Abstract
The article focuses on the rhetoric of President Barack Obama regarding the US intervention in Libya in 2011. It challenges the view that Obama was changing the course of US foreign relations and shows that his words worked to represent actions that made it impossible to shift the direction of US foreign policy. Analysis reveals that the president spoke of alternatives to military action but his language served to justify the use of force in the region. He called for action through an integrated international framework but his message was designed to diminish the US profile in public opinion and not deem the US as a controlling power. Consequently, the article suggests that mysticism provides the structural basis for Obama’s perception of reality and presents options for reactions to an international crisis.
Reference26 articles.
1. Arneson, Pat. “The Discourse of presidents Ronald Reagan and Daniel Ortega: Peace in Nicaragua without Concession.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. Boston. 1987. Print.
2. Birdsell, David S. “Ronald Reagan on Lebanon and Grenada: Flexibility and Interpretation in the Application of Kenneth Burke’s Pentad.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 267-279. Print.
3. Blankenship, Jane, Marlene G. Fine, and Leslie K. Davis. “The 1980 Republican Primary Debates: The Transformation of Actor to Scene.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 25-36. Print.
4. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969. Print.
5. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献