{"id":65281,"date":"2002-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-08T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/08\/gw-in-et-out\/"},"modified":"2002-10-08T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-10-08T00:00:00","slug":"gw-in-et-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/08\/gw-in-et-out\/","title":{"rendered":"GW in et out<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

GW in et out<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t8 octobre 2002 Nous publions ci-dessous deux r\u00e9actions au discours de GW sur l’Irak, hier \u00e0 Cincinnati. Les deux r\u00e9actions ont \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9es quasiment aussit\u00f4t apr\u00e8s que ce discours ait \u00e9t\u00e9 termin\u00e9. Elles donnent deux appr\u00e9ciations extr\u00eamement diff\u00e9rentes du discours. \u00c9ventuellement, on pourra faire son choix, et l’on aura \u00e9galement \u00e0 l’esprit combien leb nm\u00eame \u00e9v\u00e9nement peut \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 de mani\u00e8res tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rentes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Il s’agit de quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments (les premiers paragraphes, de pr\u00e9sentation du discours) d’une premi\u00e8re analyse de l’agence AP,<\/a> insistant particuli\u00e8rement sur la rh\u00e9torique belliciste de GW \u00e0 l’encontre de Saddam Hussein. Il est difficile d’y trouver de tr\u00e8s grandes nouveaut\u00e9s et mati\u00e8re \u00e0 un commentaire \u00e9labor\u00e9. Il s’agit d’un texte d’un correspondant \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche, et ceci explique peut-\u00eatre cela.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• L’autre r\u00e9action nous donne une appr\u00e9ciation compl\u00e8tement diff\u00e9rente. Il s’agit d’une r\u00e9action de Ivan Eland, du Cato Institute,<\/a> un think tank<\/em> de tendance libertarienne qui est notoirement hostile \u00e0 l’attaque de l’Irak. (La r\u00e9action a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e sur le site de Cato aussit\u00f4t apr\u00e8s le discours de GW.) Eland insiste particuli\u00e8rement sur la faiblesse de l’argumentation de GW et il met \u00e9galement en \u00e9vidence une r\u00e9elle incertitude dans sa position de fond. Reprendre l’id\u00e9e, qui est une id\u00e9e de Powell contre la position des super-faucons, qu’une action de l’Irak pour satisfaire \u00e0 toutes les demandes de l’ONU \u00ab would change the Iraqi regime<\/em> \u00bb, c’est-\u00e0-dire constituerait de facto<\/em> le changement de r\u00e9gime qu’on envisageait jusqu’alors que par la seule violence, constitue sans doute une nuance nouvelle de la position am\u00e9ricaine t\u00e9moignant de cette incertitude.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBush Calls Saddam Murderous Tyrant<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBy Ron Fournier, AP White House Correspondent<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush, seeking support for war against Iraq, called Saddam Hussein a \u00a0\u00bbmurderous tyrant\u00a0\u00bb Monday night and said he may be plotting to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons. Bush also said Saddam could be within a year of developing a nuclear weapon, and he declared, \u00a0\u00bbFacing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. (…) I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein,\u00a0\u00bb the president said.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHis address opened a week of debate in Congress over resolutions giving the president authority to wage war against Iraq. The House and Senate planned votes for Thursday, and the Bush-backed resolution was expected to pass by wide margins. Facing skepticism at home and abroad, Bush portrayed an apocalyptic struggle between good an evil, saying the threat posed by Saddam could dwarf the damage done in the Sept. 11 attacks. He said Iraq must be the next front in the war on terrorism.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbThere is no refuge from our responsibilities,\u00a0\u00bb Bush said. If it comes to war, \u00a0\u00bbWe will prevail.\u00a0\u00bb Citing U.S. intelligence, Bush said Saddam and his \u00a0\u00bbnuclear holy warriors\u00a0\u00bb are building a weapons program that could produce a nuclear weapon in less than a year. U.S. intelligence agencies issued a report last week estimating 2010. \u00a0\u00bbIf we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed,\u00a0\u00bb the president told civic group leaders at the Cincinnati Museum Center.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAs he spoke, new polls revealed lingering unease among voters about going to war, particularly if casualties were high or fighting distracted attention from America’s sagging economy. Democrats criticized Bush’s insistence upon confronting Iraq alone if the United Nations failed to act. About 1,000 protesters gathered outside the building where Bush spoke, police said. Tafari McDade, 11, held a white posterboard on which he had drawn the twin towers of the World Trade center. \u00a0\u00bbWe shouldn’t go to war,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00a0\u00bbI came down here with my mom to tell people that.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush’s Case for Attack on Iraq Is Weak<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tby Ivan Eland, Director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush’s speech attempting to make the case for invading Iraq contained little new information. Thus, the speech failed to bolster his administration’s weak case for a very risky change from the existing and effective U.S. policy of deterring and containing Saddam Hussein. The president attempted to argue that if the United States does not act, the threat from Iraq will worsen when Saddam Hussein gets nuclear weapons. Yet the historical record of the Gulf War indicates that Hussein was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction against the world’s only remaining superpower by its huge nuclear arsenal.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe president also failed to provide specific evidence to show that the Iraqi government had any role in the terrorist attacks of September 11. He also failed to argue persuasively that Saddam would have any incentive to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. For a decade or more, Hussein has not given such weapons to terrorist groups he supports that operate against his hated enemies in the Middle East.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn contrast, if Hussein knows his days are numbered, he has every incentive to use weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorist groups hostile to the United States-the very outcome that the president is trying to avoid.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAt least for now, the president seemed to leave himself an alternative to an invasion of Iraq. He declared that military action was not imminent or unavoidable. He then said that if Saddam Hussein took various actions to satisfy U.N. resolutions, such steps would change the Iraqi regime. The president would be wise to continue using this definition of \u00a0\u00bbregime change\u00a0\u00bb and avoid a costly and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

GW in et out 8 octobre 2002 Nous publions ci-dessous deux r\u00e9actions au discours de GW sur l’Irak, hier \u00e0 Cincinnati. Les deux r\u00e9actions ont \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9es quasiment aussit\u00f4t apr\u00e8s que ce discours ait \u00e9t\u00e9 termin\u00e9. Elles donnent deux appr\u00e9ciations extr\u00eamement diff\u00e9rentes du discours. \u00c9ventuellement, on pourra faire son choix, et l’on aura \u00e9galement \u00e0… <\/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":[3198,857],"class_list":["post-65281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-gw","tag-irak"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65281","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=65281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}