been heroic stood pars pro toto for all Americans. Claiming heroism was thereby a powerful strategy. First, it gave meaning to what had happened, comforted the bereaved and honored the victims who had perished; second, it created unity among the people, and strengthened national identity while distancing the ‘self’ from the cowardly ‘other’ (Jackson 2005: 80f). Bush substantiated the claim of American heroism and thus the ‘truth’ of his statements by referring to the way in which he assumed the forefathers would interpret the actions of the American people. Again, their verdict was presented as definite:

Our forefathers would be proud, really proud of what they see in America today.

They would be proud of the selfless duty of the fire fighters and police officers […] and the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America.

Our forefathers would salute the modern day sacrifice of the brave passengers on Flight 93 […].

Our forefathers would know and recognize the spirit of unity and patriotism everywhere in our country,

and they would say, well done, America.(Bush 2001/10/17a)

There could hardly be a witness imbued with more historical significance than the forefathers since they are the great reference in America’s founding myth. As will be shown below, Bush made regular reference to them and did so in various ways as a useful means of constructing the ‘self’. All in all, Bush nurtured America’s self-understanding of representing a special nation, while constructing American goodness as irrevocable.

6.1.3 America, the United and Resolved

The diversity of the United States has led the call for unity to become part of the country’s history. Yet, Bush addressed the issue of unity in a particular manner after 9/11, and emphasized America’s unity in diversity in various ways:

This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. (Bush 2001/09/11b)

People of all faiths, all religions, all areas of our country are united in the common effort to stamp out evil where we find it. It is the right thing to do. (Bush 2001/10/10)

For all of us, an American is an American, no matter where we live, no matter what our race, no matter how we pray. The people of New York and Washington are our neighbors and when terrorists attack them, they attack us all. And the terrorists are hearing from us all. (Bush 2001/10/17a)

Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together.(Bush 2002/01/29)

Despite inherent diversity in terms of race, religion and social position, the American people were constructed as united in their grievance and victimhood as well as in their resolve to respond to threats. In his remarks on September 14, 2001, Bush underlined this position with historicity:

Today, we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity. This is a unity for every faith, and every background. (Bush 2001/09/14)

Although the claim of unity might have served to prevent social unrest against American Muslims who came under general suspicion in the aftermath of 9/11, this rhetoric also had a greater impact. If the ‘we’ was so inclusive as to encompass ‘all Americans’ of ‘all faiths’ and ‘all areas of the country’, opposing the administration’s policy would have meant isolating oneself from the community. Moreover, as the reference to the former U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, indicated, these were times of war. Accordingly, mentioning Roosevelt defined the political situation and underscored the necessity for unity. Hence, this language worked to commit the American people to supporting Bush’s political course; anyone who did not do so would corrupt unity and endanger the nation’s security by acting unpatriotically in critical times. In this respect, framing the enemy in terms of ‘evil’ had an effect. This representation was a powerful ideograph, as most people agree that it is right to ‘stamp out evil’ – at least as long as ‘evil’ remains undefined and the means with which it should be combated remains unstated. The people’s approval was therefore gained through speaking in broad terms.

In its unity America was constituted as strong. Despite the nation’s suffering, Bush emphasized its resolve:

America is united. We are united. We are united in bringing justice to those folks who did the evil deed on September 11th. We’re not only united, we’re determined. We’re determined to find those terrorists who tried to affect our way of life. We’re determined to find them, and to bring them to justice. And we will. But our determination goes beyond the immediate and the short-term. This is a nation that’s determined to defend freedom from any terrorist, anyplace in the world. This is a determined nation, and we’re a strong nation. (Bush 2001/09/27)

While this passage is extraordinarily dense, in general, Bush repeated many statements and phrases over and over again, often verbatim, so as to instill the message in his audience. This is, as this analysis shows, true within texts and across texts. In the days and weeks after 9/11, the president consistently argued that the United States was impregnable: “It is a clear statement to anybody who would want to harm us that instead of weakening America, they have strengthened America” (Bush 2001/10/29). Bush summoned the strength of the United States by using metaphors of power and might. He proclaimed that the terrorists had “awoken a mighty nation” (Bush 2001/09/25), or even more strongly, “roused a mighty giant” (Bush 2001/09/16, cf. 2001/10/08) and that the nation was “fierce when stirred to anger” (Bush 2001/09/14). Although the acts of terror shattered steel, “they cannot dent the steel of American resolve” (Bush 2001/09/11b). Bush accentuated that point that the “country is strong” (Bush 2001/09/11b, 2001/10/23, 2002/09/11), that this great nation “can’t be cowed by evil-doers” (Bush 2001/09/16, cf. 2001/10/17b) and that it “will never be intimidated” (Bush 2001/11/08, cf. 2001/09/27). Defining the American ‘self’ in terms of a “remarkable spirit and remarkable resolve” (Bush 2001/10/24, cf. 2001/09/27), Bush frequently used the inclusive ‘we’, which suggests a speaker is speaking on behalf of everyone; it “reduces hierarchy and distance by implying that all of ‘us’ are in the same boat” (Fairclough 2003: 76). This not only united the audience and strengthened patriotism; it provided legitimization to particular actions that opposed the ‘other’. Bush stressed the ‘we’ in rapid succession, often in a staccato fashion resembling a battle cry:

We are determined. We are patient. We are steadfast. We are resolved. We will not tire and we will not fail. (Bush 2001/10/17b)

