Bush Drew on Strengths in His Address to the Nation

With simple words and a strong but reassuring style, President Bush on Thursday delivered one of the most demanding, and bellicose, presidential speeches in generations, according to historians and speech writers, who largely gave it high marks.

“What the speech was really about was how a decent people in a democratic society go to war,” said David Kusnet, chief speech writer for President Clinton.

Some writers said Bush, frequently known as an awkward orator, rose to the occasion and gave the speech of his career. “He certainly found his voice as a national and world leader,” Kusnet said. But others said his rhetoric could not meet, or mask, the complexities and uncertainties of the task that lies ahead.

Bush’s use of plain-spoken American English was striking, Kusnet said. “If I had such a program to search through, you probably would find that there aren’t words more than three syllables. But he says what had to be said. And does it without the cheapening of American government rhetoric.”

Bush’s speech writers obviously borrowed cadences and wording from previous presidents, some noted.

“The speech most resembled the speech that President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt gave after the attack at Pearl Harbor,” said Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. “Obviously, Bush speech writers read that speech. There was a series of repetitions, a litany of crimes.”

Bush, he noted, repeated the phrases, “Americans are asking . . . “ and “We will come together.” Reagan also borrowed from FDR, who borrowed from Abraham Lincoln, Cannon said.

Bush avoided the macho or melodramatic language of previous Republican presidents, including that of his own father, as well as some of the more incendiary language he has used in recent days--words such as “dead or alive” and “evil.”

But though he was far from glib, the president still sounded like a cowboy to Ronald Reagan speech writer Lyn Nofziger. Bush’s speech, which introduced the new Office of Homeland Security, sounded folksy enough to help the American people identify with him, Nofziger said. At the same time, he said, “I don’t recall any other president threatening people the way he did. It’s the toughest speech I’ve ever heard.”

Some focused on his continuing use of religious references. “To say that ‘God is not neutral’ is a bit more artful than calling it a crusade, but it is calling it a crusade, just as [Osama] bin Laden is calling it a crusade,” noted Mark Miller, a media critic and director of NYU’s Project on Media Ownership.

However, many said Bush’s wording, particularly the distinctions between mainstream Muslims and the terrorists, was deft and articulate and the tone just right for a varied and widespread audience.

Unlike presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and former President Bush, each of whom addressed the nation to announce war, Bush was not speaking to a single constituency, the experts observed. “He was speaking to several different audiences--the people in the chamber, the American people, the international community and, of course, people engaged in terrorism,” said Robert Schmuhl, author of “Statecraft and Stagecraft, American Political Life in the Age of Personality.” I think he rather deftly touched all the bases. This is such a high-wire act.”

As recently as April, Republican advisors to previous presidents were saying that Bush’s speeches to foreign officials in Quebec City, Canada, were not particularly statesmanlike. Though many, even among his critics, said he excelled Thursday, some said his words were not fully equal to the enormousness of the task before him.

Theodore C. Sorenson, speech writer for President Kennedy, derided Bush’s address as a “pep talk.”

Sorenson took issue with what he called Bush’s linguistic imprecision, in particular his casual use of the word “war” in such a volatile climate. “War is an armed conflict between two governments. Essentially what happened on Sept. 11 was a despicable series of crimes. Those crimes should be punished, but I wouldn’t say that is necessarily war.”

What’s more, he criticized Bush for not providing specific evidence that Bin Laden was linked to the terrorist attacks. “I’m certain not many in the nation have doubt, but the world has doubt, and we need to present that evidence to the world.”

Indeed, what the president didn’t say might have been as significant as what he did say, some suggested.

Although Bush emphasized the first-person singular in speaking about his leadership, he did not make Bin Laden the focus of his anger, Schmuhl said. “It is much more useful to personalize the president than the opponent. In the Gulf War, his father put such an emphasis on Saddam Hussein that when the war ended and he was still in power, it led to a debate about our success.”

It is too soon to tell whether the speech itself will be remembered, as opposed to the complexity of the event it was written to address, Khachigian said.

Soaring rhetoric is not as important as it once was, according to author David Halberstam. Television has changed the need for and effectiveness of public speech, he said. “Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, they were of a time when it was the words themselves, and only the words, that mattered,” he said.

“Using only words, Churchill was able to create a certain bulldog strength that then embodied England. De Gaulle, in absentia, used radio to speak for France. And Roosevelt--the power of that great aristocratic voice. Now that we have the images, words are probably less important.”

It is important, Halberstam said, not to overjudge the president’s speech. “It fits the moment,” he said. “Bush did not get elected because of his skills with language.”

Bush’s mettle, he said, will be more accurately gauged in the days to come. “Can he muster the support of such a diverse nation. Can he keep our attention. That’s what matters, not the speech.

“It was not great rhetoric,” Halberstam added, “but this is not a great time to judge.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The President’s Words

Sept. 11: “Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”

*

Sept. 12: “The American people need to know that we’re facing a different enemy than we have ever faced . . . . This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail.”

*

Sept. 13: “We have just seen the first war of the 21st century. Make no mistake about it, this nation is sad, but we’re also tough and resolute. And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism, hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable.”

*

Sept. 14: “War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”

*

Sept. 15: “This is a conflict without battlefields or beachheads, a conflict with opponents who believe they are invisible. Yet, they are mistaken. They will be exposed, and they will discover what others in the past have learned: Those who make war against the United States have chosen their own destruction.”

*

Sept. 16: “This is a new kind of--a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.”

*

Sept. 17: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

*

Sept. 20: “Our nation--this generation--will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.”

*

Times staff writer Renee Tawa contributed to this report.