ABSTRACT
The Holder and Brennan speeches formed a one-two punch, the fi rst asserting the legality of drone policy from the perspective of sovereign presidential power and the second articulating publicly a defense of targeted killing. This essay shows how speeches from administration advocates fi lled the gap, until President Obama delivered a belated, post-election speech that strove to normalize policy. Our analysis explores ways the Obama administration strategically blended Bush justifi cations for preventive warfare while concomitantly purporting to dismantle the war on terror. More broadly, we illustrate how the executive branch of government strategically works public address to conceal, leak, announce, and confi rm policy while presidential initiatives build, peak, and unwind – with the president entering in to strategically defi ne policy at the end. Argumentation is viewed as tactical collaboration for buying time and co-opting criticism, with uncertain strategic outcomes.
