{"id":66138,"date":"2004-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/21\/linterpretation-du-depart-de-colin-powell\/"},"modified":"2004-11-21T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-11-21T00:00:00","slug":"linterpretation-du-depart-de-colin-powell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/21\/linterpretation-du-depart-de-colin-powell\/","title":{"rendered":"L’interpr\u00e9tation du d\u00e9part de Colin Powell<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’interpr\u00e9tation du d\u00e9part de Colin Powell<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t22 novembre 2004 La question de l’explication du d\u00e9part de Powell reste toujours ouverte. C’est-\u00e0-dire qu’on voit appara\u00eetre de nouvelles interpr\u00e9tations, tout en observant que ces nouvelles interpr\u00e9tations peuvent tout simplement s’additionner \u00e0 celles qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 avanc\u00e9es.<\/a> Celle donn\u00e9e par le Daily Telegraph du 21 novembre<\/a> ne contredit pas n\u00e9cessairement les autres et, d’un certain point de vue, elle pourrait sembler les renforcer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe qui est inqui\u00e9tant dans cet article, c’est qu’il indique combien le d\u00e9part de Powell pourrait aussi avoir une dimension politique, voire id\u00e9ologique tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cise puisqu’il serait li\u00e9 au refus de confier \u00e0 Powell le dossier isra\u00e9lo-palestinien. Cela signifierait que ce dossier est plus off limits<\/em> qu’il n’a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9, m\u00eame pendant le premier terme. L’extr\u00e9misme de l’administration GW passe par le soutien \u00e0 Isra\u00ebl, qui en est la source et l’inspiration. Si Isra\u00ebl est toujours aussi intouchable, cela veut dire que l’inspiration extr\u00e9miste de la politique bushiste l’est \u00e9galement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Colin Powell, the outgoing US secretary of state, was given his marching orders after telling President George W Bush that he wanted greater power to confront Israel over the stalled Middle East peace process.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Although Mr Powell’s departure was announced on November 15, his letter of resignation was dated November 11, the day he had a meeting with Mr Bush. According to White House officials, at the meeting Mr Powell was not asked to stay on and gave no hints that he would do so. Briefing reporters later, he referred to fulsome discussions diplomatic code for disagreements.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The clincher came over the Mid-East peace process, said a recently-retired state department official. Powell thought he could use the credit he had banked as the president’s ‘good cop’ in foreign policy to rein in Ariel Sharon [Israel’s prime minister] and get the peace process going. He was wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Bob Woodward, the veteran Washington reporter who was granted unprecedented access to the first Bush administration for his books Bush At War and Plan Of Attack, said last week that Mr Powell had been dreaming if he thought that he could stay on. Vice-president Dick Cheney and his fellow hardliner, John Bolton, an under-secretary of state to Mr Powell, are both understood to have lobbied Mr Bush to replace him.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tDiverses indications renforcent cette impression que l’interpr\u00e9tation du d\u00e9part de Powell pourrait avoir comme implication un renforcement de la tendance maximaliste, ou dans tous les cas une pouss\u00e9e des extr\u00e9mistes de l’administration pour que cette interpr\u00e9tation s’impose :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• L’intervention de Cheney et de Bolton (demandant le d\u00e9part de Powell), impliquant une dimension id\u00e9ologique \u00e9vidente dans le d\u00e9part de Powell. L\u00e0 encore, cet aspect de l’explication ne d\u00e9ment pas l’interpr\u00e9tation d’un d\u00e9part \u00e9galement caus\u00e9 par l’antipathie de GW pour son secr\u00e9taire d’\u00c9tat<\/a>. Il pourrait m\u00eame y avoir une manuvre des extr\u00e9mistes pour habiller un d\u00e9part qu’ils savaient in\u00e9luctable de cette couleur id\u00e9ologique, renfor\u00e7ant ainsi leur cause.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Que cette interpr\u00e9tation paraisse dans le Daily Telegraph<\/em> est aussi un signe, vu la tendance du journal qui reste pour l’instant align\u00e9 sur la ligne politique de son ancien propri\u00e9taire Conrad Black, qui est, comme Rupert Murdoch, un soutien des n\u00e9o-conservateurs washingtoniens.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Les \u00e9chos venus du Pentagone indiquent un durcissement de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9, que ce soit par l’annonce officieuse du d\u00e9ploiement de missiles anti-missiles en Europe d’ici 2009<\/a>, ou que ce soit par l’annonce d’un durcissement de la politique iranienne des USA<\/a> (\u00e9galement mentionn\u00e9e dans l’article du Telegraph<\/em> : \u00ab Prominent neo-conservatives in Washington make no secret of their desire for regime change in Teheran, although few believe that a full-scale military operation is a viable strategy.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn analyse ultime, ce seront bien des nominations imm\u00e9diatement sous les ministres qui permettront de donner une id\u00e9e d\u00e9finitive des forces en pr\u00e9sence, avec, pour l’instant, un bloc monolithique o\u00f9 aucun changement n’est pr\u00e9vu, qui est le Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

L’interpr\u00e9tation du d\u00e9part de Colin Powell 22 novembre 2004 La question de l’explication du d\u00e9part de Powell reste toujours ouverte. C’est-\u00e0-dire qu’on voit appara\u00eetre de nouvelles interpr\u00e9tations, tout en observant que ces nouvelles interpr\u00e9tations peuvent tout simplement s’additionner \u00e0 celles qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 avanc\u00e9es. Celle donn\u00e9e par le Daily Telegraph du 21 novembre ne… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-66138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66138","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=66138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}