JFK: The Cuban Missile Crisis

John F. Kennedy’s gave his televised speech about the Cuban Missile Crisis on October 22, 1962, six days after he had learned about the Soviet missile bases in Cuba from aerial photographs. Although the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs had claimed that the missiles were for “defensive purposes only”, Kennedy decided that they were a threat to national security. The day before he gave this speech, Kennedy decided on a plan including a naval blockade of all incoming ships to Cuba. The speech was Kennedy’s first time addressing the nation about the threat, and announcing his response plan.

Kennedy starts the speech off by announcing exactly what evidence he has seen of the missile buildup in Cuba. He then takes two statements given by Soviet officials, and proceeds to show that they are false. He gives a dramatic pause after he announces each statement, and then says “That statement was false,” really emphasizing the fact that we have been lied to by the Soviet Union.

Kennedy then discusses how the Soviet Union and the United States have previously adhered to rules regarding missile placement, and that the Soviet Union has really overstepped its bounds by doing this. He uses the catchphrase “clear and present danger”, a term quoted from a bill regarding First Amendment speech rights, to describe how dangerous these secretive missiles are in Cuba. Kennedy references World War II while making a point that not reacting to dangerous conduct can end very badly.

Kennedy then begins to outline his plan for response in step by step format, outlining the various actions he wants the United States to take. He begins each step by numbering it “First…, Second…, ect.” He concludes his plan by discussing how he wishes to negotiate the removal of arms from both sides, but cannot have comfortable diplomatic discussions when there is such an imminent threat to the United States.

Next, Kennedy actually addresses the Cuban people, emphasizing how he understands what Cubans want and how they live. He reviews their history, and then discusses how Cuba should not be under Soviet dominance. He finishes off addressing the Cuban citizens by telling them that “these new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it.” He then stresses how the United States is on their side in this conflict.

Finally, Kennedy discusses the goal of worldwide peace and freedom he hopes to achieve, but discusses how the path there is “full of dangers”. His conclusion seems to be an attempt to call all nations together to help the United States fix this danger.

Bush Response to 911

Attack. It’s not war, yet.
Surprise. Now, how do you respond?
How do you respond to a surprise attack?
What do you say to those who hurt you? Even more challenging, what do you say to those who have been hurt? Hurt directly, indirectly. Hurt solely on the basis that the place they call home, America, was attacked.
How do you lift the spirits of a society lost and confused? How do you answer the many questions shooting through their troubled minds?
How do you so much as begin to address these strenuous questions?
Unfortunately, 6 years, 3 months, and 3 days ago, our president had to answer. George W. Bush, or his speech writer, made deliberate choices when deciding how to phrase and compose the address he gave that Tuesday night, following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC.
Bush tactfully relies on pathos throughout the beginning of his speech. From the onset, he clarifies how the terrorist acts affected the entirety of the American people when he states, “our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks.” He wants the country, as a whole to be upset. This happened to us, all of us. He carefully chooses words such as attack, evil, and terror, to begin his speech. These words, coupled with references to the loss of “Moms and dads. Friends and neighbors,” evoke deep, vengeful passions. This leaves the listeners longing to hear what is to be done.
The viewers continue to hear alliteration, assonance, and consonance, which ring peacefully into their tortured ears. Phrases such as, “brightest beacon” and “strangers and neighbors,” provide hearty and catchy messages that lift the spirit. Following a day of such chaos and pain, the American people begin to feel their day have order.
Bush does this and so much more. As his speech goes on, he uses ethos and logos, while continuing to use tools of literature to keep his audience close to his message. He alludes to the Bible and cleverly revises the text of Psalm 23 to better appeal to the American people. He sets many images to hold onto the audience’s attention. His use of antithesis makes clear to all his listeners the extremes of the day’s situation.
There is so much to address about this historic speech. This analysis merely hints at all that is worked into Bush’s attempt to answer the questions of the American people. Stay tuned. Much more is to come.

