{"id":65909,"date":"2004-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-24T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/03\/24\/lattaque-la-plus-violente-contre-gw-et-le-systeme-menace\/"},"modified":"2004-03-24T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-03-24T00:00:00","slug":"lattaque-la-plus-violente-contre-gw-et-le-systeme-menace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/03\/24\/lattaque-la-plus-violente-contre-gw-et-le-systeme-menace\/","title":{"rendered":"<strong><em>L&rsquo;attaque la plus violente contre GW, \u2014 et le syst\u00e8me menac\u00e9 ?<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><h2 class=\"common-article\">L&rsquo;attaque la plus violente contre GW,  et le syst\u00e8me menac\u00e9 ?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t24 mars 2004  A Washington, les d\u00e9clarations de Richard A. Clarke dimanche \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9mission <em>Sixty Minutes<\/em> de CBS, puis la parution de son livre de m\u00e9moires <em>Against All Enemies: Inside America&rsquo;s War on Terror<\/em>, constituent l&rsquo;attaque la plus violente port\u00e9e \u00e0 ce jour contre l&rsquo;administration GW, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2004\/03\/23\/politics\/23ASSE.html?ei=1&#038;en=33db0132fd003259&#038;ex=1081011465&#038;pagewanted=print&#038;position=\" class=\"gen\">qui met compl\u00e8tement la Maison-Blanche sur la d\u00e9fensive<\/a>. En fait, on n&rsquo;imagine pas la possibilit\u00e9 d&rsquo;une attaque plus violente. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t(Il y a eu un crescendo d&rsquo;attaques directes ou indirectes,  qui ne sont en fait que l&rsquo;expos\u00e9 de certaines situations r\u00e9elles par d&rsquo;ex-protagonistes de l&rsquo;administration, ou des agents de cette administration : il y a eu le constat et le rapport de David Kay sur l&rsquo;absence d&rsquo;armes de destruction massive en Irak ; il y a eu les r\u00e9v\u00e9lations de Paul O&rsquo;Neill, ancien secr\u00e9taire au tr\u00e9sor de GW Bush, sur les d\u00e9buts de l&rsquo;administration et la programmation imm\u00e9diate, avant le 11 septembre 2001, d&rsquo;une attaque contre l&rsquo;Irak.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;attaque de Clarke porte sur le coeur de l&rsquo;action et de la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;administration GW Bush. Clarke affirme que l&rsquo;attaque du 11 septembre 2001 aurait pu \u00eatre \u00e9vit\u00e9e, que la guerre contre la terreur qui a suivi a compl\u00e8tement \u00e9t\u00e9 compromise par le choix fait de choisir tr\u00e8s vite l&rsquo;Irak comme cible. (Parmi la myriade de textes sur le sujet, on peut consulter <a href=\"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/justin\/?articleid=2172\" class=\"gen\">le commentaire de Justin Raimundo<\/a> ainsi que <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wsws.org\/articles\/2004\/mar2004\/clke-m23.shtml\" class=\"gen\">l&rsquo;analyse de WSWS.org<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tCe qui fait la gravit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;attaque de Clarke, c&rsquo;est \u00e0 la fois la personnalit\u00e9 de cet homme,  un de plus au-dessus de tout soup\u00e7on, puisque r\u00e9publicain, faucon de la lutte anti-terroriste, d&rsquo;une int\u00e9grit\u00e9 professionnelle reconnue, etc ; d&rsquo;autre part, justement, sa sp\u00e9cialisation dans la lutte anti-terroriste depuis plusieurs d\u00e9cennies. Les observations et les t\u00e9moignages \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard (dans le m\u00eame <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2004\/03\/23\/politics\/23ASSE.html?ei=1&#038;en=33db0132fd003259&#038;ex=1081011465&#038;pagewanted=print&#038;position=\" class=\"gen\">article du New York Times d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9<\/a>) sont particuli\u00e8rement r\u00e9v\u00e9lateurs  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>In 30 years in government, Mr. Clarke had a hard-charging reputation. He wore a sidearm to the office, and made many bureaucratic enemies. He acknowledges his close friendship with Rand Beers, a foreign service officer who succeeded him at the White House and who now advises Mr. Kerry&rsquo;s campaign on national security.