{"id":66064,"date":"2004-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-24T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/24\/kerry-par-la-barbichette\/"},"modified":"2004-08-24T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-08-24T00:00:00","slug":"kerry-par-la-barbichette","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/24\/kerry-par-la-barbichette\/","title":{"rendered":"Kerry par la barbichette<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kerry par la barbichette<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\t24 ao\u00fbt 2004 Ces derniers jours, la campagne \u00e9lectorale US a pris un tour pol\u00e9mique qui illustre assez justement le climat r\u00e9el du pays, le d\u00e9sarroi du syst\u00e8me et l’acharnement des candidats pour un seul aspect de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement : l’emporter \u00e0 tout prix et de toutes les fa\u00e7ons possibles. Mais surtout, ce tour pol\u00e9mique a permis de mettre en \u00e9vidence le dilemme o\u00f9 John Kerry lui-m\u00eame s’est mis, en acceptant \u00e0 100% la th\u00e9ologie r\u00e9publicaine et bushiste sur la situation pr\u00e9sente.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa pol\u00e9mique a concern\u00e9 la question du pass\u00e9 militaire de John Kerry, et elle a mis le candidat d\u00e9mocrate en mauvaise posture, avec des effets mesurables dans l’opinion publique. C’est un paradoxe de cet \u00e9pisode, dans la mesure o\u00f9 Kerry s’est vraiment battu au Viet-n\u00e2m, au contraire de GW Bush et de son \u00e9quipe, quasi-unanimement faite de ce qu’on nomme en termes vulgaires des planqu\u00e9s de la guerre du Viet-n\u00e2m. Gary Younge, du Guardian<\/em>, observe tr\u00e8s justement qu’il s’agit l\u00e0 d’une cons\u00e9quence sans doute injuste (la plupart des accusations sembleraient infond\u00e9es) d’une orientation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale dont Kerry est enti\u00e8rement responsable<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Take Vietnam. At first sight this is an issue you would think the Bush administration would want to keep away from. Thanks to family connections, the president served his war in the Texas National Guard and even then it is debatable whether he showed up. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, managed to defer being drafted five times, until the war was over, claiming he had other priorities. Nine months and two days after the army changed the regulations so that married men with no children were no longer exempt, Cheney had his first child, Elizabeth, bringing a whole new meaning to the term family planning.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Nobody is questioning their record in Vietnam for the simple reason that, unlike Kerry, neither them ever served there. For them to raise Kerry’s service is a mixture of chutzpah and desperation that could backfire. Bush has tried to distance himself from the ads, saying they were put out by an independent group. But since the money trail leads back to his friends in Texas, this won’t wash.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The trouble for Kerry is that, in all likelihood, none of this will matter. The Bush campaign knows the attention span of the public is short and that few will sweat the details. Their hope is that by the time the claims of the Swift-boat Veterans have been discredited, a stubborn question mark will remain hanging over Kerry’s military record. If you spread enough dung, goes the logic, then some seeds of doubt will grow.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb There is nothing new in this. The Bush team employed the same strategy in 2000 against Al Gore, forcing him to refute claims he never made about inventing the internet and being the basis for Love Story. In 2002, Republicans managed to unseat senator Max Cleland of Georgia by branding him unpatriotic because he opposed the creation of the homeland security department. Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam and is a former head of the Veterans’ Administration.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYounge poursuit son raisonnement en observant que cette situation o\u00f9 Kerry est injustement pris \u00e0 partie par les partisans de droite des r\u00e9publicains est finalement la cons\u00e9quence des choix de Kerry lui-m\u00eame. C’est rejoindre ce qu’on pouvait observer d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de la Convention d\u00e9mocrate, fin juillet<\/a>. Les d\u00e9mocrates ont choisi le terrain du nationalisme belliciste \u00e0 outrance o\u00f9 ils risquent fort d’\u00eatre mang\u00e9s tout crus : \u00ab In so doing, Kerry may have neutralised charges that he will be weak on defence. But he also made his war record fair game and set the ground work for one of the most nationalistic elections in living memory: a campaign that offers the choice between a Republican candidate who wants America to be obeyed and a Democrat who wants it to be looked up to and become once again a beacon in the world.