{"id":65096,"date":"2002-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/05\/18\/le-grand-tournant-i\/"},"modified":"2002-05-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-05-18T00:00:00","slug":"le-grand-tournant-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/05\/18\/le-grand-tournant-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Le grand tournant ? (I)<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le grand tournant ? (I)<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t18 mai 2002 — Depuis trois jours, le scandale gronde \u00e0 Washington. Ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 impossible avec l’affaire Enron, au travers de laquelle l’administration GW est pass\u00e9e comme une fleur, le sera-t-il avec l’affaire de l’avertissement de l’attaque terroriste, ces divers avertissements lanc\u00e9s vers l’administration en juillet ao\u00fbt 2001, notamment du FBI et de la CIA, que des terroristes pr\u00e9paraient un d\u00e9tournement d’avions et une attaque de grande envergure, avertissements non suivis d’effets ? Les d\u00e9mocrates se sont aussit\u00f4t empar\u00e9s de l’affaire, de la mani\u00e8re la plus officielle, au Congr\u00e8s. Pour eux, c’est la premi\u00e8re fois depuis l’attaque 9\/11 que se pr\u00e9sente une \u00e9norme opportunit\u00e9 de voir s’ouvrir une br\u00e8che dans le monopole sur la vie politique washingtonienne que d\u00e9tient actuellement l’administration et le parti r\u00e9publicain.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCertains, dans l’administration, ont r\u00e9agi avec virulence, et c’est le cas \u00e9videmment de la Maison-Blanche elle-m\u00eame, et du vice-pr\u00e9sident Cheney. D’autres r\u00e9actions de personnalit\u00e9s de l’administration ont \u00e9t\u00e9 moins \u00e9videntes, plus prudentes et moins engag\u00e9es, notamment celle de Condoleeza Rice (qui est pourtant n\u00e9cessairement impliqu\u00e9e, vu son poste) et surtout celle de Donald Rumsfeld. Pour ce dernier, on lira l’extrait ci-dessous, concernant cette affaire, o\u00f9 Rumsfeld est interview\u00e9 par Katie Kouric, sur NBC Today<\/em>, le 17 mai 2002. Il s’agit d’un passage tr\u00e8s exemplaire de son attitude. Rumsfeld s’y montre embarrass\u00e9, et paraissant ou voulant para\u00eetre mal inform\u00e9, comme s’il \u00e9tait tenu en-dehors de cette affaire, — le contraire de son attitude courante, on s’en doute ; il s’y montre aussi extr\u00eamement prudent dans les termes, dans ses jugements, dans ses appr\u00e9ciations, — l\u00e0 encore, tout le contraire de ce qu’il est d’habitude ; il s’y montre enfin prompt \u00e0 ne pas trop se pr\u00e9cipiter \u00e0 l’aide de la Maison-Blanche, prompt \u00e0 ne rien dire contre les possibilit\u00e9s d’action parlementaire dans cette affaire, — une notable prise de distance vis-\u00e0-vis de l’attitude montr\u00e9e par Dick Cheney, qui a estim\u00e9 que l’affaire ne devait pas \u00eatre \u00ab exploit\u00e9e politiquement<\/em> \u00bb par les d\u00e9mocrates, c’est-\u00e0-dire au Congr\u00e8s. On peut d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 mesurer qui, dans l’administration, qui savait et qui ne savait pas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici l’extrait de NBC : <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Couric: But there’s some feeling, Mr. Secretary, that some warnings were not properly heeded by the powers that be; for example, the FBI memo that was written or the FBI agent who warned about people training at U.S. flight schools, about foreigners doing that back in July. There were other memos and sort of more generic CIA briefings. Should these things have been taken in toto, and should more have been done as a result of these things?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: Well, I wasn’t aware of the FBI information that you mentioned until it showed up in the press very recently, so I can’t speak to how valid it might have been at that time. But it seems to me that the information is collected, it is collated, and judgments are made and warnings are issued.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd a great many events that would otherwise have occurred, terrorist activities, are, in fact, stopped; one very recently. We gathered some information in Afghanistan in a building that ended up stopping a terrorist act in Singapore within a matter of days thereafter, where the terrorists had planned to attack a U.S. ship, a U.S. building and a Singapore facility, and it was stopped. So there are a great many things that are stopped.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe advantage a terrorist has is a terrorist can attack at any time at any place using any conceivable technique, and it is not physically possible to defend in every place, at every moment of the day or night, against every conceivable technique. So<\/em> …<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCouric: But is it possible, Mr. Secretary, to have better coordination among all the agencies who might be getting these bits and pieces and scraps of information so they can join forces and prevent something like this happening in the future?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: Well<\/em> …<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCouric: It’s pretty disconcerting and unsettling that some of these warnings, albeit disparate, were surfacing prior to September 11th.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: Well, you can be certain — the American people can be certain, which is what’s important, that the changes that have taken place over the past year or two — as the threats have increased, the warnings have increased — have been substantial and that the caution and the heightened awareness and the steps that have been taken at airports, the steps that have been taken by the FBI and the CIA, all are contributing to a safer circumstance for the American people.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut even that does not suggest that there cannot be a terrorist event somewhere, someplace in the world. And I suspect there will be. That’s just the nature of the world we live in. That’s why President Bush is focusing on the right thing, and that is to go after the global terrorist networks where they are and to go after the countries that are harboring those terrorists. That is really the only way to defend against terrorism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCouric: What do you think about congressional hearings and Dick Cheney’s comments that the Democrats should not make political hay with this? Because it’s not just Democrats; Richard Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, talked about getting to the bottom of this yesterday on our program.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: I’m not familiar with the remarks you’re referring to.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCouric: Well, he basically said that an investigation was warranted to find out why more action wasn’t taken.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: He being the vice president?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCouric: No, this is Dick Shelby of Alabama, Senator Shelby.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRumsfeld: Sure, he’s on the Intelligence Committee, and the Congress has oversight responsibility. And certainly that’s perfectly appropriate.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa question qui se pose aussit\u00f4t est de savoir jusqu’o\u00f9 va mener cette affaire. L’essentiel n’est pas le fond de l’affaire elle-m\u00eame sur la question de savoir qu’est-ce que l’administration savait, l’enjeu est \u00e9videmment politique. Ce qui est en jeu, c’est la position outrageusement dominatrice de l’administration GW sur la vie washingtonienne et sur la politique am\u00e9ricaine, tant int\u00e9rieure qu’ext\u00e9rieure. Par extension, c’est toute la politique am\u00e9ricaine maximaliste actuellement suivie qui pourrait conna\u00eetre des remous s\u00e9rieux.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le grand tournant ? (I) 18 mai 2002 — Depuis trois jours, le scandale gronde \u00e0 Washington. Ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 impossible avec l’affaire Enron, au travers de laquelle l’administration GW est pass\u00e9e comme une fleur, le sera-t-il avec l’affaire de l’avertissement de l’attaque terroriste, ces divers avertissements lanc\u00e9s vers l’administration en juillet ao\u00fbt 2001,… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[868,3306,569],"class_list":["post-65096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-bush","tag-rice","tag-rumsfeld"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65096"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65096\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}