We are tough, we are determined, we are relentless. We will stay until the mission is done. (Bush 2002/04/17)

Because of statements like these, Bush scored high on verbal certainty (Hart/Childers 2004). The repetitions of plain ‘we are’-sentences were sweeping in declaring as true – and possibly creating it as such – what was perceived as desirable at this time. Another strategy that constituted identity was the claim that the ‘self’ was stronger than expected:

The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake. They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom […]. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the Commander-in-Chief, too. (Bush 2001/09/26a)

While the neologism ‘misunderestimated’ was an error by the president and embodied a so-called ‘Bushism’, Bush left no doubt for the audience that the enemy had dramatically miscalculated the attitude of the United States. The content of his statement was reinforced by parallelism – a rhetorical device Bush regularly employed to underscore his intentions. With regard to the construction of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, Bush also used a more immediate dichotomy that contrasted the ‘true’ nature of the ‘self’ and the delusion of it as allegedly put forth by the ‘other’. To this end, Bush initially set out the assumptions the terrorists were viewed as having about Americans in order to demonstrate and ridicule their falsity:

I believe the evildoers miscalculated when they struck America.

They thought we would shy away.

They thought their threats could hold this nation hostage.

They must have felt like they could diminish our soul.

But quite the opposite has taken place.

They’ve strengthened the spirit of America […].

They have awoken a mighty nation that understands that freedom is under assault; a mighty nation that will not rest until those who think they can take freedom away from any citizen in the world are brought to justice. (Bush 2001/09/25)

Our enemies […] believe that free societies are weak societies.

But we’re going to prove them wrong. Just as we were 60 years ago, in a time of war, this nation will be patient, we’ll be determined, and we will be relentless in the pursuit of freedom. (Bush 2001/12/07)

They must have been watching too much TV […].

They were watching some of those shows, that one can get the wrong impression about how materialistic we might be, how selfish we might be as a people.

But that’s not the way we are.(Bush 2002/01/25, cf. 2002/01/14)

Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness.

They were as wrong as they are evil. The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. (Bush 2002/01/29)

They thought we were so materialistic that we didn’t understand sacrifice and honor and duty.

They must have been watching some lousy movies.

They didn’t know that this great nation would rise up in unison to send a clear message that we will do whatever it takes to defend our freedoms […]. (Bush 2002/02/16)

The terrorists […] must have thought we were soft.

They must have thought we were so materialistic that we wouldn’t fight for values that we love.

They must have thought that we were so self-absorbed, that the word sacrifice had left the American vocabulary.

And, my, were they wrong.(Bush 2002/03/15)

In these dualisms, the ‘other’ is clearly presented as ignorant and as so senseless as to be misled by lousy TV shows. What is more important, however, is that the binary structure was a powerful means with which to construct the ‘self’, that is, how Americans ‘really’ are – and it thereby explicitly demonstrates how Bush wanted them to be. Again, this kind of language invoked a strong and determined ‘self’ while committing the nation to Bush’s political course. The president sought to establish an understanding among Americans that they could not shy away from making sacrifices and that they had to be willing to make them; they had to refuse to rest until the evil-doers had been brought to justice while remaining determined and relentless in the fight for freedom. In these terms, the American people had to accept that “this great nation will do what it takes to win” (Bush 2001/10/17b). The expectations that Bush placed on the American people are also clear from another kind of dichotomy. Here, Bush no longer constructed the ‘self’ in mere opposition to the terrorists; instead, he compared the United States to its allies in the ‘War on Terror’:

This coalition will exist to achieve the mission, and I can assure you our mission will not change to fit any coalition’s. America will stand strong.

Others will tire and weary; I understand that. But not our nation […].

Others will second-guess, but not our nation.

Others will become impatient, but not this great nation.

We will stand firm, and stand strong until we’ve achieved our mission […].

We’re marching on.

We’re marching on to do what’s right. (Bush 2001/09/27)

This framing illustrates that America outweighed others in terms of strength, determination and endurance even when compared with its allies. Although Bush indirectly alluded to all kinds of possible weaknesses, he denied they existed as part of the ‘great nation’. Instead, he reproduced not only America’s image of superiority but exceptionalism.

These passages also demonstrate that Bush almost always used declarative sentences. Although he was only uttering things that he hoped would occur, he did not represent them as hopes, projections or guesses; he reiterated them as facts. Yet, as if to dispel any final doubts the audience might have, Bush used a set phrase that was characteristic of his speeches: ‘make no mistake about it’. This was a means of confirming what he had constructed as truth and cautioning against misjudgment. Depending on the audience, it could be understood as both a promise to the American people and as a warning to the terrorists:

Make no mistake about it: we will win. (Bush 2001/09/12c)

Make no mistake about it: we are determined. (Bush 2001/09/16)

Make no mistake about it, justice will be done. (Bush 2001/10/24)

Make no mistake about it; this great nation will do what it takes to win. (Bush 2001/10/17b)

Finally, Bush underpinned his statements as facts by once again consulting a witness. Having already invoked the authority of the forefathers to substantiate America’s heroic conduct after 9/11, in this case he called upon an all-embracing witness: the world. The world served to attest America’s goodness and determination:

The evildoers […] have stirred a mighty nation to action, and

the world is seeing what we’re made out of.

The world sees our resolves and is willing to follow.

The world sees our commitment to freedom, as it impressed.

