DOCSLIB.ORG

GEORGE W. BUSH, "AN ADDRESS to a JOINT SESSION of CONGRESS and the AMERICAN PEOPLE" (20 September 2001)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEORGE W. BUSH, Voices of Democracy 4 (2009): 120‐131 Spring & Packer 120 GEORGE W. BUSH, "AN ADDRESS TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" (20 September 2001) Sarah E. Spring and Joseph Clayton Packer Wake Forest University Abstract: George W. Bush's speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, outlined how the nation would respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11. President Bush outlined a bold plan of action, framing the issue in antithetical terms‐‐as a war between good and evil. This framing helped account for the strong public support Bush initially enjoyed as he pushed for congressional approval of his policies in the war on terror. Key Words: George W. Bush, September 11, Al‐Qaeda, terrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq, USA Patriot Act George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States was defined by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nineteen members of Al‐Qaeda hijacked four commercial jets and flew two of them into the World Trade Center in New York, another into the Pentagon, and the fourth—supposedly destined for the White House or the Capitol building—crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The sudden, unexpected nature of the attack and the mass casualties that resulted shocked the American public. Nine days later, on September 20, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech before a joint session of Congress, outlining how America would respond to the terrorist attacks. President Bush captured the mood of the nation and outlined a bold plan of action in this pivotal address. The speech evoked the still vivid memories of the week‐old attack and framed the conflict in starkly antithetical ways, laying the groundwork for a dramatic response. In particular, the speech made heavy use of antitheses throughout, including the now famous line directed toward the world's nations: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" (30).1 This rhetorical tactic helped build support for major policy initiatives like the USA Patriot Act, as well for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By depicting the war on terrorism as a conflict between good and evil, Bush sketched a rhetorical blueprint for all of his administration's subsequent actions. This essay will first consider the historical and political antecedents to the speech, then analyze the speech itself and its repercussions. The Bush Presidency—Before 9/11 The Bush presidency started on unstable footing. The election in 2000 between Bush and Vice‐President Al Gore was one of the closest in U.S. history. The drama of the election was on full display as Bush and Gore struggled over Florida's electoral votes—the winner of that state would win the presidency, even though Gore had won the popular vote. After a Sarah E. Spring & Joseph Clayton Packer Last Updated: January 2009 Copyright © 2009 (Sarah E. Spring & Joseph Clayton Packer). Voices of Democracy, ISSN #1932‐9539. Available at http://www.voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/. Voices of Democracy 4 (2009): 120‐131 Spring & Packer 121 protracted legal battle, Bush was declared the 42nd president of the United States. Writing in the American Prospect, political commentator Kevin Phillips expressed the feelings of many as he labeled the newly elected president "His Fraudulency."2 Bush's first Inaugural Address was a relatively short speech. The speech centered around the theme of reconciliation, as Bush tried to establish his legitimacy despite his narrow victory. Even though the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, they controlled only fifty seats in the U.S. Senate, so the cooperation of Democrats would be critical to the success of Bush's agenda. Bush's Inaugural Address emphasized the shared ideals, values, and heritage of all Americans in an effort to reach out to Democrats. He even complimented challenger Al Gore for conceding the election "with grace," which communicated to other Democrats that they ought to do the same.3 The Washington Post reported that Bush's "eloquent speech focused primarily on the overriding reality that confronts him, which is the need to provide reassurance to, and find common ground with, his opponents if his presidency is to succeed."4 The speech also identified several issues at the top of his agenda, including educational reform, a new weapons system, and support for religious charities. The first months of Bush's presidency brought a mixture of good and bad news for the new chief executive. In September, MSNBC reported that his approval rating stood at 55 percent.5 Yet the economy was doing poorly by many accounts, with the New York Times reporting on September 10 that the economic growth rate had dropped 4.5 percent over the last year and that unemployment had increased a full percentage point, raising concerns about a possible recession.6 Bush also was criticized for being the "vacation president,"7 as he spent a large part of his first summer in office at his ranch outside of Crawford, Texas. On Face the Nation, Dan Balz observed that the Democrats were trying to "remind people that George W. Bush was not working as hard as the American people might have wanted him to work."8 To make matters worse, James Jeffords, a Republican Senator from Vermont, switched his party affiliation to Independent on May 24, 2001, thereby giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. On the more positive side, the president's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act passed both the House and Senate by a comfortable margin. The president also had success building a bipartisan coalition behind his proposals for educational reform.9 In