First, when reading Shakespeare's history plays, one must keep in mind their propaganda value and the effect of official censorship on a writer's ability to publish or perform works during Shakespeare's lifetime. Shakespeare lived in a charged political climate, during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, after a century of civil war among the aristocracy (the Wars of the Roses) and sectarian unrest (the English version of the Reformation, triggered but not caused by Henry VIII, the Bill Clinton of his day).

England was at that time engaged in conflicts with Spain especially, and was under attack from without and within by sectarian rebels who wanted to replace the Protestant Elizabeth with a Catholic. [Tony, please feel free to correct or expand any of this.] This replacement process did not involve free elections. Later, there would be an assassination attempt against James we remember as "the Gunpowder Plot", with similar objectives. It was a heady, culturally enriched, but dangerous time for England.

Henry V, a Lancastrian king, was a warrior/hero, who took the war away from England by foreign adventuring, and had the great good fortune to die young, before he had a chance to screw up his image. He was (counting on fingers...) the step-great-grandfather of Elizabeth, so related in an off-hand way, heroic, and far enough in the past to be fictionalized. In short, Henry V the character presented a perfect vehicle to use to reinforce nascent English nationalism. This in spite of the fact that the object of the real Henry V was to become King of France, while giving the soldiers previously involved in the civil war someplace fresh to loot that wasn't England.

Now, as to the comparison of the texts:

Henry V:
-Speaking in the field to his men, on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt.
-Outnumbered by the enemy's world-class elite army 10-1 deep in the enemy's homeland.
-Will be on the field commanding in the morning.
-Will not only not be especially invulnerable, but will be identified in the thick of hand-to-hand combat by the heraldric devices he wears on his armor .
-Has travelled, fought and mingled with his men, sometimes incognito, for the whole of the foray into France.
-Speaks of fighting with his men as brothers in arms and equals, facing danger together.
-Has a very good writer, whose words are not only stirring, but also in iambic pentameter.
-Speech is a piece of fiction, composed to motivate dramatic action. Not really spoken by historical figure.

George Bush:
-Speaking half a world away from his army at a press conference.
-The soldiers who will have to meet his challenge to the enemy are located in the enemy's homeland, and are outnumbered if you count all the civilians, but outgun the enemy in one of history's most spectacular mismatches.
-Is not going to fight shoulder to shoulder with the troops, will not be commanding them, and in fact has no first-hand knowledge of battlefield conditions.
-Is also identified by heraldric insignia (Presidential Seal), but is defended to the teeth by a cadre of special agents trained especially for his defense.
-May have personally spoken to a few of the thousands of soldiers under his command.
-Speaks in the phrase of an adolescent dare, most recently and memorably used as the title of a movie about rival squads of cheerleaders from southern California. Makes no promise to treat the soldiers fighting on his behalf as brothers.
-Apparently wrote his own copy. No iambs; not enough syllables to make a line of pentameter.
-Speech is a matter of historical record. Actors playing soldiers do not get to die again tomorrow.

Next!

Regards--
Mary Anne