The world sees our compassion toward one another […].

The world sees a nation at prayer […].

The world is beginning to see the best of this great land.

The world is beginning to understand why we all treasure America so much – our values, our freedom and the strength of the American character. No, they thought they attacked America and hurt us. We are stronger than ever, and

we will prove it to the world. (Bush 2001/09/27)

Since the world can only see something that is there, these repetitions worked to confirm Bush’s framing as incontrovertible truth. As noted above, his statements were enhanced by anaphora and parallelism that enabled him to underscore the exceptional character of the American people. In general, Bush’s narrative illustrated America’s strength, and his rhetoric of certainty and confidence carried the impression of a president who was in control of the situation.

6.1.4 America, Freedom’s Defender

As part of the traditional founding myth of the nation, ‘freedom’ constitutes an integral part of the American imagination and embodies the core behind the ‘city on the hill’-narrative. All U.S. presidents have employed this powerful symbol in their speeches to the American people to underpin ‘who we are’, ‘what we stand for’, and ‘what we need to fight’ in order to protect the values that emboss the American way of life (Foner 1998, 2014; Domke 2004: ch. 4; Coe 2007). Therefore, when Bush spoke of the matter he continued to use the language of his predecessors who had defined America as the country that defended freedom.78 On the evening of the attacks on September 11, 2001, President Bush began his address to the nation with the statement that “today […] our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts” (Bush 2001/09/11b).79 As Bush purported in this speech, the very reason for the atrocities was America’s liberty: America was “targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom […] in the world” (Bush 2001/09/11b). In Bush’s interpretation, the attack had been directed at America’s core value since “freedom itself is under attack” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/09/12c, 2002/02/16). The president left no doubt that the terrorists were “enemies of freedom” (Bush 2001/09/20) who “hate freedom, and […] freedom-loving people” (Bush 2001/09/19a), and who destroyed American lives “because we embrace freedom” (Bush 2001/09/12b). As Bush put it, the enemies “target freedom” because “they can’t stand what America stands for” (Bush 2001/11/29, cf. 2001/09/16), and they kill “to disrupt and end a way of life” (Bush 2001/09/20). According to this framing, the terrorists chose the World Trade Center in New York as their target because it was “a symbol of America’s freedom” (Bush 2001/10/11a).

In general, Bush utilized ‘freedom’ for the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’. As ‘freedom’ is the core constituting concept of the American ‘self’, Bush made it clear that ‘we’ “value freedom” while ‘they’ “hate freedom” (Bush 2001/11/29, cf. 2001/09/17a, 2001/09/19a, 2001/09/20). By depicting ‘freedom’ as the target and the ‘hate for freedom’ as the motive behind the attacks on 9/11, these statements worked to confirm America’s innocence (see section 6.1.1). There were no issues here in need of consideration; America was simply hated for its liberty. In fact, Bush stated this explicitly when he pointed out that “we face enemies that hate not our policies, but our existence; the tolerance of openness and creative culture that defines us” (Bush 2001/11/10b). As an identity-constructing term, ‘freedom’ was the narrative pivot in Bush’s speeches. This ideograph was used to reproduce the American ‘self’ in absolute delineation from the ‘other’ as well as to define the issue in terms of security. The United States as “the great bastion of freedom” (Bush 2001/09/17a) faced an enemy that had started a “war against freedom” (Bush 2001/09/27). This justified the ‘War on Terror’ as an obligation “to defend our freedom and our way of life” (Bush 2001/09/25, cf. 2001/09/26a, 2001/09/27, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/07, 2001/11/08, 2002/02/21). On this point, once again, Bush spoke unambiguously and represented the U.S. approach in the same manner:

America is a nation built upon freedom, and the principles of freedom, the values of freedom. And

this is a nation that will not – will not – blink from the fight.

This is a nation that will stand strong for the great values that have made us unique. (Bush 2001/09/25)

Ours is the cause of freedom. We’ve defeated freedom’s enemies before, and we will defeat them again. (Bush 2001/11/08)

These examples show that Bush used ‘freedom’ as a rationale to justify his course. As noted above, ‘freedom’ is a key word used to justify American foreign policy. It implies defending American values, interests, and might, and it is used to unite the people behind particular political goals. In fact, throughout American history it has functioned as a rallying cry and an argument for war (Coe 2007: 375–378; cf. Foner 1994: 436, 1998: ch. 10, 2014). What has been said about ideographs before is true here as well. It is easy for the American people to agree on the pursuit of ‘freedom’ since this term is imbued with positive connotations to which Americans are collectively committed; it readily resonates with the audience. The impact of the word lies in its characteristic portentousness and ambiguity. ‘Freedom’ can thus be adapted to any situation: “The speaker can fill it in with whatever particular quality (or behavior, or nation, or person) he wants to oppose, for whatever reason [and] promote virtually any policy in the name of freedom” (Chernus 2006: 166f; cf. Collins/Glover 2002: 3f; Lakoff 2006: 229). This can include confining civil liberties, waging war, and, as this book argues, the violation of rules in terms of detention and interrogation policy.

