I need some help here please.

Hi all

I am here to ask only one question because I can't seem to find an answer anywhere else. I don't study politics and political movement, and frankly I am at a loss here.

My question deals with the G W Bush (little Georgie ) presidency and his State of the Union addresses. Approaches to the picture by the common people regarding terrorists and "something" coming are literally all over the board.

I came across a Master's thesis PDF by Jessica Reynolds, B.A. that presented a definitive picture of what could be called mind manipulation. In the Abstract, she says:

[FONT=&quot]George W. Bush [FONT=&quot]? [FONT=&quot]s State of the Union addresses are analyzed through close textual and topical analysis to explain how the president uses fear and threat rhetoric to forward his agenda.

That paints an excellent picture of her approach, and my question is:

If George Bush did not write his State of the Union addresses, who did? And IF, as Ms. Reynolds states, there is an agenda here, whose "agenda" is it? Was this written by someone (singular or plural) who used Bush as a mouthpiece for something else?

There are oddities in the Bush picture that run from the election itself ...

[FONT=&quot]The 2000 Presidential election in the [FONT=&quot]United States [FONT=&quot] was among the most controversial in the nation [FONT=&quot]? [FONT=&quot]s history. [FONT=&quot] Several news organizations declared Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, the presumptive winner of [FONT=&quot]Florida [FONT=&quot] at approximately 7:50 PM EST. [FONT=&quot]53 [FONT=&quot]Victory in [FONT=&quot]Florida [FONT=&quot] tipped Gore over the brink in the Electoral College, winning him the presidency. However, a few hours later, the news networks recanted their declaration, anointing Bush the winner of the crucial swing state. [FONT=&quot]54 [FONT=&quot]By the morning, the country was in a state of confusion. The matter of the election winner was not officially settled until five weeks later. A [FONT=&quot]Florida [FONT=&quot] court ordered a recount of the ballots. A day later, the Supreme Court ordered the recount cease as they entered deliberations in Bush v Gore. [FONT=&quot]55 [FONT=&quot]In this case, the Court ruled in favor of Bush, announcing him the winner of the election, and the forty-third president of the [FONT=&quot]United States of America [FONT=&quot].

... to the strange month-long vacation he took pre-911. In August 2001, ... [FONT=&quot]Bush embarked on one of the longest presidential vacations in United States history, spending thirty-one days at his ranch in Crawford.

Right after this vacation, 911 happened, and the tone of "Bush's" words changed.

[FONT=&quot]Threat permeated every aspect of the Bush presidency. He utilized fear created by various foreign and domestic threats in order to increase his own popularity and support for his proposals. [FONT=&quot]76 [FONT=&quot]The politics of fear and threat are most evident in his State of the Union addresses. [FONT=&quot] In his State of the Unions, Bush highlights each of the issues he faced in his two terms. He reframes the issues as threats to the vitality and safety of the nation, whether international or domestic issues. Creating an atmosphere of fear is essential to his argument in his addresses; Bush is the only option for leadership in a fearful [FONT=&quot]United States [FONT=&quot].

This all sounds conspiratorial, but data is data. My question is: Who really wrote all of this - the normal everyday speech writers? Or is this - something else? Ms Reynolds' PDF can be found here.

Thanks in advance for any help.

https://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/etd/bits...TU-2010-05-660/REYNOLDS-THESIS.pdf?sequence=5

Agreed, however, this work is based on language usage only, and the effect said language has on those who hear it. It's no different than the conversation we are having now. These "words" are analyzed through close textual and topical analysis to explain how the president uses fear and threat rhetoric to forward his agenda. We are only dealing with the words, their effect, and asking who would write this.

obtuseobserver said:

and who would actually care?

...........

Click to expand...

That's a fascinating answer - obviously not you.

Next.

AK_ID said:

I really don't care who wrote Bush's speeches. For one thing, he's no longer president. I'm far more concerned with the current whiner in office, and how soon he can be removed.

Click to expand...

But, is it all connected, and if so, where is it going?

AK_ID said:

Please forgive me, ma'am or sir, as the case may be, but I'm an old guy and sometimes need things spelled out. Where is what going?

Click to expand...

I'm a guy, old too (at least that's what the grand-kids say LOL)

The idea is that the language, as looked into and described by Ms Reynolds, is deliberately constructed to point towards a particular end:

[FONT=&quot]After the September 11 attacks, President Bush [FONT=&quot]? [FONT=&quot]s rhetoric changes drastically as he employs fear and threat rhetoric. This event results in the formation of four consistent topoi in his State of the Union addresses: the Enemy, the Event, the Follower and the Leader. [FONT=&quot] Bush uses these topoi to construct an argument for his leadership through an enthymeme: if the Enemy can be anyone, and the Event can happen any time or any place, then the only option is for the nation to adopt the role of the Follower under President Bush as the Leader.

Why would this type of approach be used is all I'm asking. Did someone think - we wouldn't follow the leader if indeed there was a threat. If you speak to people like they are morons, it's because you believe they are morons. True leadership doesn't work like this. A leader can speak and the people hear. They know - and that's it. It doesn't go any further than that.

White Rabbit said:

The only speechwriter that I'm certain of, off the top of my head, is that David Frum wrote the infamous "axis of evil" speech.