addition, the president made significant progress in calming tensions with Russia over his plans to build a missile defense system.10 Only nine months after taking office, however, the president's domestic and international agenda was radically altered by the events of September 11, 2001. The attacks of September 11th would forever define the presidential legacy of George W. Bush. The Bush Presidency—After 9/11 The days following the September 11 attacks were chaotic as the world tried to come to terms with how this monumental event would shape the future. The Democrats had been planning a major political offensive for September 12, designed to criticize the president for his tax cuts. Instead of bickering on the floor of Congress, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and House Speaker Dennis Hastert spent September 12 beneath the Capitol in a reinforced bunker, which was more time than they had spent together in the previous two years.11 This Voices of Democracy 4 (2009): 120‐131 Spring & Packer 122 national crisis produced a bond that extended beyond those directly in danger; across the country, Americans joined together in solemn prayer and displays of patriotism. With the exception of isolated street celebrations in a few countries, the response from the global community to the attacks was generally supportive of the United States. The French newspaper Le Monde's headline was "Nous sommes tous Américains" ("We are all Americans").12 For the first time, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a defense alliance made up of twenty‐six nations from North America and Europe, invoked Article 5, which binds members to regard an attack on one as an attack on all of the member nations. The European Union announced a summit on terrorism to be held on September 21.13 And Russian President Vladimir Putin personally called off military exercises as an expression of solidarity.14 The world thus offered a show of emotional and political support of the United States that was unmatched in recent memory. On September 14, President Bush made his first public appearance after the attacks by attending a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral. Bush instructed his aides to include leaders of all the major faiths and denominations in the service.15 That same day, Bush traveled to New York and spoke from the top of a crushed fire truck to a gathering of clergy and rescue workers. Responding to a rescue worker who could not hear, the president said: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"16 This message of action was seized upon by Americans, uncertain of their future and eager to strike back at the forces responsible for the devastation. Bush's popularity skyrocketed; his job approval rose from approximately fifty‐five percent to eighty‐ four percent. Seven in ten Americans now were saying President Bush was a strong leader, including 55 percent of Democrats.17 On September 18, White House counselor Karen P. Hughes instructed speechwriters Michael Gerson, Matthew Scully, and John McConnell, to begin working on what would become Bush's speech before the Joint Session of Congress.18 The next two days were spent making numerous alterations to the speech and consulting with Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had flown to the United States in the aftermath of the attacks. Bush discussed with Blair and his National Security Council the importance of capitalizing on American patriotism and pro‐ American sentiment around the world. The newspapers outlined the enormous expectations placed on the speech. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady, extended her support in advance of the speech. Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, told the American public that the speech would outline the U.S. response to the attacks. George Stephanopoulos, an ABC news correspondent and former Democratic political advisor, called it "the speech of his life"—the kind that only happens "a handful of times in our history."19 When President Bush delivered the speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, eighty million American television viewers tuned in.20 The next day several major newspapers, including the New York Times, included the full transcript of the historic address.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Views with Most of the Key Players, Including the President
    BOB WOODWARD Legendary Pulitzer Prize-Winning Investigative Journalist Author and Associate Editor, The Washington Post • With Carl Bernstein, Woodward uncovered the Watergate scandal • Author, twelve #1 bestsellers – more than any contemporary nonfiction writer - 18 bestsellers in all • Iconic investigative journalist; winner of nearly every American journalism award, including two Pulitzers • Reporter-historian with an aggressive but fair and non-partisan reputation for digging deep to uncover Washington’s secrets. Gives audiences unvarnished look at Washington politics and leaders • "Woodward has established himself as the best reporter of our time. He may be the best reporter of all time." – Bob Schieffer, CBS News Face the Nation Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wished he’d recruited Woodward into the CIA, “His ability to get people to talk about stuff they shouldn’t be talking about is just extraordinary and may be unique.” Therein lays the genius of Bob Woodward – a journalistic icon who gained international attention when he and Carl Bernstein broke the deeply disturbing news of the Watergate scandal. The book they wrote - All the President’s Men - won a Pulitzer Prize. Watergate’s theme of secret government is a common thread throughout Woodward’s career that spawned 18 books – all went on to become national bestsellers – 12 of them #1 - more than any other contemporary nonfiction author. In the process Woodward became the ultimate inside man. No one else in political investigative journalism has the clout, respect, and reputation of Woodward. He has a way of getting insiders to open up - both on the record and off the record – in ways that reveal an intimate yet sweeping portrayal of Washington and the budget wrangling, political infighting, how we fight wars, the price of politics, how presidents lead, the homeland security efforts, and so much more.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Groupthink, the News Media, and the Iraq War
    Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Summer 2008, Vol. 10, Issue 4. COHERENCE IN CRISIS: GROUPTHINK, THE NEWS MEDIA, AND THE IRAQ WAR Dan Fitzsimmons, Ph.D Student, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary From the outset of the American military intervention in Vietnam in 1964, the United States news media has had the capacity to report military engagements from around the world in real time.1 Instantaneous and pervasive news coverage has helped to inform the American public and politicians of ongoing military operations, which has led to obvious questions about the possible influence of news on military strategy.2 This assumption has only gained popularity following studies of news media influence in Vietnam, which has prompted further investigation of the possible links between US military strategy and the media.3 The proponents of this termed “CNN effect,” which hypothesizes a causal link between media reporting and politico-military decisions, include Steven Livingston of George Washington University who proposes that the viewing of images on television “undeniably influences the evolution of events.”4 However, proponents of the CNN effect have frequently failed to take into account the important role of strategic decision-making in setting the course of 1 Margaret H. Belknap, The CNN Effect: Strategic Enabler or Operational Risk? (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 2001), p. 1. 2 Ingrid A. Lehmann, "Exploring the Transatlantic Media Divide over Iraq: How and Why U.S. And German Media Differed in Reporting on U.N. Weapons Inspections in Iraq: 2002-2003," The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 10, no.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Woodward
    SIMON & SCHUSTER INTERNATIONAL SALES BOB WOODWARD Bob Woodward exposes one of the final pieces of the Richard Nixon puzzle in his new book The Last of the President’s Men. Woodward reveals the untold story of Alexander Butterfield, the Nixon aide who disclosed the secret White House taping system that changed history and led to Nixon’s resignation. In forty-six hours of interviews with Butterfield, supported by thousands of documents, many of them original and not in the presidential archives and libraries, Woodward has uncovered new dimensions of Nixon’s secrets, obsessions and deceptions. The Last of the President’s Men could not be more timely and relevant as voters question how much do we know about those who are now seeking the presidency in 2016—what really drives them, how do they really make decisions, who do they surround themselves with, and what are their true political and personal values? AlSO AVAILABLE: The Last of the President's Men Bob Woodward ISBN: 9781501116445 Format: Hardcover Price: $28.00 On-Sale: 10/13/15 All the President's Men The Price of Politics Wired QTY: ISBN: 9781476770512 ISBN: 9781451651119 ISBN: 9781451655599 Format: Paperback Format: Paperback Format: Paperback Price: $17.00 Price: $17.00 Price: $18.00 On-Sale: 06/03/14 On-Sale: 09/17/13 On-Sale: 03/06/12 QTY: QTY: QTY: Obama's Wars The Secret Man The Final Days The Brethren Veil Plan of Attack Bush at War ISBN: 9781439172506 ISBN: 9780743287166 ISBN: 9780743274067 ISBN: 9780743274029 ISBN: 9780743274036 ISBN: 9780743255486 ISBN: 9780743244619 Format:
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty and Ethical Argument in the Struggle Against State Sponsors of Terrorism
    Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1Á18, 2007 Sovereignty and Ethical Argument in the Struggle against State Sponsors of Terrorism RENE´ E DE NEVERS Department of Public Administration, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA ABSTRACT In prosecuting the war on terror, the Bush Administration asserts that the pro- tections inherent in state sovereignty do not apply to state sponsors of terrorism. I examine three elements of normative arguments to assess the administration’s policies. The administration sought to delegitmize terrorism by underscoring the uncivilized nature of terrorist acts. It sought to link the war on terror to efforts to prohibit the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and to frame the invasion of Iraq as central to this war. Finally, the administration proposed new international standards of behavior by arguing that state sponsors of terrorism should be held accountable for terrorist acts planned on their territory, and by seeking to link the protections against intervention inherent in the sovereignty norm to this behavior. Despite initial support for delegitmizing terrorism, the US attempt to frame the war on terror as linked to WMD and Iraq met with skepticism, and it faced fierce competition from alternate frames with regard to Iraq. Finally, the invasion of Iraq stimulated resistance to US policy on normative grounds, with particular concern about the consequences for the sovereignty norm. KEY WORDS: Norms, Sovereignty, Ethical argument, Terrorism Introduction The war on terror has been the central focus of US foreign policy for over five years. The military components of this war have received the greatest attention, particularly the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghani- stan and the ousting of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the Outset of the Iraq