In fact, although Bush regularly used the term ‘freedom’ in his speeches, he generally avoided defining what it meant.80 After all, definitions could have raised questions about discrepancies between, for example, speaking of the “dignity of every life” (Bush 2002/01/29) and the procedures at Guantanamo Bay. In general, defining such abstract terms brings with it the danger of revealing contradictions between rhetorically invoked values and the way in which they are (un-)reflected in specific forms of action (Ivie 2005: 156f). Consequently, Bush rarely chose to define ‘freedom’; when he did, he defined it in terms of democratic principles or human rights (Bush 2001/09/17b, 2001/09/20, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16) which implied that the United States aimed to promote them. Addresses of this kind were used by Bush to appeal to the American people. In his speech for Human Rights Day and Bill of Rights Week on December 9, 2001, for example, Bush closed by pointing to America’s historical obligations:

I call upon the people of the United States to honor the legacy of human rights passed down to us from previous generations and to resolve that such liberties will prevail in our nation and throughout the world as we move into the 21st century. (Bush 2001/12/09)

This statement distinguished Bush’s course as in accordance with the fundamental values cherished by the United States. In line with this, he described the U.S. as the last best hope and construed a condition that made American action indispensable since “the advance of human freedom – the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time – now depends on us” (Bush 2001/09/20). These words masked the president’s responsibility for waging war and framed the political environment as leaving no other choice.

In claiming this role of unique responsibility, i.e., America’s “duty to defend freedom” (Bush 2002/04/17, cf. 2001/12/09), Bush used the ‘legacy of previous generations’ as a mandatory reference. This logic of duty, constructed as a historic covenant, was employed in a number of variations, one of which referred to America’s founding myth. The choice for ‘freedom’, as Bush emphasized, had been made by America “long ago, on the day of our founding” (Bush 2002/01/29) and this legacy had to be sustained. As noted above, the forefathers were already said to be proud of America’s sacrifice, unity, and patriotism; now they were to be honored by America’s defense of freedom. The argument in the following statement was similar:

In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom’s home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/11/21)

By identifying America as ‘freedom’s home and defender’ Bush’s declarative statement indicated an exclusive position that generated responsibilities. In this framing, the nation was indebted to the achievements of its ‘fathers’, and the perceived obligation to take action was based on them; however, the choice of what constituted appropriate action rested with the current administration. In this sense, reproducing the image of ‘freedom’s defender’ was used as a rhetorical device to unite the people behind the administration’s course. If metaphors have indeed the potential to “structure the ‘discourse’ of foreign policy in the deepest sense” (Chilton/Lakoff 1995: 37), and if they truly “influence the formation of beliefs and guides to action” (Sarbin 2003: 149), this one is powerful, as it alludes to America’s founding myth and core of self-conception. At the same time, by speaking of the ‘commitment of our fathers’, Bush referred to the Second World War and thus invoked the legend of the ‘good war’ and America’s triumphant victory. History is always categorized in some way, and the Second World War is particularly idealized in America’s collective memory. The dominant interpretations of this historic event underline America’s uniqueness. Besides this, however, references to the Second World War demonstrate the magnitude of the menace and the criticality of decisive U.S.-leadership. These factors also form part of the collective American memory. Speaking at the Pentagon Memorial, Bush reminded his audience that the construction of the Pentagon had begun on September 11, 1941:

America was just then awakening to another menace: The Nazi terror in Europe. And on that very night, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the nation. The danger, he warned, has long ceased to be a mere possibility. The danger is here now […] from an enemy of all law, all liberty, all morality, all religion. For us too, in the year 2001, an enemy has emerged that rejects every limit of law, morality, and religion. (Bush 2001/10/11a)

Once again, Bush was explaining the present in terms of the past. By alluding to the Nazi terror, he interpreted his current course in light of America’s history. In fact, with regard to the perceived duty to defend freedom, “no experience in American history appears to substantiate this claim more completely, more cinematically, and with fewer visible contradictions than World War II” (Noon 2004: 357). It is therefore unsurprising that historicity was used to conjure up this memory in many texts.81

As the example above shows, in comparing the situation surrounding the Second World War to that of the ‘War on Terror’ (Bush 2001/10/06, 2001/10/08, 2001/10/11a, 2001/11/10b, 2001/11/19b, 2001/12/07, 2002/04/17), Bush specifically referred to Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. president during World War II (Bush 2001/09/14, 2001/10/11a, 2001/11/19b, 2002/01/25). By invoking President Roosevelt’s aura, Bush rhetorically assumed the authority of his predecessor and his ability to cope with adversaries. Moreover, by putting 9/11 on a level with World War II, Bush made the public ready to accept an expansion of his powers (Winkler 2006: 168). In addition, by referring to the war, Bush’s historical references implied that his strategy would be victorious. Overall, it was a notion with many positive and supportive connotations. A similar historical link was provided by Pearl Harbor (Bush 2001/10/24, 2001/12/07, 2001/12/11, 2002/06/01). This analogy suggested that just as the attacks on Pearl Harbor had imposed the ‘mission of defending freedom’ on the United States, so did the attacks on 9/11 (Bostdorff 2003: 304f). Pearl Harbor thereby implied the innocence of Americans who had been attacked unexpectedly, and the imperative to strike back and enter war. The soldiers who faced this task were addressed by Bush as “the children and grandchildren of the generation that fought and won the Second World War” (Bush 2001/12/07). Bush commemorated the faith and liability of this generation – commonly evoked as the ‘greatest generation’ – and summoned young Americans to live up to their heritage. Furthermore, indirect references to World War II can be found in the form of ‘we have seen this enemy before’, ‘we have defeated enemies of freedom before’, and ‘we have seen this type of hate before’ (Bush 2001/09/20, 2001/11/08, 2001/11/21, 2001/12/07). In some cases these points were clearly combined with references to fascism, totalitarianism and Nazism (Bush 2001/09/20, 2001/11/06, 2001/11/21, 2001/12/07, 2002/06/01). Finally, Bush alluded to General George C. Marshall in his speeches and the accomplishments of the Marshall Plan to demonstrate that America was doing good, and that it made the world a better place (Bush 2001/12/11, 2002/04/17, 2002/06/01). Although Bush’s advisors, as well as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, cautioned him that a ‘war against terror’ could not be won in a classical sense and that he might disappoint people’s expectations by using this term – especially via the connotations of the Second World War – Bush continued to use these very analogies (Chernus 2006: 143f). In contrast, references to the Cold War, which would have implied the enemy’s containment rather than annihilation, were far less frequent in Bush’s speeches; however, this was also probably due to the fact that the Cold War lacks the romanticized brightness of American perceptions of World War II.

