Contribution/Originality: This study contributes in the existing literature by elaborating a more developed structure of the fear appeal argument and making connection between the rhetoric of fear and the art of policy justification. Also, it highlights the need for a multidisciplinary approach to determine the goals behind any manipulation of fear. 1. INTRODUCTION In the time of human crises, it is hard for politicians to express direct claims to refuse welcoming refugees to their states. Indeed, they cannot say that they do not have the will to welcome harmed people because this is unhuman and it can open on them and on their policies a wider window of critique. These critiques are not appreciated in that they might have such bad effects on their local agenda, international agenda, and their interests across the

Regarding the ability doublespeak offers to its users to distort and mislead, the question about how power is (re)produce, distributed, and enacted becomes of great concern. Within this context, the present paper seeks to study how the use of doublespeak serves for the empowerment of the self and the dis-empowerment of the other. The study of this topic consists in the analysis of some examples that are taken from political speeches delivered by the US presidents; Bush, Obama, and Trump. To analyze these examples, a combination of three theories—theories of discourse analysis, theories of power, and theories of politics—is used. The application of this theoretical combination is based on the use of a simple method of research. This method follows three successive steps. First, the traces of doublespeak are detected and classified. Second, interest is given to the study of how each of the traced uses of doublespeak serves for empowerment. Third, interest shifts to the interpretation of the obtained results to highlight the political ends standing behind any struggle for power. The paper ended by offering a multi-disciplinary approach to the study of empowerment in the political uses of doublespeak as well as a simple method of research. Also, it proved that the use of doublespeak represents a strategy of empowerment that the speakers resorted to while seeking to get more power to dominate and to achieve personal goals. The paper might show as well some limitations like the uses of examples from other political contexts. However, this did not affect the quality of the research nor the results that are sought to be reached, instead, it represents a good start for future researches to look into other contexts.

The relation between knowledge and discourse is a problematic one. While speaking, we may activate one part of our knowledge and leave anther one silent to serve the coherence of what we seek to convey.Having this in mind, this paper seeks to discuss the importance of out-side-text knowledge in the analysis and comprehension of political discourse. To study this issue, concern is devoted to two axes of discussion. First, focus is given to the analysis and discussion of some key concepts to form a workable frame for the study. It also seeks to high-light the boundaries between interpretation and over-interpretation. Second, focus shifts to the analysis of some examples to put into practice the tools of the established approach. Also, the extent to which the knowledge we activated served to produce worthwhile interpretations is questioned. The selected examples are taken from presidential speeches delivered by Bush, Obama, and Trump. The method we used consists of two phases: one simple and the other complex. In phase one, the meaning the speaker sought to convey is decoded based on the types of knowledge he activated. In phase two, we activated the knowledge we have about the context of each speech to communicate the un-said. While doing this, we used the logic of critique to avoid over-interpreting the examples. The results showed that our activation of the required knowledge served to demystify what the speakers hide and to work out deception by highlighting the gap between discursive reality and social reality. It is also proved that the issue of boundaries between interpretation and over-interpretation remains a matter of critique. Though bringing valuable contributions to the critical study of language in use, the paper left the doors open for further research on how to use out-side-text knowledge to communicate the un-said.