Un article de l’agence de presse Associated Press, diffus\u00e9 sur divers sites et m\u00e9dias papier am\u00e9ricains, fait grand bruit. Il se pr\u00e9sente comme une mise en accusation directe et explicite des pratiques de l’administration GW, et du pr\u00e9sident lui-m\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tComme le site RAW Story<\/a> le rapporte, l’article a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectivement repris sous sa forme, notamment avec son titre provocateur : \u00ab In a strongly worded headline that has appeared across a variety of news websites, the Associated Press has formally accused President Bush of ignoring laws he signs. The AP headline at ABC News? Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress. At AOL? Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress. And Yahoo? Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tVoici quelques extraits de l’article de Laurie Kellman, de AP, tel qu’il a \u00e9t\u00e9 repris sur ABC.News<\/a>, le 27 juin, sous le titre original mentionn\u00e9 plus haut :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb That’s the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration’s abuse of power.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. I’m interested to hear from the administration just what research they’ve done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’intervention de AP n’est pas pour autant, pas n\u00e9cessairement dans tous les cas, un tournant annon\u00e7ant une nouvelle attitude oppositionnelle de la presse MSM<\/a>. C’est plut\u00f4t un reflet de la situation de d\u00e9sordre aux USA. Le pseudo autoritarisme de l’administration GW est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 une tentative permanente d’une administration fondamentalement faible (notamment \u00e0 cause de sa v\u00e9nalit\u00e9 compl\u00e8te et de la faible personnalit\u00e9 de son pr\u00e9sident) de s’affirmer au-del\u00e0 des contraintes l\u00e9gales en s’appuyant sur des \u00e9v\u00e9nements fabriqu\u00e9s (la One Percent Doctrine<\/a>). Cette tentative est couronn\u00e9e de succ\u00e8s ou bien elle se heurte \u00e0 des obstacles, parfois ais\u00e9ment contourn\u00e9s, parfois infranchissables (voir le cas de l’affaire des ports US<\/a>, en mars dernier). La presse MSM r\u00e9agit de fa\u00e7on erratique, souvent servile, parfois critique, parfois franchement accusatrice. Ce sont les occasions cr\u00e9\u00e9es par le d\u00e9sordre qui font le larron.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe cas d’AP signal\u00e9 aujourd’hui reste pour l’instant significatif d’une seule fa\u00e7on : la forme choisie, qui abandonne tous les effets style-postiche pr\u00e9tendant \u00e0 une apparence d’objectivit\u00e9. L’attaque est directe, le style subjectif. Bref, on a ses nerfs, et cette fois on le fait sentir en laissant les gants au vestiaire. Pour l’instant, rien de plus, m\u00eame si l’on peut toujours esp\u00e9rer, voire r\u00eaver, que cette attitude fasse t\u00e2che d’huile.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 28 juin 2006 \u00e0 10H03<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Un article de l’agence de presse Associated Press, diffus\u00e9 sur divers sites et m\u00e9dias papier am\u00e9ricains, fait grand bruit. Il se pr\u00e9sente comme une mise en accusation directe et explicite des pratiques de l’administration GW, et du pr\u00e9sident lui-m\u00eame. Comme le site RAW Story le rapporte, l’article a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectivement repris sous sa forme, notamment… <\/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":[2],"tags":[5553,5149,868,2856,5555,5523,5554],"class_list":["post-67697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-abc","tag-ap","tag-bush","tag-critique","tag-lois","tag-msm","tag-specter"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67697","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=67697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}