In sum, it can be asserted that historical references were used by Bush to underscore the self-conception of America as ‘freedom’s defender’. The inherent quality of these analogies suggested that his propositions were right and that they would bring about a better future. Recourses to World War II helped Bush exemplify the gravity of the situation, the urgency to act and the magnitude of the struggle that lay ahead. Therefore, calling upon these collective memories represented a strategic means of validating his course and legitimating his foreign policies.82

6.1.5 America, the Called and the Victorious

Closely interlinked with America’s self-conception of ‘freedom’s defender’ is the understanding of the U.S. as a ‘nation that has been called upon’. This notion of ‘special American providence’ (Mead 2003; Webb 2004; Esch 2010) ties in with the American founding myth of being appointed by God to spread freedom and of being a blessing to the world (see section 6.1.1). This quasi-religious understanding is a core element of American identity; it signifies America as having been chosen to play a “redeeming role on the stage of world history” (Hughes 2003: 6; cf. Stephanson 1995; Junker 2003: 171). Accordingly, in Bush’s framing, duty and destiny went hand in hand as America had been “called to defend freedom” (Bush 2001/09/20, my emphasis, cf. 2002/02/21, 2002/04/17). In his attempt to justify his ‘War on Terror’, Bush construed it as a mission that America could not avoid. By reminding the nation of its status as ‘freedom’s defender’, Bush strongly instilled a sense of mission in the American people:

This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America, the most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that rejects hate, rejects violence, rejects murderers, rejects evil. (Bush 2001/10/10)

History has called our nation into action. History has placed a great challenge before us: Will America – with our unique position and power – blink in the face of terror, or will we lead to a freer, more civilized world? There’s only one answer: This great country will lead the world to safety, security, peace and freedom. (Bush 2002/06/06)

In many ways, Bush accentuated America’s “responsibility to history” (Bush 2001/09/14) and that the country had now “been called to history” (Bush 2002/02/21). In this narrative, it was “the calling of the 21st century” (Bush 2001/11/29), a “great calling” (Bush 2001/12/07), and since there was “honor in history’s call” (Bush 2001/11/10b), the current generation that “heard history’s call” (Bush 2002/09/11) would answer it. In an even more active phrase “history has […] issued its call” (Bush 2002/06/01) to the younger generation and therefore every man and woman in uniform had been “commissioned by history to face freedom’s enemies” (Bush 2001/12/07). Here, Bush transformed the “responsibility for waging war into one of destiny and honour” (Scraton 2002b: 229). On the first anniversary of 9/11, Bush went so far as to state that he believed there was “a reason that history has matched this nation with this time” (Bush 2002/09/11) – once again constructing ‘history’ as a willful actor that understood America’s preparedness to meet the challenge. As such, Bush used ‘history’ as a synonym for ‘God’ (Noon 2004: 356). History’s call was God calling upon America; this was conveyed in statements such as this:

The attack on our nation was also attack on the ideals that make us a nation. Our deepest national conviction is that every life is precious, because every life is the gift of a Creator who intended us to live in liberty and equality […]. We do know that God had placed us together in this moment […]. And the duty we have been given – defending America and our freedom – is also a privilege we share. (Bush 2002/09/11)

Here, liberty is constructed as God’s gift to mankind.83 By declaring how God (the creator) had intended human life to be, Bush linked the godly to his administration’s course; this represented his policies as the execution of God’s will. The task then was to secure the freedom of the American people and to liberate other peoples – an argument that served as justification for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In line with this religiously imbued logic, Bush emphasized that America was going to keep its “sacred promise” in pursuing justice and in starting a fight designed to “extend the blessings of freedom” (Bush 2002/09/11). What this framing implied was the constitution of American citizens “as part of a special, sacred community” (Bostdorff 2003: 301).

