{"id":65699,"date":"2003-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/08\/02\/les-clinton-face-a-gw-chacun-son-chemin\/"},"modified":"2003-08-02T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-08-02T00:00:00","slug":"les-clinton-face-a-gw-chacun-son-chemin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/08\/02\/les-clinton-face-a-gw-chacun-son-chemin\/","title":{"rendered":"Les Clinton face \u00e0 GW : chacun son chemin<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les Clinton face \u00e0 GW : chacun son chemin<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t2 ao\u00fbt 2003 Les Clinton ne sont pas hors du circuit politique. Ils sont toujours l\u00e0 et, c’est assez caract\u00e9ristique, ils expriment leur position politique de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s sp\u00e9cifique. On l’a vu ces derni\u00e8res semaines o\u00f9 les \u00e9poux Clinton ont exprim\u00e9 une position politique oppos\u00e9e sur la question pol\u00e9mique, essentielle aujourd’hui \u00e0 Washington, de l’implication de l’administration GW Bush dans une \u00e9ventuelle manipulation des preuves contre le r\u00e9gime de Saddam Hussein<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La s\u00e9natrice Hillary Clinton, de l’\u00c9tat de New York, a pris une position tr\u00e8s ferme, condamnant les manipulations des preuves anti-Saddam (l’affaire de l’uranium du Niger, l’affaire de l’existence des armes de destruction massive, etc) et mettant en cause l’administration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Bill Clinton, interrog\u00e9 sur cette question, a r\u00e9pondu de fa\u00e7on presque inverse \u00e0 la r\u00e9ponse de sa femme. C’est ce point que le site analyse dans le texte publi\u00e9 ci-dessous<\/a>. Nous pensons qu’il est int\u00e9ressant de le publier dans le contexte nouveau qui est celui d’une possible d\u00e9faite de GW en 2004<\/a>, dans une situation o\u00f9 les positions (puisqu’il faut parler de deux positions diff\u00e9rentes) des Clinton compteront.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl faut signaler, dans ce m\u00eame contexte, que la position de Hillary Clinton importe \u00e9videmment beaucoup plus que celle de son mari. Elle importe d’autant plus que des rumeurs ont recommenc\u00e9 \u00e0 circuler ces derni\u00e8res semaines sur la possibilit\u00e9 que, finalement, Hillary Clinton se pr\u00e9sente aux \u00e9lections de 2004 (alors qu’on en est officiellement \u00e0 des sp\u00e9culations sur une pr\u00e9sence en 2008, sp\u00e9culations que Hillary a toujours pris bien soin de ne pas commenter, ni dans un sens, ni dans l’autre).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn sc\u00e9nario qui est envisag\u00e9 est celui d’une campagne \u00e0 la Robert Kennedy. En 1968, Robert Kennedy \u00e9tait intervenu tardivement dans les primaires, apr\u00e8s qu’un premier candidat (le s\u00e9nateur Eugene MacCarthy) ait \u00e9branl\u00e9 la position du pr\u00e9sident Johnson et montr\u00e9 que Johnson n’\u00e9tait pas inexpugnable comme candidat automatique du parti d\u00e9mocrate. Robert Kennedy \u00e9tait alors entr\u00e9 dans la course et, par ses premiers bons r\u00e9sultats, avait pr\u00e9cipit\u00e9 la d\u00e9cision de Johnson de se retirer. Bien s\u00fbr, avec Hillary la situation est diff\u00e9rente puisque GW est du parti adverse mais le principe tactique est le m\u00eame : s’abstenir au d\u00e9part, voir si les premiers r\u00e9sultats indiquent une r\u00e9elle vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9 de GW, si cette vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9 est av\u00e9r\u00e9e entrer dans la course.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHillary Clinton a \u00e9t\u00e9 encourag\u00e9e \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer cette possibilit\u00e9, outre par les avatars de GW qui am\u00e8nent un d\u00e9clin de sa popularit\u00e9, par les formidables r\u00e9sultats de vente de son livre (2 millions d’exemplaires vendus en 5 semaines) qui indiquent une r\u00e9elle popularit\u00e9 potentielle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn attendant, et sans la moindre certitude d’un soutien automatique de son mari si Hillary Clinton se pr\u00e9sentait, voici une appr\u00e9ciation de la position de Bill Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Bush and Clinton: Birds of a feather’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy Matthew Riemer, July 24, 2003, YellowTimes.org<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUndoubtedly, all the die hard political partisans were shocked this week when Bill Clinton came out and essentially exonerated the Bush administration for its manipulation of critical intelligence and lying to the world in support of its drive to war. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tClinton told Larry King: \u00a0\u00bbYou know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That’s what I think.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe former president also went on subtly to bolster the Bush administration’s case for war: \u00a0\u00bbPeople can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYet it shouldn’t really come as too much of a surprise for an expert at lying to step forward and defend another of his ilk. Clinton has been called a wonderful Republican president, and the two men and their foreign policies are more similar than most will even care to consider. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut perhaps the greatest parallel between the two rulers is that they were (one of them still is) both involved in incidents where manipulated or fabricated intelligence was used to carry out their militaristic agendas and then sold that agenda to the public. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEveryone’s read a thousand articles and op\/eds by now regarding the Bush administration’s intentional inclusion of intelligence that was widely known to be untrue to further sensationalize its argument for preemptive action in Iraq. But how many have read about the Clinton administration’s Tomahawk cruise missile strike on a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan in 1998, and how it was based on bogus intelligence? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn August of 1998, the U.S. destroyed a factory owned by the al-Shifa pharmaceutical company because Washington alleged that the factory was making \u00a0\u00bbprecursors\u00a0\u00bb for chemical weapons, was being supported by Osama bin Laden, and was shipping these \u00a0\u00bbprecursors\u00a0\u00bb to Iraq. It was soon revealed that the factory had contracts with the United Nations and was part of the Oil for Food program, supplying vital medicines to Iraq. A British engineer, who helped design and worked at the factory, came out and said the Clinton administration’s claim was outrageous. Soil samples from the site all tested negative for any indication of the chemicals claimed to be in use at the factory. Finally, the owner of the plant, whose law firm was based in Washington, pressured the Clinton administration to prove their allegations and they backed down. For a comprehensive report on the incident, see \u00a0\u00bbThe destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical company.\u00a0\u00bb [http:\/\/www.yellowtimes.org\/article.php?sid=692<\/a>] <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn both cases, an argument was presented to the public to justify the respective actions. In both cases, as time went by and more scrutiny was given to Washington’s argument, those arguments began to fall apart quite quickly and convincingly amidst a clamor of excuses, rationalizations, and doubletalk. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLuckily for the Clinton administration, the incident in Sudan was a minor event right before a larger war in Yugoslavia, and Clinton wasn’t up for reelection in 14 months. The situation is obviously different with the current president. George Bush is finding himself in an increasingly difficult position with each passing day, as he and his administration are no longer convincing in their morally wrapped rhetoric and unbelievable justifications. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical\/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States. Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org<\/em>] <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les Clinton face \u00e0 GW : chacun son chemin 2 ao\u00fbt 2003 Les Clinton ne sont pas hors du circuit politique. Ils sont toujours l\u00e0 et, c’est assez caract\u00e9ristique, ils expriment leur position politique de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s sp\u00e9cifique. On l’a vu ces derni\u00e8res semaines o\u00f9 les \u00e9poux Clinton ont exprim\u00e9 une position politique oppos\u00e9e 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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65699","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=65699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}