Submitted by Kira Thompson

Introduction to “Peace Without Conquest”

On April 7, 1965 in front of sixty million viewers across the United States and around the world, Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a televised address from Johns Hopkins University. It was his first major speech on the War in Vietnam. Johnson had ordered his staff to compose an address because of the rising criticism and opposition to the War. It was later billed as “Peace Without Conquest” (which is notably similar to Woodrow Wilson’s “Peace Without Victory) and became one of the Johnson Administration’s most important foreign policy speeches. “Peace Without Conquest” was Johnson's explanation of the American involvement in the war as a means to bring harmony to the region while avoiding occupation.
In his speech, Johnson announced plans for an ambitious $1 billion development program along the vast Mekong River that would benefit not only Vietnam, but all of Southeast Asia. The program was intended as an offer to North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. Johnson was sure that Ho Chi Minh would take the offer, but the very next day, he turned it down. Ho Chi Minh’s rejection was just one of many instances in which Johnson’s deal-making skills failed him.
The speech was a huge success. Worldwide, leaders and newspapers of NATO allies applauded the speech. At home, editors and columnists praised Johnson's perceived new course. Those advocating a more militant line found Johnson's promise to defend South Vietnamese independence reassuring, while those clamoring for nonmilitary solutions found their satisfaction in Johnson's willingness to negotiate and offer of development aid.

Submitted by Morgan Watts

On Nixon: War

Richard Nixon was elected president on the platform that he would deescalate the Vietnam War. However, when he was elected president, he did just the opposite. He expanded the war by ordering American troops and planes into previously neutral Cambodia. Over the next couple years, the total tonnage of bombs dropped on Cambodia would exceed the entire tonnage dropped by all the Allies during all of World War II. Nixon gives this speech in justification of his hypocrisy.
From the beginning, Nixon’s speech abounds with ethos. He quickly establishes his reputation and credibility by stating that he plans on withdrawing 150,000 troops from Vietnam sometime in the future. He goes on to state that he can not withdraw the troops at the time because doing so would endanger the lives of the remaining troops. He points to a map of Vietnam in justification. He says that his actions will likely demolish any chance of a second term but that the lives of 400,000 American far outweigh any political aspirations.
Nixon then does something quite brilliant. He redefines the war in Vietnam as a war of politics into a war of ethics. The war in Vietnam ceases to be a war about containing communism and morphs into a war to save “18 million South Vietnamese who have put their trust in us.” He goes on to say that “it is not our power, but our will and character that is being tested tonight.”
Despite the outwardly pure appearance of Nixon’s speech, Americans see through the veil and see the heart of the matter: that Nixon lied. Protests become increasingly fervent and eventually lead to confrontations with the military that leave half a dozen dead at Kent State University and Jackson State University. Eventually Nixon relents, and starts withdrawing troops. Nixon’s speech fails in realigning the hearts of Americans.

Submitted by Kenzan Tanabe

JFK's Cuban Missile Crisis Address

Blog #4: Introduction of Analysis Speech
The speech I have chosen to analyze in my paper is John F. Kennedy’s October 22nd, 1962 address to the nation regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. This speech comes on the heels of the United States discovery of what Kennedy calls “offensive” Soviet nuclear weapons sites on the island of Cuba, less than 100 miles off the coast of Florida. He details the plan of action the US has taken in response to this threat, as he “feels obliged to report this new crisis to [the American public] in fullest detail.” In his explanation of the threat, he shows that this problem is not only an American issue; since these weapons are located in the Western Hemisphere, nations such as Mexico, Panama and even Canada should be on alert to this new threat. Kennedy goes on to directly attack the Soviet Union for its violation of international treaty, its numerous lies to the American government, and its “capture” of the peaceful population of Cuba for their own aggressive intentions. He lists many examples which are used to not only put the Communists in a bad light, but also to better the image of the United States. Often when attacking the communists, Kennedy follows with a point of the American’s peaceful initiatives, furthering the idea that America has the moral high ground in this conflict. Kennedy then moves on to lay out seven plans that the United States will pursue immediately, everything from putting much of the military on high alert, to working directly with global organizations such as the UN and OAS, to talking directly with the Russian government to “search for peaceful and permanent solutions.” In closing his speech, Kennedy directly addresses the “captive people of Cuba,” as he tells them that their government is simply a “puppet” in the communist world, and that the United States wishes to free them as a people. In what I thought was a memorable closing line, Kennedy states, “Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right.”