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Keck Graduate Institute Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2010 The aC se of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the Outset of the Iraq War David C. Spiller Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Spiller, David C., "The asC e of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the Outset of the Iraq War" (2010). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 54. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/54 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHAPTER ONE: A WAR OF PREEMPTION The world changed after 9/11. American foreign policy was forced to take a more aggressive stance against potential threats throughout the world. By implementing the Bush doctrine, President George W. Bush sought to reform American foreign policy by waging a preventive war against terrorism and the countries that harbored terrorists. After 9/11 the primary target of the United States was Afghanistan where the Taliban ruled and those responsible for the terrorist attacks were located. By waging war in Afghanistan the Bush administration launched a full assault against terrorism in order to ensure the safety of the United States. Besides Afghanistan, Iraq was another country high on the administration’s priority list due to possible ties to terrorism as well as the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration identified Iraq as one of the biggest threats to the United States because of the previous history between the two countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unipole in Twilight: American Strategy from 9/11 to the Present
    The Unipole in Twilight American Strategy from 9/11 to the Present ✦ JUSTIN LOGAN oreign policy in the United States is like polo: almost entirely an elite sport. The issue rarely figures in national elections. The country is so secure that F foreign policy does not affect voters enough to care much. No country is going to annex Hawaii or Maine, so voters are mostly rationally ignorant of the subject. The costs of wars are defrayed through debt, deficits, and the fact that the dying and dismemberment happens in other people’s countries. Moreover, the dying and dismemberment of Americans are contained in an all-volunteer force that is powerfully socialized to suffer in silence.1 Unlike on abortion, the environment, or taxes, elites in both parties mostly agree on national security. Given rational igno- rance among the public and general consensus among elites, voters rarely hear seri- ous debates about national-security policy (Friedman and Logan 2016). Their views are mostly incoherent and weakly held. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (9/11) raised the salience of foreign policy. They rocketed President George W. Bush from 51 to 90 percent popularity in the span of fourteen days (Gallup News n.d.). Bush used the wave of approval to pursue an expansive war on terrorism. The United States invaded Afghanistan in October and began planning to attack Iraq. Justin Logan is senior fellow at the Cato Institute. 1. On the effects of an all-volunteer force on support for war, see Erikson and Stoker 2011 as well as Horowitz and Levendusky 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • President Bush and the Invasion of Iraq: Presidential Leadership and Thwarted Goals
    From James McCormick, ed., The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, 6th ed. (Roman & Littlefield, 2018), pp. 361-380. President Bush and the Invasion of Iraq: Presidential Leadership and Thwarted Goals James P. Pfiffner George Mason University The 2003 Iraq War is a case study in winning the military battle but losing the war. President George W. Bush demonstrated impressive political skills in taking the country to war, despite the reservations of former generals, members of his father’s administration and the doubts of contemporary military leaders. But President Bush’s political victory in taking the country to war and the quick military defeat of Saddam’s army were undercut by a long post-war insurgency in Iraq, the rise of Iran’s influence in the Middle East, and the establishment of ISIS in a broken Iraq. This case study will examine President Bush’s campaign for war, his use of intelligence to make his case, and the longer-term consequences of the war. Many factors determine a decision to go to war, and in the United States, the personality and character of the president as leader of the country and commander in chief of the armed forces, are particularly important. To be sure, Congress is constitutionally the institution that must “declare war,” but political and governmental dynamics most often favor the president. The president has the advantage of being a single decision maker directing the many bureaucracies that gather intelligence and prepare for war. Virtually all intelligence available to Congress originates in executive branch agencies. Publicly, the president can command the attention of the media and strongly shape public perceptions of the national security situation of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Bibliography
    ELECTION 2008: Lipstick on the Pig, Annotated Bibliography Annotated Bibliography1 Anti‐Americanism, Blowback, Why the Rest Hates the West .......................................................... 92 Betrayal of the Public Trust .............................................................................................................. 93 Biomimicry, Green Chemistry, Ecological Economics, Natural Capitalism ....................................... 98 Blessed Unrest, Dignity, Dissent, & the Tao of Democracy .............................................................. 99 Capitalism, Globalization, Peak Oil, & “Free” Trade Run Amok ..................................................... 100 Collective Intelligence, Power of Us, We Are One, & Wealth of We .............................................. 102 Culture of Catastrophe, Cheating, Conflict, & Conspiracy .............................................................. 104 Deception, Facts, Fog, History (Lost), Knowledge, Learning, & Lies ............................................... 104 Democracy in Decline ..................................................................................................................... 107 Emerging and Evolving Threats & Challenges ................................................................................ 110 Failed States, Poverty, Wrongful Leadership, and the Sorrows of Empire .................................... 114 Future of Life, State of the Future, Plan B 3.0 ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bush at War 1St Edition Free Download