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>But his critique can hardly be chalked up to partisan politics as usual. He was a registered Republican in 2000, a career White House civil servant under three presidents, one of the few national security experts held over from the first Bush administration into the Clinton years, and then held over again under the current President Bush.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>\u00a0\u00bbDick Clarke had a front-row seat on America&rsquo;s counterterrorism efforts for almost two decades,\u00a0\u00bb said Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He added: \u00a0\u00bbThe facts are that within six months of the first bombs falling on Afghanistan, this administration was diverting military and intelligence resources to its planned war in Iraq, which allowed Al Qaeda to regenerate. As the people of Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and most recently, Spain, have learned painfully well, this president failed to execute the real war on terrorism.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Morton I. Abramowitz, whom Mr. Clarke served as a deputy when he was assistant secretary of state for intelligence in the Reagan administration, and who later served as the first Bush administration&rsquo;s ambassador to Turkey, said he had always valued Mr. Clarke&rsquo;s advice.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>\u00a0\u00bbI can only tell you I think Dick has enormous credibility,\u00a0\u00bb Mr. Abramowitz said. \u00a0\u00bbHe&rsquo;s got a first-class intellect. He&rsquo;s very dedicated. He tries to make things happen. He doesn&rsquo;t hesitate to take unpopular stances, and he doesn&rsquo;t hesitate to push the envelope.\u00a0\u00bb He added: \u00a0\u00bbDick is a serious player. He&rsquo;s been involved in this business for years. You can&rsquo;t overlook what Dick is saying.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tLa violence de cette attaque a \u00e9t\u00e9 mise en \u00e9vidence par la riposte imm\u00e9diate de la Maison-Blanche, alors que la tactique habituelle est de traiter ces incidents par le m\u00e9pris et de n&rsquo;y pas r\u00e9pondre pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment. Cette fois, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/ac2\/wp-dyn\/A16200-2004Mar22?language=printer\" class=\"gen\">c&rsquo;est tout le contraire<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>President Bush&rsquo;s top aides launched a ferocious assault on the former White House counterterrorism official who accused Bush of failing to act on the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, and strengthening terrorists by pursuing a misguided focus on Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>The accusations in the new book by Richard A. Clarke, a veteran of four administrations who served for two years as a top aide to Bush&rsquo;s National Security Council, caused a furor in the capital as Democrats sought to use the allegations to challenge Bush&rsquo;s response to terrorism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Half a dozen top White House officials, departing from their policy of ignoring such criticism, took to the airwaves to denounce Clarke as a disgruntled former colleague and a Democratic partisan. Vice President Cheney, on Rush Limbaugh&rsquo;s radio show, said the counterterrorism coordinator \u00a0\u00bbwasn&rsquo;t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.\u00a0\u00bb Cheney suggested Clarke did not do enough to prevent three attacks during the Clinton administration and said \u00a0\u00bbhe may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position.\u00a0\u00bb <\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tEn m\u00eame temps, on le sait, les auditions au Congr\u00e8s sur les conditions de l&rsquo;attaque du 11 septembre ont commenc\u00e9. L&rsquo;ambiance est explosive, et les r\u00e9v\u00e9lations de Clarke y sont pour beaucoup. De l\u00e0, \u00e9galement, <a href=\"http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/2\/hi\/americas\/3562943.stm\" class=\"gen\">peuvent venir des r\u00e9v\u00e9lations importantes<\/a>. Sans aucun doute, la Maison-Blanche est entr\u00e9e <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/september11\/story\/0,11209,1176591,00.html\" class=\"gen\">dans une crise majeure<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tMais un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne