\t22 novembre 2005 Les grandes manuvres ont-elles commenc\u00e9 subrepticement \u00e0 Washington, pour un retrait d’Irak? Tout tourne pour l’instant autour d’un homme: le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d\u00e9mocrate John Murtha, dont les d\u00e9clarations, jeudi dernier, ont constitu\u00e9 un grand \u00e9v\u00e9nement pour l’establishment<\/em> washingtonien. (Il faut bien noter que Murtha est intervenu, non seulement en disant : il faut s’en aller, mais \u00e9galement : voici comment il faut s’en aller, puisqu’il pr\u00e9sente un plan de retrait assez rapide d’Irak.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’id\u00e9e se r\u00e9sume autant qu’elle est symbolis\u00e9e par l’interrogation de savoir s’il ne s’agit pas du Murtha moment<\/em>, comme il y eut, pour le Viet-n\u00e2m, le Cronkite moment<\/em>. Comme on l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu, l’id\u00e9e est notamment pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par Greg Mitchell, de Editor & Publisher<\/em>, le 17 novembre<\/a>, le soir m\u00eame de l’intervention de Murtha: \u00ab For months, media watchers have wondered if we would any time soon witness another Cronkite moment some sort of dramatic statement by a mainstream media figure that would turn hearts and minds against an ill-advised war, for good. It hasn’t happened. But perhaps a not-very-famous, 73-year-old gentleman named John Murtha will be the new Cronkite.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTrois jours plus tard, le 20 novembre, dans l’\u00e9mission Meet the Press<\/em> de la NBC, Murtha confirme et renforce sa position. Cette fois, non seulement il dit qu’il faut s’en aller mais il fixe une date, il fait une pr\u00e9diction extr\u00eamement pr\u00e9cise \u00e0 la suite d’une question de l’interrogateur qui tombe si bien \u00e0 propos<\/a> (\u00ab Asked pointedly by <\/em>[NBC’s Tim] Russert if they would be gone by Election Day 2006, Murtha replied, Tim, you have hit the nail on the head there.<\/em> \u00bb) Murtha explique, selon le rapport qu’en fait Knight Ridders le 20 novembre<\/a>: \u00ab He suggested a change in Iraq policy was coming soon. Let me predict this. We are going to be out of there very quickly and it’s going to be very close to the plan that I am presenting right now, Murtha said, saying troops would be home by next November’s U.S. congressional elections.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tHier, Murtha rajoute une pr\u00e9cision. Il insiste sur un aspect de son intervention, expliquant in fine<\/em> pourquoi elle est fond\u00e9e et pourquoi elle est amen\u00e9e \u00e0 s’imposer comme la voie in\u00e9luctable \u00e0 suivre. (Il parlait<\/a> dans sa ville natale de Johnstown, pr\u00e8s de Pittsburgh, en Pennsylvanie.) L’argument est simple : les Am\u00e9ricains ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9cid\u00e9. \u00ab The public turned against this war before I said it. The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that’s what I hope this administration is going to find out.<\/em> \u00bb (Cela n’emp\u00eache pas Murtha de faire une critique violente de la fa\u00e7on dont cette guerre fut tr\u00e8s mal pr\u00e9par\u00e9 et de la fa\u00e7on dont elle est tr\u00e8s mal men\u00e9e, \u00ab We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMurtha est un homme respect\u00e9 de 73 ans, avec son pass\u00e9 de 30 ans dans le Marine Corps (il en sortit colonel), ses d\u00e9corations gagn\u00e9es au combat au Viet-n\u00e2m, une vieille famille de patriotes. Cela signifie que les patriotes, aujourd’hui, ont perdu tout espoir dans cette guerre (Murtha va m\u00eame jusqu’\u00e0 dire qu’il regrette d’avoir vot\u00e9 pour la guerre) \u00ab Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a hotbed of patriotism and they’ve lost confidence in this effort.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMaintenant, voici d’autres signes int\u00e9ressants.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0La r\u00e9action de l’administration, essentiellement GW Bush et Dick Cheney, a \u00e9t\u00e9 remarquable. Apr\u00e8s une r\u00e9action initiale violente de quelques sous-fifres (le porte-parole de la Maison Blanche comparant, horreur Murtha au cin\u00e9aste Michael Moore) ; apr\u00e8s une r\u00e9action violente de l’appareil du parti r\u00e9publicain \u00e0 la Chambre, (voyez nos deux Blocs-Notes du 19 novembre<\/a> et du 21 novembre<\/a>) apr\u00e8s tout cela, la consigne a \u00e9t\u00e9 : Murtha est un homme de valeur, un patriote, un homme respectable, etc. (mais il se trompe, dit mezzo voce<\/em> et sans insister). A P\u00e9kin, le 20 novembre<\/a>, voici GW : \u00ab Bush called Murtha a fine man and a good man, and said although he differed with the congressman’s