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Parall\u00e8lement, ces m\u00eames d\u00e9mocrates ont abandonn\u00e9 leur terrain de pr\u00e9dilection, notamment les questions sociales et l’\u00e9conomie qui va avec. Certes, on peut s’exclamer sur les r\u00e9sultats sociaux de l’administration GW Bush<\/a>, qui la mettent au niveau de l’administration Hoover, l’administration (1929-33) du krach<\/em> de Wall Street et de la Grande D\u00e9pression : \u00ab The similarity <\/em>[between Hoover and] Bush, also a Republican, is that the present incumbent faces the prospect of becoming the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in a four-year term.<\/em> \u00bb On serait tent\u00e9 de commenter : et alors ? Aujourd’hui, pour la premi\u00e8re fois depuis 1968 et la crise vietnamienne, la pr\u00e9occupation n\u00b01 des Am\u00e9ricains est la guerre en Irak, c’est-\u00e0-dire le nationalisme militariste, pas l’\u00e9conomie. [M\u00eame dans les ann\u00e9es 1941-45, la premi\u00e8re pr\u00e9occupation des Am\u00e9ricains \u00e9tait d’abord pour l’\u00e9conomie et le retour d’une d\u00e9pression, avant m\u00eame la question de la guerre.] Kerry a tout fait pour qu’on en arrive \u00e0 ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne si rare dans l’histoire \u00e9lectorale am\u00e9ricaine.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa situation va m\u00eame jusqu’au paradoxe o\u00f9 c’est GW, ce pr\u00e9sident d’une m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9 \u00e0 perte de vue et d’une corruption psychologique et autre \u00e0 couper le souffle, qui se permet de donner des le\u00e7ons de bon sens \u00e0 Kerry. Lorsque, magnanime, il affirme, avec l’hypocrisie qui convient puisque ce sont ses partisans qui ont lanc\u00e9 les calomnies sur le pass\u00e9 militaire de Kerry, qu’il n’y a rien \u00e0 reprocher \u00e0 ce pass\u00e9 militaire de Kerry<\/a>, il termine en disant cette \u00e9vidence que, de toutes les fa\u00e7ons, ce n’est pas le probl\u00e8me : \u00ab Mr Bush was intensively questioned by reporters on the issue as he emerged from a military strategy meeting at his Texas holiday home in Crawford. I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record, he said. But the question is who is best to lead the country in the war on terror?<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tKerry est totalement pris au pi\u00e8ge de ses choix tactiques. Il pouvait, il devait \u00eatre le candidat de l’opposition \u00e0 la guerre, il devait \u00eatre un candidat r\u00e9formiste radical, \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re de Franklin Delano Roosevelt face \u00e0 ce m\u00eame Hoover qu’on vient de citer, ce fut la premi\u00e8re et la seule fois o\u00f9 l’on vit dans l’histoire am\u00e9ricaine une opposition de deux candidats \u00eatre autre chose qu’une g\u00e2terie du parti unique divisant artificiellement sa repr\u00e9sentation en deux.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tKerry a refus\u00e9 cette audace qui aurait pu transformer l’\u00e9lection en un d\u00e9bat d\u00e9mocratique formidablement puissant. Il est d\u00e9j\u00e0 en train de d\u00e9compter les effets pervers de cette strat\u00e9gie, o\u00f9 m\u00eame ses avantages (il s’est battu au Viet-n\u00e2m, contrairement aux planqu\u00e9s de l’administration GW) se retournent contre lui. Il est constamment oblig\u00e9 de rench\u00e9rir sur le maximalisme guerrier de l’administration, jusqu’\u00e0 d’aussi grandes absurdit\u00e9s que l’affirmation qu’il voterait \u00e0 nouveau pour la guerre aujourd’hui<\/a>, sachant tout ce que l’on sait depuis avril 2003 et tout ce qui s’est pass\u00e9. Cette logique, lorsqu’elle est sollicit\u00e9e jusqu’\u00e0 l’hypocrisie comme elle l’est n\u00e9cessairement en campagne \u00e9lectorale, aboutit \u00e0 la question mortelle pour Kerry : puisque GW a d\u00e9clench\u00e9 cette guerre et qu’il avait raison de le faire, puisque les deux candidats reconnaissent que la guerre est justifi\u00e9e et que la poursuite de la guerre jusqu’\u00e0 la victoire et\/ou un r\u00e8glement acceptable est la seule question importante aux USA aujourd’hui, pourquoi changer de pr\u00e9sident?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Kerry par la barbichette 24 ao\u00fbt 2004 Ces derniers jours, la campagne \u00e9lectorale US a pris un tour pol\u00e9mique qui illustre assez justement le climat r\u00e9el du pays, le d\u00e9sarroi du syst\u00e8me et l’acharnement des candidats pour un seul aspect de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement : l’emporter \u00e0 tout prix et de toutes les fa\u00e7ons possibles. Mais… <\/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":[3554,857,855,4134],"class_list":["post-66064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-anti-guerre","tag-irak","tag-kerry","tag-presidentielle"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66064","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=66064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}