Richard Leeman analyzes the possible discursive responses to terrorism, prescribing democratic rhetoric as the most strategic counterterrorist response available. He examines counterterrorism as a response to terrorism, considering each side as one-half of a dialogue. As a test of his hypothesis, the author considers the responses of the Reagan and Nixon administrations to acts of terrorism. The Reagan administration’s response to international terrorism provides an example of wholly non-democratic counterterrorist discourse. Leeman’s case study suggests that this was a failed rhetoric. The Nixon administration, on the other hand, used a mixed democratic and non-democratic terrorist rhetoric in response to terrorism. Leeman argues that the non-democratic elements of the discourse subverted the democratic elements, thus leading to an ineffective use of discourse for the purpose of counterterrorism. Leeman thus concludes that a wholly democratic rhetoric is the best discourse available for the counterterrorist speaker or writer.