Besides the reference to the obligatory legacy of the (fore-)fathers and the lessons learned from World War II, godly appointment constituted an even stronger basis for America’s duty to take action. This enabled Bush to frame the issue in terms of moral absolutism; and it demonstrated his Manichean worldview. He constructed the scene as one of “us versus them, and evil versus good” with “no in between” (Bush 2002/02/16). Ultimately, in his biblically-informed understanding, this issue represented the irrevocable antagonism between God and the devil. In this sense, Bush’s discourse confirmed that “moral commitments and policy options derived from religious beliefs […] are associated with the absolute and ultimate” (Daase 2006: 85). Whereas America was one nation “under God” (Bush 2001/10/30) and stood for virtue and truth, the enemy was totally evil. This logic portrayed the issue very clearly in terms of ‘either-or’ and black-and-white, and, needless to say, placed the United States on the side of the good. While this approach oversimplified the political environment, it was a plain way of thinking and speaking and, at the same time, forced the audience out of its indeterminacy (Hart/Childers 2004: 531f). Bush’s statement that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/10/06, 2002/02/16, 2002/03/15, 2002/04/17) was totalistic in its demand and compelled the American people as well as its friends and allies to unity behind the administration’s course. The wording was thereby outright religious and reminiscent of Christ’s demands on mankind as stated in Matthew 12:30. With this demand for total commitment, Bush’s framing displayed a typical characteristic of presidential war rhetoric (Campbell/Jamieson 2008: 221). It impeded if not completely silenced openly contradictory positions on the matter since ‘either-or’ constructions leave no room for ambivalence, and times of war no room for disagreement.

The appeal to the highest power and the claim of being called upon also helped legitimize political intentions. According to Bush, it was not just “a war between good and evil” (Bush 2001/10/04, my emphasis, cf. 2001/09/12c, 2001/09/19a, 2002/02/16, 2002/06/01) but “our war” (Bush 2001/10/10, my emphasis, cf. 2001/09/26b, 2001/09/27, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/25, 2001/11/06, 2001/11/07). The United States fought for the good, and by composing this fight as a “crusade” (Bush 2001/09/16, cf. 2002/02/16),84 Bush transformed political action into a mission undertaken for the sake of God. Hence, wiping out evil was a moral, God-given imperative.85 Bush pursued, as Robert Ivie (2005: 160) puts it, “a politics of coercion represented as a sacred mission” and did so “in the name of a higher order.” Since the evil-doers wanted to “rid the world of freedom” (Bush 2001/09/26a), America’s mission was to “rid the world of evil” (Bush 2001/09/14, cf. 2001/09/16). This indicated the tremendous dimension of the mission; according to Bush’s announcement, America had set out to “defend freedom from any terrorist, anyplace in the world” (Bush 2001/09/27, cf. 2001/09/12c, 2001/09/25). Consequently, the U.S. president described this in terms of a “monumental” (Bush 2001/09/12c) and “titanic” (Bush 2002/06/06) struggle. Once again, however, he displayed his confidence that the United States would succeed: “Across the world and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win” (Bush 2001/11/21).

Overall, this construction implied two assumptions: First, God was on America’s side; and second, this meant that America would prevail. Whereas through analogies with the Second World War victory was suggested, now, with reference to God, it was constructed as inevitable. “Freedom and fear,” Bush pointed out, “have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/11/10b, 2002/03/30a, 2002/06/06). Therefore, while the course of the conflict was unknown, “its outcome is certain,” and the Bush administration was “confident of the victories to come” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/09/29). In an even more declarative manner, Bush pointed out that America’s “ultimate victory is assured” (Bush 2001/11/08). This prediction, which was presented as destiny, strengthened the impression of Bush’s certitude of victory and was a useful means of increasing the American people’s willingness to support his course (Bostdorff 2003: 307; cf. Lipset 1996: 20).

There were other instances where Bush also deployed biblical phrases and thus buttressed America’s exceptionalism.86 A typical theme included variations of ‘out of evil will come good’ (Bush 2001/10/04, 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/24, 2001/11/08, 2001/11/21, 2001/12/04, 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29). According to the Bible, God has the power to turn evil into good or to bring good out of evil.87 In reference to scripture such as Romans 8: 28, which states “we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose,”88 Bush declared:

Not only will our nation seek justice, but out of the evil will come incredible goodness. Out of the evil will become America more resolved […] to defend freedom, more resolved to sacrifice […], resolved to show the world our true strength, which is the compassionate, decent heart of the American people. (Bush 2002/02/16)

This was another version of the self-conception that claimed the American people were being ‘called’ and acting magnificently – and it postulated that they had the power to overcome evil. This position was also illustrated by the binary of light and darkness. In referencing scripture that refers to this dualism and to the predominance of light, Bush stated:

Ours is the cause of human dignity; freedom guided by conscience and guarded by peace. This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind […]. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it. (Bush 2002/09/11)

Whereas in the Gospel of John (8: 12) Jesus is the light of the world and the hope of all mankind, in Bush’s construction America had adopted this role. In an even more active usage he stated: “We have a chance to write the story of our times, a story of courage defeating cruelty and light overcoming darkness” (Bush 2001/11/10b). It is with this religiously inspired language that Bush reproduced and reinforced the mythically based concept of God-given American exceptionalism. In this respect, it is logical to claim that “this country will define our times, not be defined by them” (Bush 2001/09/20). In acting this out, America was safely positioned on the side of the good, irrespective of the country’s course of action: “Precisely because Americans are fighting for God and good, they can do violence without losing their innate goodness” (Chernus 2006: 132).