As for "something else" I haven't a clue. The rhetoric used by Bush doesn't seem unusual or unexpected. Fear sells well and has always been an effective tool for selling public policy. Any political scientist can tell you that. Likewise with the policies pursued under Bush Administration - all was very predictable stuff if you followed the players closely over the years. Lots of establishment players were heavily involved in the Bush Administration - all Washington insiders. That's 'business as usual'.

Click to expand...

Allegedly Bush changed axis of hatred to axis of evil.

I can't say anything about "business as usual" or I wouldn't be here asking. And as far as fear selling well, again the question of true leadership pops up. There is vagueness throughout this (and the other) State of the Union speeches. Reynolds says: This fear is underscored by Bush[FONT=&quot]? s insistence that the Event is a continuous, generational threat. Uncertainty surrounding possible attacks solidifies national fear, providing the atmosphere necessary for Bush to make his proposals. The Follower is the subject of Chapter seven. This topos is the first aspect of President Bush[FONT=&quot]? s set of solutions. Through the metaphors of vigilance, faith, sacrifice, and obedience, he establishes a model individual who is faithful to Bush and his administration. ...




Multiple scholars closely examine the fear rhetoric utilized by the Bush administration. These individuals describe President Bush[FONT=&quot]? s rhetoric as ?exorcism rhetoric,?145 and a ?battle between the forces of good and evil.?146 The consensus is that Bush leads the proverbial pack in the drive for politicians to use the rhetoric of fear.
What are the implications of using such rhetorical tools in the area of politics and public policy? Several scholars address this question. Joshua Gunn asserts that Bush[FONT=&quot]? s rhetoric ?attempts to arouse the fear of hidden or invisible forces conspiring to take over the body politic.?147 Fear rhetoric leads individuals in the United States to submit to Bush[FONT=&quot]? s policies in order to exorcize the ?demons? of terrorism from their society.

AK_ID said:

Okay, now I've got to ask, who the hell is Reynolds? I'm sure she impressed a prof or two with her masterful use of the language in search of the answer to a meaningless question (not hard to do when dealing with most profs), but what's the point?

Click to expand...

Why is any research into a topic like this considered "meaningless" and questions like "what's the point" pop up?

Conspiracy theorists (so called) have a view, and, like any "view" it can be (and should be) dismantled, examined, and explained.

Reynolds is a person like you, me, or anyone, in this case she did a work centered on getting a Master's degree. She saw something and looked into it, and came to a conclusion based solely on the words used by our "leader" - who did not write the speeches involved. Her final picture seems to echo the sentiments of Michel Chossudovsky.

Biography

Michel Chossudovsky is Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He has taught as visiting professor at academic institutions in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). In 1999, Chossudovsky joined the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research as an adviser.[3]

Chossudovsky is past president of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is a member of research organizations that include the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).[3]

When Chossudovsky looked into this picture, coming in from a completely different direction, he came to the same conclusions:

In the Preface of America's "War on Terrorism" he wrote:

The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration?s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America. Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism"


Maybe, he is a well educated crack pot who happened to see the same thing as Reynolds, who - also is a crack pot?

Or maybe there really is a picture here, one that seems to show that our (we the people) collective asses are hanging in the balance of some kind of global restructuring.

Chossudovsky ... has also claimed that the invasion of Afghanistan had long been planned by the United States and NATO, with the 9/11 attacks an excuse to justify the war.

The "point" is simply that IF something contrary to the picture we were told IS happening, and IF this picture does not paint a good image of our future (the psychopaths have indeed taken over the hospital) shouldn't we try to prove it right or wrong?

I have found the weak spot in the overall picture concerning people and research. In the old show the X-Files a poster was made popular that was hanging on Mulder's wall. It was a UFO hovering over a simple landscape, and the caption was: I want to believe. I took that idea one step further:
I want to believe -
I just don't want
to do the footwork.

I have found that it is easier for people to just raise the "conspiracy" flag or the "Nut-so" flag and automatically negate the picture, than actually looking into the subject.

AK_ID said:

That "mythical" outside enemy did a hell of a job on Manhattan.

Click to expand...

I come from NY originally ... I know.

So why would a wall be created that in essence distances the population from a clear understanding of WHO this enemy is? Or, is it possible that: We have seen the enemy, and it is us?

The only question in the picture is: Do we challenge what seems to be "odd" information concerning the 911 picture, or, do we just believe what we are told by the media?

Yes, you MAY be dealing with a "conspiracy"-type picture, but what if it's true, just not yet clarified? The only way to finally settle the argument is to deal with the data; and that is what I'm trying to do. Unfortunately, I'm not a political data person, I have been dealing in history looking at another picture that seems to connect to all this, and hence the reason I showed up here.

Anyway, according to this collection of pieces, dating for a pre-911 picture goes back to 1981.

http://www.historycommons.org/timel...itaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

RoccoR said:

onlychild, et al,

This may sound like a "cop-out;" but the answer boils down to: "no one and everyone."

Click to expand...

Not a cop out at all ... thank you.

AK_ID said:

Oh, and the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

Click to expand...

Your approach, and your avatar - perfect match