Does Legality <i>Really</i> Matter? Accounting for the Decline in US                 Foreign Policy Legitimacy Following the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Scott, Shirley V.; Ambler, Olivia

doi:10.1177/1354066107074287

“…Many believe that the war itself was unethical and see fault in how pro-war governments presented the war to domestic audiences. Scott and Ambler (2007) call the invasion "unethical", asserting that it violated terms of the UN Charter and that the public was "knowingly misled" on the topic of Iraq's alleged noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions requiring the country to disarm (p.70). John Dumbrell (2004) believes that "despite the [Bush] administration's best efforts, it proved difficult, indeed impossible, to establish a clear link between [Saddam Hussein] and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001" (p.34).…”

Section: Case Study: Framing the Rhetoric Of The Iraq Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

Turnbull¹

2021

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This MRP explores the ethical dilemma inherent in the use of emotional appeals in political speeches. Taking a historical approach to the question of how ethics and emotion have played out in rhetorical theory and propaganda studies, I examine how political speakers use rhetorical appeals to pathos in order to gain support for controversial policies. I question where the “line” between legitimate rhetorical appeals to pathos and illegitimate, emotionally manipulative propaganda lies, and ask: do appeals to emotion constitute propaganda? What is the difference between a legitimate appeal to emotion and propaganda? What constitutes a “legitimate” appeal to emotion in political speech? To answer this, I analyze three speeches made by Western political leaders justifying America’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. My analysis distinguishes different kinds of appeals to pathos, or emotion, within my data set and weighs each speaker’s use of “legitimate” appeals to pathos against emotional appeals that are classified as “propaganda,” according to Elspeth Tilley’s Propaganda Index (2005). My findings show that a large percentage of appeals to pathos in each speech analyzed meet the requirements for propaganda as defined by Tilley. Eighty-one percent of appeals to pathos in George W. Bush’s “Message to Saddam” constitute propaganda; sixty-eight percent of appeals to pathos in Tony Blair’s Speech to the British House of Commons constitute propaganda; and seventy-three percent of appeals to pathos in Stephen Harper’s Speech to the Canadian House of Commons are considered propaganda as defined by Tilley. My findings showcase the ambiguity of “ethical” communication in political contexts, and underline the importance of critical audience engagement in political processes.

show abstract

“…Many believe that the war itself was unethical and see fault in how pro-war governments presented the war to domestic audiences. Scott and Ambler (2007) call the invasion "unethical", asserting that it violated terms of the UN Charter and that the public was "knowingly misled" on the topic of Iraq's alleged noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions requiring the country to disarm (p.70). John Dumbrell (2004) believes that "despite the [Bush] administration's best efforts, it proved difficult, indeed impossible, to establish a clear link between [Saddam Hussein] and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001" (p.34).…”

Section: Case Study: Framing the Rhetoric Of The Iraq Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

Turnbull¹

2021

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This MRP explores the ethical dilemma inherent in the use of emotional appeals in political speeches. Taking a historical approach to the question of how ethics and emotion have played out in rhetorical theory and propaganda studies, I examine how political speakers use rhetorical appeals to pathos in order to gain support for controversial policies. I question where the “line” between legitimate rhetorical appeals to pathos and illegitimate, emotionally manipulative propaganda lies, and ask: do appeals to emotion constitute propaganda? What is the difference between a legitimate appeal to emotion and propaganda? What constitutes a “legitimate” appeal to emotion in political speech? To answer this, I analyze three speeches made by Western political leaders justifying America’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. My analysis distinguishes different kinds of appeals to pathos, or emotion, within my data set and weighs each speaker’s use of “legitimate” appeals to pathos against emotional appeals that are classified as “propaganda,” according to Elspeth Tilley’s Propaganda Index (2005). My findings show that a large percentage of appeals to pathos in each speech analyzed meet the requirements for propaganda as defined by Tilley. Eighty-one percent of appeals to pathos in George W. Bush’s “Message to Saddam” constitute propaganda; sixty-eight percent of appeals to pathos in Tony Blair’s Speech to the British House of Commons constitute propaganda; and seventy-three percent of appeals to pathos in Stephen Harper’s Speech to the Canadian House of Commons are considered propaganda as defined by Tilley. My findings showcase the ambiguity of “ethical” communication in political contexts, and underline the importance of critical audience engagement in political processes.

show abstract

“…The year 2009 and the highest support for the closure (Rasmussen Reports, 2015) seem to coincide with Obama’s election into the Office and generally a more positive attitudes towards US politics and its willingness to address the problematic legacy of President Bush’s record on human rights abuse (Holsti, 2011; Scott and Ambler, 2007). In his first speech as the President of the United States, Obama stopped all military commission trials, ordered a comprehensive review and pledged to close Guantánamo within a year (Wagner, 2013).…”

Section: The Symptom the Public And A Return Of The Repressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

A return of the repressed: Symptom, fantasy and campaigns for justice for Guantánamo detainees post-2010

Zevnik

¹

2017

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article develops a theory of the symptom and argues for a symptomal analysis of contemporary political situations, in particularly those that resonate with exception. By focusing on Guantánamo detainees and habeas corpus petitions, the article analyses the language of law and public attitude towards the closure of the facility. The article shows how the legal situation of detainees post-2010 is determined not by the binary distinctions (identity/difference, normal/exceptional) but by attempts to eliminate these binaries and bring detainees under the normal rule of law. The attempts to bring the detainees under the normal rule of law are social fantasies, that is different narratives, which determine how we understand and engage with the law in Guantanamo. Fantasies are always fragmented at their core, and Al-Adahi case with the lack of public response to it reveals this fissure in the form of ‘the return of the repressed’. In doing so, the article shows how the overcoming of the exception is a fantasy of modern politics and points to the moment the repressed truth is revealed.

show abstract

Does Legality Really Matter? Accounting for the Decline in US Foreign Policy Legitimacy Following the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

A return of the repressed: Symptom, fantasy and campaigns for justice for Guantánamo detainees post-2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About