doit \u00eatre observ\u00e9 et m\u00e9dit\u00e9 avec attention, car il est tout simplement extraordinaire dans un syst\u00e8me aussi verrouill\u00e9 que le syst\u00e8me am\u00e9ricain, qui fonctionne sur une solidarit\u00e9 de parti et d&rsquo;int\u00e9r\u00eat extr\u00eamement affirm\u00e9e : que des gens du s\u00e9rail, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iht.com\/articles\/511560.html\" class=\"gen\">des insiders comme les appelle Paul Krugman dans son commentaire d&rsquo;aujourd&rsquo;hui<\/a>, se mettent \u00e0 parler pour d\u00e9noncer l&rsquo;administration alors que celle-ci est en fonction, alors qu&rsquo;elle est entr\u00e9e dans une tr\u00e8s rude campagne \u00e9lectorale. Lors de la crise du Watergate, par exemple, \u00e0 part des r\u00e9v\u00e9lations obtenues \u00e0 cause de contraintes judiciaires (interrogatoires au Congr\u00e8s, inculpations, etc), il avait exist\u00e9 une certaine solidarit\u00e9 avec le pr\u00e9sident Nixon, dans les rangs r\u00e9publicains. (Apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9mission de Nixon, beaucoup de choses furent dites, mais c&rsquo;\u00e9tait apr\u00e8s.) Pourtant, Nixon n&rsquo;\u00e9tait pas aim\u00e9. Mais les r\u00e8gles de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 du syst\u00e8me jouaient leur r\u00f4le normal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tAujourd&rsquo;hui ? L&rsquo;impression est bien d&rsquo;une tendance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 parler, \u00e0 verser son propre t\u00e9moignage au dossier. Il y a sans aucun doute une r\u00e9action de col\u00e8re ou m\u00eame le sens d&rsquo;un devoir civique, devant une administration dont le comportement calamiteux est lui-m\u00eame une menace pour le syst\u00e8me. Il y a \u00e9galement des r\u00e8glements de compte, ou encore la volont\u00e9 de prendre date, etc. Qu&rsquo;importe, tout cela est, devant la gravit\u00e9 des faits, compl\u00e8tement secondaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tIl se passe autre chose, qui est fondamental : les mises en cause et les attaques vont aujourd&rsquo;hui au coeur de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du pr\u00e9sident Bush et, d\u00e9sormais et de fa\u00e7on in\u00e9luctable (parce que le pr\u00e9sident est le pr\u00e9sident), \u00e9branlent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame. Nul ne sait ce qui peut sortir des auditions et des r\u00e9v\u00e9lations et certaines allusions de l&rsquo;un ou l&rsquo;autre responsable (Rice et Rumsfeld, ayant laiss\u00e9 entendre que l&rsquo;attaque du 11 septembre 2001 aurait eu lieu m\u00eame si Ben Laden avait \u00e9t\u00e9 supprim\u00e9 avant cette date) ajoutent un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de myst\u00e8re sur les conditions de l&rsquo;attaque elle-m\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLa question qui se pose aujourd&rsquo;hui est dramatique, par le dilemme qu&rsquo;elle implique : si certains, y compris au sein du parti r\u00e9publicain, peuvent consid\u00e9rer qu&rsquo;il est urgent de se d\u00e9barrasser de GW Bush, tant l&rsquo;actuel pr\u00e9sident est en train de conduire le syst\u00e8me au chaos,  ne peut-on craindre que cette mise en cause s&rsquo;accompagne de telles r\u00e9v\u00e9lations, provoque de tels affrontements, mette \u00e0 jour de telles turpitudes, que le syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame en soit \u00e9branl\u00e9 et mis en cause, m\u00eame d\u00e9barrass\u00e9 de GW Bush ? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>L&rsquo;attaque la plus violente contre GW, et le syst\u00e8me menac\u00e9 ? 24 mars 2004 A Washington, les d\u00e9clarations de Richard A. Clarke dimanche \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9mission Sixty Minutes de CBS, puis la parution de son livre de m\u00e9moires Against All Enemies: Inside America&rsquo;s War on Terror, constituent l&rsquo;attaque la plus violente port\u00e9e \u00e0 ce jour contre&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[354,3936,4243,4242,3306,569,3321],"class_list":["post-65909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-354","tag-al","tag-clarke","tag-qaida","tag-rice","tag-rumsfeld","tag-septembre"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65909","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=65909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}