Since President Abraham Lincoln's great second inaugural address (May 4, 1865), nearly 150 years ago, it has been a long-standing habit that the The president's inaugural speech presents a rather ambiguous request for diplomacy. and the transformation of the world. President Bush's second inaugural address was no different. It sets out President Bush's ambitious view of the United States' role in advancing freedom, democracy, and liberty around the world "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Although he has persuaded his audience to adhere to his arguably ambiguous goal, President George W. Bush uses a rhetorical approach that blends parts of pathos and ethos with precise word choice to create charged diction. ethics and emotion in faith to unite the public. It also relies on the assumption that the public shares their thoughts on religion, their perception of American ideals of freedom and the role of God. Because the mission of ending tyranny is certainly difficult, President George W. Bush uses pathos and ethos with carefully chosen diction to unify his audience and also establish common ground, so they can see the goal from the same point of view and start working to achieve it. He began very early in his speech by demanding the establishment of a common history. In the third paragraph he says: “In this second meeting, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the story we have seen together. » He used this technique of implementing a common history several times in the following paragraphs of the inaugural address by referring to "our Founding Day", "the mission that created our Nation" and the "accomplishments honorable of our fathers. progress on the basis of paper......they do not study the Bible or are not predisposed to its diction, the choice to use language so similar to that of the Bible can lead members to the audience to pass off President Bush's words as idealistic and of no value to the issue presented. President George W. Bush's second inaugural address follows in the tradition of most presidents before him and presents an ambiguous vision of world transformation and diplomacy. This also avoids the pitfalls of Coolidge and Harding's discourse, characterized as isolationism. However, with its highly emotional and ethical language combined with an overly ambiguous outlook and strong reliance on religious views, it succumbs to another label, idealistic. story.php?storyId=4460172, consulted on 17/2/2014