\t1er d\u00e9cembre 2002 On conna\u00eet la pol\u00e9mique autour de l’indiscr\u00e9tion de la Canadienne Fran\u00e7oise Ducros,<\/a> au sommet de Prague, concernant la qualification de GW, de moron, qui est un qualificatif tr\u00e8s pessimiste quant \u00e0 ses capacit\u00e9s intellectuelles. Un article r\u00e9cent (28 novembre) du Toronto Star<\/a> apporte quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux sur ce d\u00e9bat concernant la personnalit\u00e9 de GW, qui nuancent notablement l’appr\u00e9ciation qu’on peut avoir de lui. Il s’agit d’appr\u00e9ciations d’un professeur de culture et de communication de l’University de New York, Mark Crispin Miller.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDiverses sources que nous avons consult\u00e9es tendent \u00e9galement \u00e0 nuancer l’appr\u00e9ciation abrupte qu’on pourrait avoir de GW. En voici deux, notamment, que nbous proposons en compl\u00e9ment du texte de Miller.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• Une source diplomatique europ\u00e9enne rapporte que l’appr\u00e9ciation de Kofi Annan, qui a rencontr\u00e9 GW \u00e0 plusieurs reprises, est celle d’un politicien extr\u00eamement habile, ais\u00e9ment pass\u00e9 du niveau local au niveau national et international, et qui sait bien jouer pour son compte des pressions des durs (les neo-conservatives<\/em>). Cela lui permet, \u00e0 la fois, de justifier certaines politiques extr\u00e9mistes ou bien, \u00e9ventuellement, de para\u00eetre mod\u00e9r\u00e9 par rapport \u00e0 ces groupes de pression, lorsqu’il repousse cette pression. Annan se demande si le probl\u00e8me n’est pas de voir \u00e0 partir de quel moment GW ne risque pas d’\u00eatre conduit au-del\u00e0 d’o\u00f9 il veut aller par ses durs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• Une source diplomatique d’origine fran\u00e7aise rapporte certaines attitudes tr\u00e8s nettes d’autorit\u00e9. \u00ab Quand on le voit avec Powell, on sait tout de suite qui est le patron<\/em> \u00bb, dit cette source. Elle rapporte d’autre part l’attitude de GW lorsqu’un de ses vis-\u00e0-vis le met en garde contre la guerre en Irak, ce qui fut le cas, lors de rencontres parall\u00e8les au sommet de l’OTAN \u00e0 Prague, de la part de Chirac mais aussi de la part de Berlusconi : \u00ab Quand on lui parle de cela, il se ferme compl\u00e8tement.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCes diverses appr\u00e9ciations nuancent la perception qu’on peut avoir de la personnalit\u00e9 de GW. Plus encore, le d\u00e9tail des r\u00e9flexions de Mark Crispin Miller nous convaincra, effectivement, que le pr\u00e9sident am\u00e9ricain a une personnalit\u00e9 complexe. Voici le texte du Toronto Star<\/em> , de Murray Whyte:<\/p>\n \t\u00bb When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush’s verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize wasn’t entirely amusing.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He’s not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chr\u00e9tien agree.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb But according to Miller, he’s no friend.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb \u00a0\u00bbI did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts,\u00a0\u00bb Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb \u00a0\u00bbBush is not an imbecile. He’s not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he’s incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he’s a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Miller’s judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House’s current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb If only. Miller’s rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush’s various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb \u00a0\u00bbHe has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he’s speaking punitively, when he’s talking about violence, when he’s talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine,\u00a0\u00bb Miller said. \u00a0\u00bbIt’s only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb While Miller’s book has been praised for its \u00a0\u00bbeloquence\u00a0\u00bb and \u00a0\u00bbplayful use of language,\u00a0\u00bb it has enraged Bush supporters.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Bush’s ascent in the eyes of many Americans his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9\/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush’s one term in office. But equating Bush’s malapropisms with Quayle’s inability to spell \u00a0\u00bbpotato\u00a0\u00bb is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following: \u00a0\u00bbFool me once, shame … shame on … you.\u00a0\u00bb Long, uncomfortable pause. \u00a0\u00bbFool me can’t get fooled again!\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe. \u00a0\u00bbThere’s an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I’m sorry’ and can’t do it. Same thing,\u00a0\u00bb Miller said.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb \u00a0\u00bbWhat’s revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me’ to save his life. That’s a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb If what Miller says is true and it would take more than just observations to prove it then Bush has achieved an astounding goal. By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as \u00a0\u00bbjust folks\u00a0\u00bb a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America’s most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe. But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the \u00a0\u00bbfolks\u00a0\u00bb he’s been designed to appeal to.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure. \u00a0\u00bbI know how hard it is to put food on your family,\u00a0\u00bb Bush was quoted as saying. \u00a0\u00bbThat wasn’t because he’s so stupid that he doesn’t know how to say, `Put food on your family’s table’ it’s because he doesn’t care about people who can’t put food on the table,\u00a0\u00bb Miller says.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb So, when Bush is envisioning \u00a0\u00bba foreign-handed foreign policy,\u00a0\u00bb or observes on some point that \u00a0\u00bbit’s not the way that America is all about,\u00a0\u00bb Miller contends it’s because he can’t keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him. \u00a0\u00bbWhen he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can’t do it,\u00a0\u00bb he said.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb This, then, is why he’s so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he’ll say something stupid, but because he’ll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels. \u00a0\u00bbHe’s a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He’s much like Nixon. So they’re very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don’t want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Miller, without question, is a man with a mission and laughter isn’t it. \u00a0\u00bbI call him the feel bad president, because he’s all about punishment and death,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00a0\u00bbIt would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCopyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pas si moron que \u00e7a? 1er d\u00e9cembre 2002 On conna\u00eet la pol\u00e9mique autour de l’indiscr\u00e9tion de la Canadienne Fran\u00e7oise Ducros, au sommet de Prague, concernant la qualification de GW, de moron, qui est un qualificatif tr\u00e8s pessimiste quant \u00e0 ses capacit\u00e9s intellectuelles. Un article r\u00e9cent (28 novembre) du Toronto Star apporte quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux sur… <\/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":[868,3198,3328],"class_list":["post-65357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-bush","tag-gw","tag-prague"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65357","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=65357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u00abBush Anything But Moronics<\/em><\/strong>\u00bb<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n