position, the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0L’attitude de Cheney est encore plus tranch\u00e9e, peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assez incoh\u00e9rente, ou d’une incoh\u00e9rence refl\u00e9tant l’embarras et la confusion. Cheney est en effet plus que jamais d\u00e9cha\u00een\u00e9 (!) contre ceux (irresponsables anti-guerre, r\u00e9visionnistes, etc.) qui r\u00e9clament un retrait imm\u00e9diat, ainsi que contre ceux qui affirment que l’administration a conduit le pays par la fraude et l’irresponsabilit\u00e9 dans une guerre absurde ; par contre il ne tarit pas d’\u00e9loges sur Murtha et exprime un d\u00e9sagr\u00e9ment poli avec lui, alors que ce que Murtha dit c’est que la pr\u00e9paration \u00e0 la guerre a \u00e9t\u00e9 catastrophique (\u00ab people should be fired for mishandling the war<\/em> \u00bb), que la guerre n’\u00e9tait sans doute pas justifi\u00e9e (si c’\u00e9tait \u00e0 refaire, il voterait contre), qu’enfin toutes les troupes US doivent avoir quitt\u00e9 l’Irak au moins en novembre 2006 (compte tenu des d\u00e9lais et de la lourdeur de l’arm\u00e9e US, c’est cela un retrait imm\u00e9diat, que Murtha qualifie de very quickley<\/em>). Voici comment est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e l’intervention de Cheney<\/a>, hier soir devant ses amis n\u00e9o-conservateurs de l’American Enterprise Institute:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday accused critics of corrupt and shameless revisionism in suggesting the White House misled the nation in a rush to war, the latest salvo in an increasingly acrimonious debate over prewar intelligence.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Cheney also denounced proposals for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as a dangerous illusion and shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. We never had the burden of proof, he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn’t have such weapons.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Following President Bush’s lead, Cheney praised the character of Rep. John Murtha even as he voiced strong disagreement with the Pennsylvania Democrat’s proposal last week to pull out all U.S. troops. He’s a good man, a Marine, a patriot and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion, Cheney told the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Cheney, who represented Wyoming in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, called Murtha my friend and former colleague.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0… Notez bien que Murtha reste pour Cheney \u00ab my friend and former colleague.<\/em> \u00bb. Pour Murtha, \u00ab Cheney is a friend but he is wrong.<\/em> \u00bb(Murtha a r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9 cela.) La prise de position de Murtha, pr\u00e9cise-t-il lui-m\u00eame, n’a rien \u00e0 voir avec l’extr\u00eame-gauche anti-guerre, surtout pas, et il respecte le Pr\u00e9sident: \u00ab All of us want to support the president when he’s at war. But you can’t support him when he won’t change directions, won’t listen.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0D’o\u00f9 l’id\u00e9e que l’on retrouve chez des commentateurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que les trotskistes de WSWS.org<\/a> ou le libertarien d’extr\u00eame droite Justin Raimundo<\/a>: Murtha parle pour une partie de l’establishment<\/em>, pour dire \u00e0 GW-Cheney: c’est fini, il faut partir. En fait, les deux analyses se rencontrent pour dire que Murtha, tr\u00e8s proche du Pentagone, parle essentiellement pour les militaires. Par exemple, de WSWS.org<\/em>, hier: \u00ab The White House knows that Murtha speaks not just for himself, but for significant sections of the Pentagon’s uniformed command, with whom he has built up close political ties over decades. Vietnam was the formative experience of many of these senior officers, who once again see the threat of the US military disintegrating under the grinding pressure of a dirty colonial war.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0Ajoutons, peut-\u00eatre cerise sur le g\u00e2teau, l’intervention de Clinton<\/a>. Pour certains, c’est le signe que c’est plus que l’arm\u00e9e, que c’est l’establishment<\/em> dans son enti\u00e8ret\u00e9 qui dit que la r\u00e9cr\u00e9ation est finie. C’est l’id\u00e9e de l’excellent Tom Engelhardt<\/a>, ce 21 novembre: \u00ab There could, however, be no greater sign of a politically changed landscape than the decision of former President Bill Clinton (who practically had himself adopted into the Bush family over the last year) to tell a group of Arab students in Dubai only two-and-a-half years late that the Iraqi invasion was a big mistake. Since he is undoubtedly a stalking horse for his wife, that great, cautious ship-of-nonstate, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, should soon turn its prow ever so slowly to catch the oppositional winds.