National Interest online<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tL’article est titr\u00e9 \u00abUnderstanding W The Man<\/em>\u00bb et nous conduit \u00e0 des conclusions particuli\u00e8rement effrayantes sur la psychologie du pr\u00e9sident, sur son closed mind<\/em>, sur sa vie intellectuelle toute enti\u00e8re gouvern\u00e9e par des non-r\u00e9alit\u00e9s, par des images na\u00efves, par des raisonnements absolument sp\u00e9cieux ou sophistiques. Tout cela se fait dans la plus compl\u00e8te franchise, dans une candeur sans faille. C’est une situation fascinante et sans r\u00e9el pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans l’\u00e9poque moderne de voir le dirigeant de la plus grande puissance du monde, dans un syst\u00e8me qui se veut gouvern\u00e9 par la raison et la morale de cette raison, pr\u00e9senter le cas d’une psychologie si compl\u00e8tement d\u00e9tach\u00e9e de la raison et des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s du monde. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLa r\u00e9flexion de Ortiz s’appuie sur un commentaire de GW \u00e0 la suite d’une question, dans une conf\u00e9rence de presse la semaine derni\u00e8re, \u00e0 propos de la situation en Irak.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abAs has been reported broadly, the president, when asked by Suzanne Malveaux at a press conference about the report citing over 600,000 fatalities in connection to the Iraq War, summarily rejected the findings, claiming it had been thoroughly discredited. Then came the utterance:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbI do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me and I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to…you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate. And it’s now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel-you know-at peace.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAny attempt to diagram the absurdity and significance of this statement risks coming up short. Here, at any rate, is an earnest attempt at it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe president, in referring to a war he launched, is marveling at the Iraqi society’s willingness to tolerate the violence he has in effect brought to their country willingness and tolerate of course being the operative words. Perhaps he should next wonder why they don’t ask for cake. The breadth of his misunderstanding and naivety is simply astounding.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn some swerve of logic, Bush has decided for the Iraqis that they see the death of, say, their child or children, husband, wife, the descent of their entire country into chaos and hell all worth it for the sake of what Bush deems to be freedom. It should go without saying that president’s conclusion begs a question: what choice do the Iraqis have? Does the president really believe that, given such a choice, the Iraqis would choose ruinous war in exchange for his own vision of freedom?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWe have seen multiple instances before where Bush and his administration attempt to recast or deny Iraq’s realities, but W.’s recent musings on Iraqi society are particularly amazing for the lack of political caginess. No strategist devised this bit of political alchemy for Bush, it is too patently amateurish. No, it is W. laid bare — with frightening implications.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe statement does, in an unmanicured way, highlight W.’s central rationale for the war in Iraq. Since the administration’s pretext for defensive war in bold pursuit of WMD was not born out, W. has had to resort, and seemingly believes, a touchy, feely war rationale that is now being routinely and incongruently trotted out by the most unlikely of pundits. But again, what right do Americans have in making the presumptuous conclusion that Iraqis want the war because they want freedom. Under any circumstances, that would be quite a calculation for a country’s people to make, to say nothing of when foreigners make it for you.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLa conclusion venue apr\u00e8s une recherche des causes de cette attitude intellectuelle (y compris dans certains commentaires de Barbara, la m\u00e8re de GW) est effrayante, naturellement : \u00abRegardless of the philosophical origins of W.’s comment, it clearly signals the hermetic closure of the president’s mind and the potential for the most childish, erroneous of ideas to germinate there. It also demonstrates the likelihood of going from very, very bad to worse in Iraq and beyond.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 16 octobre 2006 \u00e0 12H19<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Les Am\u00e9ricains, m\u00eame dans les Main Stream Medias (MSM) commencent \u00e0 s’interroger s\u00e9rieusement sur la psychologie de leur pr\u00e9sident. Exemplaire \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard est cette analyse de Ximena Ortiz, analyse pour UPI ce 13 octobre. (Ximena Ortiz est \u00e9diteur de National Interest online.) L’article est titr\u00e9 \u00abUnderstanding W The Man\u00bb et nous conduit \u00e0 des… <\/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":[6011,6009,3198,857,6010,6012,3099,610],"class_list":["post-68104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-barbara","tag-closed","tag-gw","tag-irak","tag-mind","tag-ortiz","tag-psychologie","tag-virtualisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68104","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=68104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}