    FREE BUSH AT WAR 1ST EDITION PDF Bob Woodward | 9780743244619 | | | | | Bush at War - Bob Woodward - Google книги Woodward, the Bush at War 1st edition indefatigable amanuensis and an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, and the paper's national political reporter Dan Balz wrote for The Bush at War 1st edition earlier this year. The book notes that the administration had serious doubts early on about the war in Afghanistan and that ''they were making it up as they went,'' at one point even contemplating sending in as many as 50, American troops. It also depicts C. But while Mr. Woodward fleshes out what we already knew about policy debates within the war cabinet with lots of tiny details, the book asks the reader to take a lot on faith. A novel-like narrative, in this case, does not make the most persuasive or thorough of histories. As he's done in earlier books, Mr. Woodward has freely ''attributed thoughts, conclusions and feelings to the participants'' -- in some cases, without directly interviewing the person in question -- and while the book is told in a coolly omniscient voice, individual scenes often reflect the point of view or spin of the author's sources. For instance, Secretary of State Colin L. Tenet all clearly talked at length with Mr. Woodward, and all tend to come across more sympathetically than, say, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who gave the author less access. Woodward puts it, ''that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Denial
    State of Denial Jacket "INSURGENTS AND TERRORISTS RETAIN THE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES TO SUSTAIN AND EVEN INCREASE CURRENT LEVEL OF VIOLENCE THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR." This was the secret Pentagon assessment sent to the White House in May 2006. The forecast of a more violent 2007 in Iraq contradicted the repeated optimistic statements of President Bush, including one, two days earlier, when he said we were at a "turning point" that history would mark as the time "the forces of terror began their long retreat." State of Denial examines how the Bush administration avoided telling the truth about Iraq to the public, to Congress, and often to themselves. Two days after the May report, the Pentagon told Congress, in a report required by law, that the "appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007." In this detailed inside story of a war-torn White House, Bob Woodward reveals how White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, with the indirect support of other high officials, tried for 18 months to get Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld replaced. The president and Vice President Cheney refused. At the beginning of Bush's second term, Stephen Hadley, who replaced Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser, gave the administration a "D minus" on implementing its policies. A SECRET report to the new Secretary of State Rice from her counselor stated that, nearly two years after the invasion, Iraq was a "failed state." State of Denial reveals that at the urging of Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld, the most frequent outside visitor and Iraq adviser to President Bush is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who, haunted still by the loss in Vietnam, emerges as a hidden and potent voice.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Woodward
    WORLDWIDE SPEAKERS GROUP LLC YOUR GLOBAL PARTNER IN THOUGHT LEADERSHIP BOB WOODWARD Bob Woodward gained international attention when he and Carl Bernstein uncovered the Watergate scandal in 1973. Since then, he’s worked to shine a light on the inner-workings of secret government. Woodward’s non- partisan revelations to readers and speech audiences provide a view of Washington they’ll never get elsewhere. Woodward has written about the last nine U.S. presidents and chronicled how the power of the presidency has evolved. He is author of 19 bestselling books – 13 were #1 – more than any contemporary nonfiction writer. His latest bestseller, Fear: Trump in the White House, is the deepest dive ever made into the first months of any American president. In his speeches, Woodward looks at the expanding powers of the presidency and how this president and administration are governing. He can also compare and contrast the nine presidents he’s covered and their impact on history. And finally, he can assess the role of the media and how well it is (or isn’t) doing its job. Audiences will be awe-struck by insights from this living journalistic legend. Currently associate editor for The Washington Post where he’s worked since 1971, Bob Woodward has won nearly every American journalism award including two Pulitzers. Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wished he’d recruited Woodward into the CIA, “He has an extraordinary ability to get otherwise responsible adults to spill [their] guts to him…his ability to get people to talk about stuff they shouldn’t be talking about is just extraordinary and may be unique.” Therein lays the genius talent of Bob Woodward.
    [Show full text]