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOuf… Cela fait beaucoup. Il est indiscutable que nous sommes, \u00e0 Washington, dans une p\u00e9riode cruciale. Il est indiscutable que l’intervention de Murtha est un \u00e9v\u00e9nement consid\u00e9rable. Reste tout de m\u00eame l’interpr\u00e9tation: pour reprendre l’exemple d\u00e9j\u00e0 not\u00e9, si WSWS.org<\/em> et Raimundo en font le porte-parole des militaires, les trotskistes assimilent cette d\u00e9marche \u00e0 l’establishment<\/em> dans son enti\u00e8ret\u00e9 tandis que le libertarien d’extr\u00eame droite oppose cette d\u00e9marche au reste de l’establishment<\/em> qui reste belliciste et interventionniste et ne veut pas entendre parler de ce qui serait de facto<\/em> une d\u00e9faite. Voici des remarques de Raimundo<\/a>, int\u00e9ressantes parce qu’elles impliquent que Murtha, avec ses soutiens militaires, repr\u00e9sente une pouss\u00e9e vers l’isolationnisme (politique favoris\u00e9e par Raimundo):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab This bipartisan unanimity over the inevitability of an interventionist foreign policy is what got us into Iraq, and its maintenance will keep us in there until doomsday. That’s why Murtha’s dissent has caused such a refreshing ruckus. The Establishment is shaken to its core because a non-marginal actor in what had been a cooperative bipartisan effort has suddenly defected. A long as he gets away with it he provides an example and, in Murtha’s case, even an inspiration to others. The aura of inevitability the idea that, of course we can’t have it any other way vanishes, and their game is up.<\/em> (…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Murtha, however, has defied them and must either be humbled or appeased. There can be no middle ground. The monopoly enjoyed until now by the War Party their iron grip on the discussion over foreign policy in this country has been broken. The floodgates are opened, and the will of the people is about to come rushing through. Now it is up to the grassroots in both parties to give the Murthas and the Walter B. Joneses their full support.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb This, the elites complain, is nothing less than a return to isolationism isolationism being their scare-word of choice. What it means, however, is that Americans just want to mind their own business and turn to solving festering problems on the home front problems that, in short, they have some real hope of solving. If this is isolationism, then let the leaders of both parties make the most of it and let us hope that we find our great white isolationist hope to lead us out of the interventionist, war-wracked wilderness. Who will step forward to fill the huge leadership gap and give voice to the popular will? We have never been more ready than we are at this moment.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tQue va-t-il se passer? Un conseil sans grandeur: attendre et voir. Il y a aussi<\/strong> les \u00e9v\u00e9nements en Irak m\u00eame, qui vont peser de tout leur poids, et d’autres variables extraordinairement incertaines, les r\u00e9actions du War Party<\/em> (le vrai, les n\u00e9o-conservateurs), par exemple, ou encore l’\u00e9volution de GW confront\u00e9 \u00e0 ce qu’il pourrait \u00eatre conduit \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter comme une d\u00e9faite.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCeci, au moins, peut \u00eatre tenu pour assur\u00e9: il s’agit d’un moment crucial de la crise engag\u00e9e le 11 septembre 2001, crise irakienne, mais aussi, mais surtout, la crise am\u00e9ricaine.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Myst\u00e8res et perspectives du Murtha moment 22 novembre 2005 Les grandes manuvres ont-elles commenc\u00e9 subrepticement \u00e0 Washington, pour un retrait d’Irak? Tout tourne pour l’instant autour d’un homme: le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d\u00e9mocrate John Murtha, dont les d\u00e9clarations, jeudi dernier, ont constitu\u00e9 un grand \u00e9v\u00e9nement pour l’establishment washingtonien. (Il faut bien noter que Murtha est intervenu, non… <\/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":[1294,4850,857,4376,1383],"class_list":["post-67034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-cheney","tag-cronkite","tag-irak","tag-murtha","tag-raimundo"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67034","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=67034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67034\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}