6.1.6 America’s Cause is Just

The construction of the ‘self’ as innocent, righteous and pure in motive – and above all, as having been ‘called’ upon by history and God – determined the assessment of American action. “We go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (Bush 2001/09/11b), Bush declared, and while speaking of great values such as freedom, peace, security, tolerance, and justice, he stated, “when we defend America, this is what we defend” (Bush 2001/10/17a). As this indicates, America was posed as acting in line with universal values and God’s will. This rhetoric certainly helped to nurture the assurance of moral virtue and unburdened the United States of the possibility of committing unmoral or unjustified acts. Even so, Bush repeated that “our cause is just” (Bush 2001/10/11a, 2001/10/17a, 2001/11/08, 2001/12/11, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16) and that it was “right” (Bush 2001/10/10, 2001/10/17a), “necessary” (Bush 2001/12/11), and “noble” (Bush 2001/10/04, 2002/02/16, 2002/03/11). After all, he emphasized, it was “the enemy” who had “declared war on us” (Bush 2001/11/29, cf. 2001/09/16, 2001/09/17a, 2001/09/25).

In framing the United States as an innocent victim, reactions naturally appeared as defensive rather than offensive, and hence just.89 Nevertheless, as if to forestall views critical of his reasoning, Bush pointed out that “ours is a nation that does not seek revenge, but we do seek justice” (Bush 2001/09/25). Hence, with regard to the terrorists, he declared that the United States would “bring them to justice” (Bush 2001/09/11b, cf. 2001/09/16, 2001/09/19a, 2001/09/20, 2001/09/25, 2001/09/26a, 2001/09/26b, 2001/09/27, 2001/10/04, 2001/10/07, 2001/10/08, 2001/10/09, 2001/10/10, 2001/10/17b, 2001/10/23, 2001/10/24, 2001/10/29, 2001/11/08, 2001/11/10b, 2001/11/19b, 2001/11/21, 2001/11/29, 2001/12/04, 2001/12/21, 2002/01/14, 2002/01/25, 2002/01/29, 2002/02/16, 2002/03/08, 2002/03/15). Bush showed confidence that “their hour of justice will come” (Bush 2001/11/10b), since the United States would surround the “terrorists and their sponsors in a tightening net of justice” (Bush 2001/10/17a). In this framing the outcome was clear: “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (Bush 2001/09/20, cf. 2001/10/17a, 2001/10/24). This statement suggested that irrespective of the specific military or judicial option, the operations that were to be undertaken would be legitimate and legal. This perception was also due to the inherent quality of the word ‘justice’. Like ‘freedom’ and ‘evil’, ‘justice’ is a powerful ideograph; as such, when policies are spelled out under this heading they appear reasonable. Hence, in the name of a just cause, even violence can be justified.90 However, Bush reassured his audience that the decisions America and its allies were making were “in the best interest of freedom and humankind” (Bush 2001/10/09). All in all, this construction made it difficult to challenge the president’s course of action. As mentioned, part of this strategy was emphasizing the protection of universal values. Bush rarely spoke about defending America but of defending ‘freedom’ and ‘civilization’; this broadened the matter and supported the argument for international cooperation with the United States. A good example of this was Bush’s State of the Union Address held on January 29, 2002, where he announced: “America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere” (Bush 2002/01/29). This also implied that the United States would take action for the benefit of others since it would “not rest until those who think they can take freedom away from any citizen in the world are brought to justice” (Bush 2001/09/25).

In order to be an American ally, however, one had to stand on the right side of this “moral and ideological divide” (Bush 2001/12/11) – and it was the United States that defined what was right. In Bush’s perspective, there was “no neutral ground” (Bush 2001/10/07, cf. 2002/04/17). He reverted once again to dualisms when postulating that “there can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty […] between good and evil” (Bush 2002/06/01). As discussed in the previous section, Bush was categorical in pointing to the options available for the rest of the world: “Either you are with us or you are against us. Either you stand for freedom, or you stand with tyranny” (Bush 2002/02/16, cf. 2001/09/20, 2001/10/06, 2002/03/15, 2002/04/17). Again, this rhetorical device forced the audience to position itself on the ‘right’ side. Avoiding a decision or going against the U.S. was hardly possible if a state did not want to be considered a hostile power. There was a clear division between friends and foes, and friends were those who shared the values of ‘freedom’ and ‘civilization’ and accepted America’s course. “This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world” (Bush/2001/09/12c), Bush proclaimed, and now, “the civilized world is rallying to America’s side” (Bush 2001/09/20).

With this wording, the president implied two things: First, the civilized world agreed that America’s actions were right and hence it cooperated with the United States. As Bush declared, “allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America” were at the side of the U.S. and even “old rivalries” were being resolved meaning that the U.S. government was now “working with Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before” (Bush 2002/01/29). Second, the civilized world as a whole was under attack and in need of defense. Therefore, “the free world” (Bush 2001/09/19a) and “freedom-loving people” (Bush 2001/09/12c, 2001/09/17a, 2001/09/19a, 2001/10/09, 2002/02/16) were now forming “a broad, broad coalition […] including nations from the Islamic world” (Bush 2001/10/17a). With this notion, Bush tried to further strengthen the ‘us’ by closing ranks. Just as the civilized world was said to side with the United States, so were the representatives of the great world religions: “We’re going to lead the world to fight for freedom, and we’ll have Muslim and Jew and Christian side-by-side with us” (Bush 2001/09/19b). This notion substantiated the warrant of his political course, the more so as Bush concluded that “we are supported by the conscience of the world” (Bush 2001/10/17a). This led U.S. policies to be embodied with virtue and truth; as such, they seemed to be enacted on the principles of the moral high ground. In fact, Bush stressed that America would “always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” and defined those demands, inter alia, as “the rule of law” and “limits on the power of the state” (Bush 2002/01/29). He pointed out that the core of the American self-conception was the importance of living by and standing up for the “essential rights” (Bush 2001/12/09) codified in the constitution’s Bill of Rights. Bush enumerated these maxims in his speech during Human Rights Week on December 9, 2001. He argued that Americans loved “democracy, justice, and individual liberty”; that they “value individual human rights” and respected “human dignity”; moreover, they were “committed to upholding these principles” and “defending international human rights” in coalition with other “civilized people” (Bush 2001/12/09).

