{"id":65834,"date":"2004-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/01\/04\/cest-vrai-une-attaque-ferait-bien-dans-le-paysage-2004\/"},"modified":"2004-01-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-01-04T00:00:00","slug":"cest-vrai-une-attaque-ferait-bien-dans-le-paysage-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/01\/04\/cest-vrai-une-attaque-ferait-bien-dans-le-paysage-2004\/","title":{"rendered":"C’est vrai, une attaque ferait bien dans le paysage 2004<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

C’est vrai, une attaque ferait bien dans le paysage 2004<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t4 janvier 2004 Nous pouvons d\u00e9sormais jouer au jeu de la devinette, ou bien au petit Poucet, et, scrupuleusement, relever les indices, les suggestions, les allusions, sur une possible attaque terroriste aux USA. Les alertes des f\u00eates de fin d’ann\u00e9e 2003, agr\u00e9ment\u00e9es de l’une ou l’autre mesure bien spectaculaire, nous ont mis en jambes, ou bien en app\u00e9tit. Fini l’Irak, qui fait d\u00e9sordre, place au th\u00e9\u00e2tre int\u00e9rieur (USA, bien entendu), avec la r\u00e9\u00e9lection de GW au bout du compte. Pour cela, rien ne vaut une bonne mise en condition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn en a d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu des exemples, autour de l’interview du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Tommy Franks que nous signalions encore il y a trois jours<\/a>. (Franks, grand soldat am\u00e9ricain et ami de Soldiers Of Fortune (SOF)<\/a>, la revue des miliciens priv\u00e9s, des mercenaires et des Special Forces US. Franks appara\u00eet dans le num\u00e9ro de janvier 2004 de SOF, \u00e0 l’occasion d’une c\u00e9r\u00e9monie o\u00f9 on lui a remis un Colt 1914 avec la crosse de ses quatre \u00e9toiles de g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l’U.S. Army.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe site WSWS.org nous signale effectivement la pr\u00e9diction, passant comme une inadvertance sympathique dans une r\u00e9cente (31 d\u00e9cembre) chronique de William Safire<\/a> : \u00ab In last year’s office pool, for the second year running, I accurately predicted the best-picture Oscar winner. Forget all of the other predictions, which were varying degrees of mistaken; I shoulda been a film critic. The multiple choices include one, all or none. My picks are down below. Do not save this page. <\/em>[…] 13. The \u00a0\u00bbOctober surprise\u00a0\u00bb affecting our election will be (a) the capture of bin Laden in Yemen; (b) the daring escape of Saddam; (c) a major terror attack in the U.S.; (d) finding a buried bag of anthrax in Tikrit. <\/em>[…] 13. (c)…<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe site WSWS.org rel\u00e8ve ce choix de Safire dans une chronique du 3 janvier 2004<\/a>. Il le commente en estimant qu’il s’agit d’une information allusive qui n’est certainement pas gratuite.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab This ominous prognostication is given in passing as one of 16 predictions about the new year, in a piece carrying the semi-jocular headline, Office Pool, 2004. Safire, Richard Nixon’s former speechwriter and political aide, and a consummate Washington insider, neither explains nor elaborates on his prediction, and gives no sources. But the off-hand manner in which he posits a major attack on US soil affecting the presidential election suggests he is merely echoing a common theme of discussions in the corridors of power of the American capital.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In the column, Safire lists 16 topics, ranging from the next tyranny to feel the force of US liberation to the winner of the Oscar award for best picture of 2004. Under each topic, he gives three or four alternatives, and in the concluding paragraph reveals his picks. In regard to Israeli policy in the new yearitem number 16he says of his prediction: This last one is pure unsourced thumb-sucking; Sharon didn’t return my call. This remark, notwithstanding its sarcastic tone, implies that Safire’s other predictions, including the likelihood of a pre-election terror attack, are based on information provided by serious sources.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Given the record of lies, conspiracies and provocations of the Bush administration, and Safire’s well-known connections to the centers of power in Washington and the White House, several obvious questions arise from the New Year’s eve column: (1) Who are the sources and what is the information on which Safire bases his prediction of a major pre-election terror attack, and, (2) Is the perpetration, or at least allowance, of such an attack being discussed within government, intelligence or military circles as a serious option for keeping Bush in power in 2004, regardless the sentiment of the electorate?<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tApportons notre contribution \u00e0 ce dossier en citant une chronique de Tom Utley, dans le Daily Telegraph du 3 janvier<\/a>. La chronique est \u00e9crite \u00e0 la gloire de nos valeureux services de renseignement qui nous ont \u00e9pargn\u00e9 l’une ou l’autre terrible attaque terroriste pendant la p\u00e9riode consid\u00e9r\u00e9e, de la fin de l’ann\u00e9e ; Tom Utley exalte le valeureux vol BA 223 de British Airways, immobilis\u00e9, d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, interdit de vol, etc, dans une difficile liaison Londres-Washington r\u00e9gl\u00e9e par le FBI d\u00e9guis\u00e9 en aiguilleur du ciel. Tout cela est bel et bon, d’autant que le Daily Telegraph<\/em> appartient (encore) \u00e0 Conrad Black, qu’il est le relais habituel des n\u00e9o-conservateurs am\u00e9ricains, et autres extr\u00e9mistes interventionnistes. Bref, il est int\u00e9ressant de noter dans le texte de Ultley, \u00e9crite sans insister, en passant, \u00e0 peine dissimul\u00e9e mais pas cach\u00e9e, une remarque sur une attaque possible, non, probable… (le passage soulign\u00e9 en gras par nos soins). <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab So, yes, the US agencies should certainly get their act together and co-ordinate their dozen or so databases, so as to avoid spreading false alarms. But until their intelligence improves, they have no choice but to be jumpy, even if that sometimes means being over-cautious. The danger is acute.<\/em> I will be very surprised indeed if 2004 passes without another terrorist atrocity in the West.<\/em><\/strong> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tDont acte, indeed<\/em>.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

C’est vrai, une attaque ferait bien dans le paysage 2004 4 janvier 2004 Nous pouvons d\u00e9sormais jouer au jeu de la devinette, ou bien au petit Poucet, et, scrupuleusement, relever les indices, les suggestions, les allusions, sur une possible attaque terroriste aux USA. Les alertes des f\u00eates de fin d’ann\u00e9e 2003, agr\u00e9ment\u00e9es de l’une ou… <\/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":[4197,3782,3617,2838,3794,4199,4198],"class_list":["post-65834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-4197","tag-ba","tag-daily","tag-fbi","tag-safire","tag-telegraph","tag-utley"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65834","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=65834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65834\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}