Submitted by Kit Neuman

General MacArthur's USS Missouri Surrender Speech

Speech
War Speech Analysis

On September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur made two statements during the Japanese surrender ceremony on the deck of the battleship, U.S.S. Missouri. Both statements were short. The first statement before the signing of the surrender documents was tighter in composition, more concrete in its tone, having almost a contractual focus. The latter was both more theological and more apocalyptic in its focus, and ultimately more disjointed.
The first focused on the agreement to be signed, an agreement “to restore peace.” General MacArthur emphasized that the conflicts between the nations were no longer to be debated; the battlefield had determined the winners and loser, and the goal among the parties was not vindictiveness but rather compliance with the document’s terms. MacArthur ended by stating his hope that a better world would result from the agreement. This statement conforms to the scope of the signing itself.
The second was darker, describing the mood in the early “grim” days of the war, when “an entire world lived in fear” and when “democracy was on the defensive”, when “modern civilization trembled in the balance”. MacArthur then abruptly shifts to the future, not merely discussing preservation of what had been won in the war but rather the “destructiveness of the war potential,” the risk it posed to civilization’s survival. He discussed the possibility of Armageddon, that humanity had already had its last chance. Survival of humanity required changes in human character to parallel the advances of knowledge over the prior two thousand years. All of this apparently references both the general destructiveness of the war and the specific development and use of the atomic bomb as the first true weapon of mass destruction. MacArthur’s two themes in the comments, the threats of the early war years and the risks of the new technology, do not tie together, making the second statement much weaker in composition.
Nonetheless, the message he provides here is quite important. Although the drafting of the speech is somewhat poor, the individual statements he makes are powerful. He writes in a simplistic enough way that any audience would understand and leave the deck of this ship with the same notion that peace must be maintained.

Submitted by Ben Shambon

Franklin D. Roosevelt uses logos, ethos, and pathos equally throughout his “Great Arsenal of Democracy” speech on December 29, 1940.

Throughout the speech, Roosevelt utilizes different quotes from axis power leaders to accurately convince people that the axis is more than wrong, it is terrible an evil. He uses common sense to convince people that the U.S.’s role in World War II is minimal for now and can only reap positive benefits if the citizens do their best to help Great Britain. Roosevelt demonstrates that if the U.S. does not help Great Britain, we will be doomed to fall to the axis powers.

FDR has a ton of evidence supporting his good intentions regarding the well being of the U.S. and its citizens. The people already have a lot of trust in FDR for things that he has already done. He has already proved himself by immensely improving many peoples’ quality of life after the stock market crash in 1933 and the subsequent Great Depression. Though his audience already knows these facts, FDR spends the first portion of his speech making sure that his good intentions are in the front of everyone’s mind before he continues to make his “risky” points. He states that he will use the same approach to help the U.S. in this current “crisis” of WWII, as he did in the 1933 crisis. It is also implied that FDR has good intentions for Americans because he is the president, and therefore has a clear stake in the situation; his reputation relies on his decision about WWII.

With the gravity of the current “crisis,” it is easy for FDR to reach out the peoples’ emotions. He uses particularly harsh and effective words such as “Nazi masters,” “aggressor nations,” “dominate,” “enslave,” “crush,” and “corrupt” to arouse a feeling of fear. He later channels this fear towards motivation and desire to establish peace. To do this, FDR uses inspirational phrases like “splendid cooperation between the government and industry and labor,” nothing “shall delay the immediate expansion of those industries essential to defense,” “we have the men, the skill, the wealth, and above all, the will” to accomplish our military goals, “we will devote ourselves to the same whole-hearted extent to the great task that lies ahead,” “we must be the great arsenal of democracy,” and “democratic faith.”

"A Dream, that's still a Dream"

"Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair."

I will not reflect upon how Martin Luther King's speech incorporated pathos, ethos, or logos. I will not even go into detail on how his words touched so many people that sweltering hot day at the mall of Washington. I won't even mention why this speech was so moving.

I will reflect on how one particular line reflects how I feel about the African-American progress in the 21st century. I will reflect on how we, as African-Americans have lost the momentum for advancing ourselves as a whole. I will mention how we have done the opposite of what Roy Wilkin's speech "The Clock Will Not Be Turned Back" proclaimed. I will mention that Martin's speech "I Have A Dream" seems as if, it will merely be just a dream. I will mention how we have "wallowed in the valley of despair."