In this sense, Bush suggested that even in the minatory situation experienced by the United States on 9/11, the government acted in an exemplary manner, and that with regard to the prosecution and treatment of terrorist suspects, America’s cause was just. Bush emphasized that suspects were being treated “with ultimate respect,” that America was “mindful of the need to respect people’s rights,” and that captives within the U.S. as well as in Guantanamo were being “treated incredibly humanely” (Bush 2002/02/13). In fact, Bush stressed that “people are getting fantastic health care, much better health care today in Guantanamo Bay than they were getting in Afghanistan, I can assure you” (Bush 2002/02/13). In order to appease critics and reassure his audience that the United States was acting appropriately, Bush resorted to the utmost of repetitions. After a meeting with Hamid Karzai, leader of the Afghan Interim Authority, on January 28, 2002, Bush – referring to the captives in Guantanamo – repeated within just a few minutes:

They will be treated humanely […].

They will be treated well […].

They are receiving very good medical care […].

We are giving them medical care, they are being well-treated […].

I make my decision, these detainees will be well-treated […].

The prisoners, detainees, will be well-treated […].

This administration has made the decision they will be well-treated. (Bush 2002/01/28)

This was an attempt to cultivate the image of America’s goodness. Bush conveyed the impression that despite the state of emergency the United States was just and sober-minded, and acting with righteousness rather than revenge. Repeatedly, Bush stated that the ‘War on Terror’ would be executed “within the confines of our Constitution” (Bush 2001/09/26a, cf. 2001/10/29, 2001/11/19b, 2001/12/04, 2002/02/13) and that “constitutional rights” (Bush 2001/10/26) would be protected. The president assured the American people that “we will not let the terrorists cause decay of the fundamental rights that make our nation unique” (Bush 2001/10/10). In even stronger words, he announced:

There is nothing more important for me and the federal government to do everything within the Constitution of the United States – and I emphasize we will not let the terrorists tear down our Constitution – we will do everything within the Constitution to protect the innocent Americans. (Bush 2002/01/25)

While these statements partly referred to the laws brought about by the controversial Patriot Act, there were instances where Bush spoke in more general terms. In some cases, he changed from speaking about terrorist suspects held within the United States to those kept in Guantanamo; sometimes this made it difficult to know about which group he was referring to (Bush 2001/12/04, 2002/02/13). He stressed that the suspects held in the United States were “entitled to a lawyer” and “entitled to make phone calls” (Bush 2001/12/04). However, this might have given the audience the impression that these rights also applied to the detainees in Guantanamo.

It is important to note, though, that Bush did adumbrate a restriction of constitutional rights. As he argued, wars had their own rules; this was all the more true for a ‘new kind of war’. Interpreting the 9/11 attacks as a declaration of war was taken by the U.S. president as granting him permission to depart from the norm and apply extraordinary means, after all, the nation was in a state of emergency:

Ours is a land that values the constitutional rights of every citizen. And we will honor those rights, of course. But we’re at war. (Bush 2001/09/25)

Ours is a great land, and we’ll always value freedom. We’re an open society. But we’re at war. (Bush 2001/11/29)

We’re doing everything we can, everything we can, to protect the American people. We honor our Constitution, but we are on alert. (Bush 2002/03/15)

Here, Bush argued somewhat openly in favor of making exceptions to the rules and that doing so was justified due to the perilous circumstances. In line with this, he pointed out that the rights and values of America and the ‘civilized world’ must not be granted to the enemy, nor should the enemy be allowed to misuse them:

We will not allow those who plot against our country to abuse our freedoms and our protections. (Bush 2001/11/08)

We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty, itself. Foreign terrorists and agents must never again be allowed to use our freedoms against us. (Bush 2001/11/29)

Bush’s decision on how to try terrorist suspects represented a deviation from the rules. He argued for military tribunals to be held for the captives at Guantanamo and insisted this was an issue of national security (see section 6.5.1). Although critics viewed this approach as contravening existing laws and abandoning American values, Bush countered this with a further historical comparison:

These are extraordinary times. And I would remind those who don’t understand the decision I made that Franklin Roosevelt made the same decision in World War II. Those were extraordinary times, as well. (Bush 2001/11/19b)

Again, history served as evidence to demonstrate the correctness of Bush’s course. By comparing the ‘War on Terror’ to World War II, Bush sought to ‘prove’ that his position was right. Abstaining from details that would have displayed fundamental differences between the two wars and rendered the analogy unfit, Bush validated his decision by purporting to act in the spirit of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Once again, Bush placed himself in the same line as the “exemplary president” (Abbott 1990). He used rhetoric to instrumentalize Roosevelt as an “authorizing figure” (Rice 1992) for his own purposes.91 This also meant making use of a time in history when “American moral certitude was unchallenged” (Coe et al. 2004: 237; cf. Noon 2004: 347).