Bush’s relationship with Rice is perhaps the strangest of his many strange relationships. The mysterious attachment involves complex transactions of noblesse oblige and deference, ignorance and adulation, vulnerability and sweet talk. Like his other female enablers Karen Hughes, his political image-maker and undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, and Harriet Miers, his legal counsel Rice is ferociously protective. She shields him from worst-case scenarios, telling him to ignore criticism, and showers him with flattery that he is a world-historical colossus.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe commentateur am\u00e9ricain trace un portrait d’un pr\u00e9sident pas loin de vivre sous la coupe amoureuse et maternelle de ses sentiments pour Rice. Quoi qu’il en soit de l’exploration du cas psychanalytique, les effets sur la politique sont consid\u00e9rables. Rice est sans doute, selon le portrait qu’en fait Blumenthal, une des principales architectes, volontaire ou pas et dans quelle mesure, qu’importe ? du virtualisme du pr\u00e9sident.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tVoici ce qu’en dit Blumenthal :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00ab This May, as the situation in Iraq drastically worsened, Rice told senior staff that she wants no more reporting from the embassies. She announced in a meeting that people write memos only for each other, and that no one else reads them. She said she wouldn’t read them. Instead of writing reports, the diplomats should sell America, she insisted. We are salesmen for America!<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb On Tuesday, kicking off the mid-term elections campaign, Bush delivered a speech that cited Bin Laden’s screeds, Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? and Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and promised complete victory. Rice contributed her own comparison of the war on terror to the American civil war. I’m sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the civil war to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold, she said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb But the more delirious the rhetoric, the more hollow the policy. There is no plan for Iraq, a senior national security official with the highest intelligence clearance and access to the relevant memos told me. There is no plan.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tD’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique de la nature psychanalytique des rapports, l’importance de Rice pour prot\u00e9ger le pr\u00e9sident n’implique nullement qu’elle l’influence pour sa politique. R\u00e9cemment (sur le Liban), les avis mod\u00e9rateurs de Rice ont \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9cart\u00e9s. D’une fa\u00e7on plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, c’est Rice qui part d’une position mod\u00e9r\u00e9e et se rallie \u00e0 l’extr\u00e9misme d’un GW Bush toujours influenc\u00e9 par cette tendance. L\u00e0 aussi, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de GW Bush, l’extr\u00e9misme est d’abord le fait du caract\u00e8re plus que du jugement ; l’influence (notamment des n\u00e9o-conservateurs) est d’autant plus ais\u00e9e. M\u00eame si elle n’est pas n\u00e9cessairement d’accord, Rice prot\u00e8ge le Pr\u00e9sident des cons\u00e9quences de ses exc\u00e8s, notamment en lui dissimulant ou en transformant pour lui les effets de sa politique. Il s’agit effectivement d’un rapport psychologique, sorte de m\u00e8re amoureuse de substitution, et nullement conceptuel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 7 septembre 2006 \u00e0 05H24<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Quel est le r\u00f4le de Condi Rice aupr\u00e8s du pr\u00e9sident am\u00e9ricain ? Il faut d’abord le consid\u00e9rer d’un point de vue personnel, estime Sidney Blumenthal, dans son article de ce jour dans le Guardian, qu’il consacre aux relations entre le pr\u00e9sident et sa secr\u00e9taire d’Etat. \u00ab Bush’s relationship with Rice is perhaps the strangest of… <\/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":[3198,5868,5867,2766,3306],"class_list":["post-67964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-gw","tag-maternel","tag-psychanalytique","tag-relations","tag-rice"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67964","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=67964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}