{"id":66728,"date":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/22\/revolte-chez-les-democrates\/"},"modified":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","slug":"revolte-chez-les-democrates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/22\/revolte-chez-les-democrates\/","title":{"rendered":"R\u00e9volte chez les d\u00e9mocrates"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Les d\u00e9mocrates am\u00e9ricains sont de plus en plus divis\u00e9s sur la guerre en Irak, selon le sch\u00e9ma d\u00e9sormais connu de notre temps historique : entre les \u00e9lites et le reste. Les \u00e9lus d\u00e9mocrates qui ont soutenu la guerre en Irak et la soutiennent encore pour la plupart, divergent de plus en plus radicalement du reste du parti. Un <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2005\/08\/21\/AR2005082100831_pf.html\" class=\"gen\">long article du Washington Post<\/a> expose ce probl\u00e8me.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLe v\u00e9n\u00e9rable s\u00e9nateur Edward Kennedy, un des plus sceptiques sur la guerre en Irak parmi les \u00e9lus d\u00e9mocrates, observe: \u00ab <em>The American people are much farther ahead in their thinking about the war than the White House or the Republican Congress. They understand we can&rsquo;t continue down this same failed course in Iraq.<\/em> \u00bb Quelques autres, comme le s\u00e9nateur Russell Feingold, ont pris position r\u00e9cemment contre la guerre. Mais il s&rsquo;agit encore d&rsquo;une tr\u00e8s faible minorit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tCe d\u00e9bat \u00e0 l&rsquo;int\u00e9rieur du parti d\u00e9mocrate refl\u00e8te \u00e9videmment le trouble actuel de l&rsquo;Am\u00e9rique devant l&rsquo;\u00e9volution de la guerre en Irak (Steve Jarding, un consultant d\u00e9mocrate sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 dans les questions \u00e9lectorales : \u00ab <em>It is time to stand up and begin questioning the president&rsquo;s leadership. I think the Democrats need to do that. . . . The American public is ready to say, Enough is enough.<\/em> \u00bb). Il refl\u00e8te \u00e9galement une crise de conscience, une crise du sens, \u00e0 l&rsquo;int\u00e9rieur d&rsquo;un parti qui est lui-m\u00eame, avec son comp\u00e8re r\u00e9publicain, repr\u00e9sentant d&rsquo;un syst\u00e8me (disons qu&rsquo;il est l&rsquo;aile gauche du parti unique, et tout est dit.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>The internal disarray, according to many Democrats, reflects more than a near-term tactical debate. Some say it reveals a fundamental identity crisis in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world for a party that struggled to move beyond the antiwar legacy of the 1960s and 1970s to reinvent itself as tougher on national security in the 1990s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>But historic fault lines in the party run deep. Along with high gasoline prices, the war has fed public discontent that is expressing itself as members of Congress tour their home districts during the August recess. Democratic officeholders watched carefully last week as peace demonstrators  inspired by grieving mother-turned-activist Cindy Sheehan outside Bush&rsquo;s ranch near Crawford, Tex.  staged more than 1,000 candlelight vigils across the country.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>They also took note of the strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio this month. House Democratic leaders now are recruiting other Iraq veterans to run in next year&rsquo;s midterm elections.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 22 ao\u00fbt 2005 \u00e0 14H44<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Les d\u00e9mocrates am\u00e9ricains sont de plus en plus divis\u00e9s sur la guerre en Irak, selon le sch\u00e9ma d\u00e9sormais connu de notre temps historique : entre les \u00e9lites et le reste. Les \u00e9lus d\u00e9mocrates qui ont soutenu la guerre en Irak et la soutiennent encore pour la plupart, divergent de plus en plus radicalement du reste&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":[2],"tags":[1356],"class_list":["post-66728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-kennedy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66728","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=66728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66728\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}