Two nights ago my cousin didn't come home. He's not really my cousin, but my grandmother has cared for him through the foster care system for six years. The past three years, he has steadily grown rebellious. All he talks about is B's up C's down (reference to the gangs Crips and Bloods), making millions by going into the NFL (a mere fantasy), fighting some boys that looked at him the wrong way, and doing things that really didn't matter. He never really studied. I don't think even he cared. During the beginning of our senior year, he began to think about his future and realistic goals. He was going to enlist into the army right after he graduated. He was going to graduate from high school even though he was struggling. But somewhere, something went wrong. Maybe it was when he started high school that he realized that entering into the NFL was highly unlikely. Maybe it was when he grew very emotional and depressed about his 15 year old biological sister getting pregnant a year ago. Maybe it was the first day he entered his first foster care home. Maybe it was when his parents neglected him. But somewhere, something went wrong and for the past 4 months all he has talked about is running away. His family has told him multiple times that they don't want him. He has no money. He has no place to stay and my grandmother has been patient through his ups and downs, his disrespectful behavior, and his attitude of not caring. My grandmother is getting tired, and Wednesday was the day that he legally was not obligated to stay with my grandmother. He turned 18 Wednesday. My grandmother wanted him to stay and finish school. She also wanted him to keep his job that he quit for the fourth time. She wanted him to do something with his life, even though his family didn't support him, his friends weren't helping him, and his environment wasn't motivating him. We all were rooting for him. We all didn't want to see him wallow in his despair. But Wednesday night he didn't come home. He packed his clothes in a trash bag and came back for it sometime on Thursday. He's gone. We've done everything to help him, but he has made stupid decisions for the past two years to the point that we have grown tired of helping him. Two months before graduating he has decided to drop out. Is it his fault? Or is it his parents fault? Or should it even matter? He was lucky for being placed with my grandmother and my family. Instead of giving up he should of kept going. Now we (my family) will never know his potential. And that's the problem that I think our African-American community is facing today.

We are giving up and wallowing in our despair. So what you grew up around drugs. So what that our ancestors were enslaved. So what we've had to struggle for years with injustice and discrimination. Rise up from despair and move forward. If the white system is not going to help us then we have to help ourselves. I think that this was Martin Luther King's real dream. His dream was to keep moving even in the face of adversary. We are suffering and we are falling back. We are killing ourselves by giving in to violence, drugs, sex, and broken homes. If we continue, Martin's dream will remain a dream, and then just a mere fantasy.

I have an improvised dream...

Martin Luther King’s speech is already an impressive speech, but the most shocking thing to me is that the speech was largely improvised. He draws on such elaborate metaphors throughout his speech which would require a genius to dream up on the spot. Instead of analyzing this speech’s message, which I believe King conveys quite clearly, I am going to focus on what improvisational techniques he uses.

I have been to a few improvisational shows and seen many on television, and one thing I notice is that their acts are very interactive with the audience – they sample what the audience likes based on their response, and use it to continue. I watched Martin Luther King’s speech and noticed that the audience gave frequent and loud responses. They applauded frequently, and would often chant “Yes!” or “My Lord!” in unison.

I noticed that whenever King received response for a phrase he said, he would often start into a parallel-structure list of similar ideas (“We must…. We must…”, “I have a dream…”). Sometimes, when such a list was not appropriate, he would simply elaborate deeper on a metaphor, or just give more examples of how his metaphor was accurate (We’ve come to cash this check (‘Yes!’) …riches of freedom (‘Yes!’) and security of justice. (‘Yes!’) [applause]”).

King is actively listening to the audience, and really giving them what they want to hear. I’m sure if there had been a lulled response when he started his “I have a dream…” sequence, he would have moved onto something else, but since his audience responded so loudly to his first dream claim, he continued making more and more, generating more and more energy until he climaxes with a biblical illusion “…that the glory of the lord shall be revealed”.

Compare this speech to another speech which generates a lot of dynamic response – the State of the Union. The president recites his speech regardless of what response he gets from whom, and as a result it usually ends up being rather dull. This speech, on the other hand, seems so much more active simply because King listens to the audience and uses their responses to generate energy.

In this improvised speech, King generates impressive phrasing on the go. One part of his speech that particularly impressed me was his list of geographic locations in his concluding “Let freedom ring…!” section. He managed to dynamically list landmarks all over the country to include everyone. King not only shows himself to be a visionary, but a genius.

Kit "I Have a Dream" Reaction

Although I have read and heard Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech numerous times, this particular time that I read it I was struck by two major elements. First, I was struck by King Jr.’s extensive use of dark and light imagery. Second, I found it surprising that King Jr. eagerly included all Americans, including Whites, into his movement.

Multiple times in the speech, King Jr. uses dark and light imagery to symbolize the struggle that the African-Americans have gone through, and the promise of the future toward which they are working. He calls the Emancipation Proclamation a “beacon light of hope,” coming as a “joyous daybreak to end the long night of [the African-Americans] captivity.” In reference to the struggle they are about to attempt to overcome, King Jr. references the “dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice.” Furthermore, he pledges to continue to lead the fight against inequality “until the bright day of justice emerges.” All of these images and metaphors are based on biblical depictions of God and goodness as being “light,” while Satan and evil are almost exclusively portrayed in a dark context. While King Jr. was preaching for civil rights and equality for all Americans, he was a minister by trade, and these biblical allusions are what he (and his audience of comprised mainly of devout Christians) knew best.

