Persuading Under Uncertainty: A Comparative Analysis of Bush and Obama’s Rhetorical Strategies in Intelligence Challenges

Objective: Intelligence challenges such as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, and cyber threats create uncertainty and incomplete information for the decision makers and people. This uncertainty could be managed by a country’s president through persuasive communication. This article examines the way in which Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama employed rhetorical strategies to persuade domestic and international audiences regarding intelligence-related affairs. Method: The study draws on a qualitative content analysis of presidential speeches based on a new seven-category persuasion framework consisting of ۲۵ subcategories that expand the traditional Aristotelian modes of ethos, pathos, and logos. This framework offers a more systematic framework for capturing the complexity of presidential persuasion strategy. Results: The analysis revealed clear differences in presidential approaches: Bush consistently relied on pathos, using fear appeals, urgency, and moral clarity to justify preemptive actions related to WMD and rally public support, whereas Obama focused on logos and ethos, appealing to reason, institutional trust, and credibility, while framing responses as collaborative and strategic in cases involving technological intelligence activities.

کلیدواژه ها:

Bush ، Drones ، Intelligence ، Obama ، Persuasion ، Surveillance ، Weapons of Mass Destruction