“We cannot walk alone.” I believe that this quote, placed in the middle of King Jr.’s speech, embodies his attitude towards other races of Americans in relation to the Civil Rights Movement of the African-Americans. Despite years of oppression from Whites, years full of broken promises and broken dreams, King Jr. urges African-Americans to not “distrust all white people,” because “[the white’s] destiny is tied up with our destiny.” As opposed to later movements such as the Black Panthers and other more aggressive organizations, King Jr., in his typical non-violent style, wants to accept the whites into his movement in order to achieve his cause quicker. This speech was not only intended to further the cause of African-Americans; in a sense, it was directed to all people in order to create true equality throughout American society. I find it amazing that someone who has been so oppressed, beat down, and persecuted could be so willing to work with his opponents. That is true character.

I Have a Dream Speech Reaction

One of the main themes that Martin Luther King uses throughout this speech is the contrast between hot and cold. He references situations of extreme heat and cool relief. The heat is “sweltering,” and seemingly suffocative while “cooling off” is considered a “luxury.” Dr. King knows that the “sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality.” This imagery is effective because everyone has experienced swelter and because the day of the speech was probably sweltering and stuffy because it was in Washington, D.C. in late August. King’s references to extreme heat would not have been nearly as effective if the audience were in a cold climate. He poses the contrast of “an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality” as a huge relief and success. Also, after summer, autumn comes surely and inevitably. This furthers his metaphor by implying that freedom and equality will inevitably come if the “creative protest” continues. Using the same reference to hot and cool settings, King states that he “[has] a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustices, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” Once again, heat and swelter is used in a negative situation, while the oasis represents a freedom, justice, and a cooling release from the oppression.

Another aspect of this hot – cool metaphor is the difference between the climate of the North and South in the U.S. and the difference between their respective levels of discrimination against African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. Blacks were much more oppressed in the South than in the North, as Dr. King knows when he says that he “cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.” The fact that blacks cannot even vote in the South gives the South the negative connotation that comes with the “sweltering” oppression in the region. The North’s climate is a bit cooler temperature wise, but also in terms of discrimination because blacks can at least vote in the North. Dr. King’s metaphor of the contrast of hot and cool has many more levels than it would first appear to have; but each different aspect of the metaphor works very well with Dr. King’s meaning that he is trying to get across in his speech.

MLK Reaction

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister. It would therefore make sense that his speeches contain many religious overtones and Biblical allusions. From quoting scripture, to using images of fire and hell, his speeches are as much a plea to religious values as they are to moral concerns.


Even in “I Have a Dream,” a speech that fights for the equality all ethnicities, the biblical allusions are obvious. From referencing “God’s Children” to directly quoting scripture “… until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream,” one gets the distinct feel
that this speech is a sermon.


At the time, this might have been a good thing – people regularly attended church and believed in god. He might have intended to link his cause to God’s cause and thereby get more people to support his cause. Maybe, being a Bible man, he just wanted to proselytize. Whatever the reason, he inextricably linked the fight for freedom with religion.


And it worked. Segregation came to a screeching halt, and America has more or less become the dream that Martin Luther King hoped for. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. He got dozens of schools, bus stops, buildings, and streets named after him. He even got something that no president has ever gotten, a national holiday. He has become immortalized as only a few Americans, like Washington and Jefferson have.


If the ends justify the means, than there is no doubt the Martin Luther King is a holy man. But if the means by which the goals are attained do matter, I think Martin Luther King is not the hero we all make him out to be.


He plucked a tender string in all of America. He knew that Americans were religious and used it against them. Even though the cause for which he fought was noble, even though he gave his life for the rights of others, even though he improved the lives of countless people, including mine, he used religion to attain his goals. Consider what others have done using the same religious tactic as MLK of playing to the religious values of America: rape victims were denied abortions; stem cell research that could help people like Michael J. Fox has been greatly hindered; gays have been denied the constitutional right to marriage; the entire Middle East crisis.


Martin Luther King was a great man. I wouldn’t argue otherwise. All I’m saying is that if his cause was so great, his motives so pure, his argument so sound, why couldn’t he leave religion out of it?