Washington Post<\/a>, pr\u00e9sente ces prises de position de Perle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abKnowing that there are people who wish to do that, Perle said, knowing they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, you would think that we would have put in place a system or at least be working assiduously in the development of a system that would allow us to detect nuclear material entering the New York Harbor or Boston Harbor or what have you.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut we haven’t done that, he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies gathering. And the reason we haven’t done that is hopeless bureaucratic obstruction. Somebody needs to shake that loose. Perle added that while some have tried to overcome the bureaucracy, no one has succeeded.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbI think we have an administration today that is dysfunctional, Perle said. And if it can’t get itself together to organize a serious program for finding nuclear material on its way to the United States, then it ought to be replaced by an administration that can.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut President Bush , Perle emphasized, is not to blame for this sorry state of affairs. I haven’t the slightest doubt that if one could . . . put this proposition to the president, he would first be shocked to learn that we don’t have the capability. Secondly, [he] would immediately order that we develop it.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tMis en ligne le 2 novembre 2006 \u00e0 10H53<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Surprise et marque de la confusion qui r\u00e8gne chez les r\u00e9publicains \u00e0 l’approche de l’\u00e9ch\u00e9ance \u00e9lectorale du 7 novembre. Richard Perle a pris une position tr\u00e8s critique de l’administration GW Bush, se contentant d’\u00e9pargner le pr\u00e9sident lui-m\u00eame. La prise de position de Perle refl\u00e8te \u00e9galement un d\u00e9sordre au sein m\u00eame des rangs des n\u00e9o-conservateurs, certains… <\/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":[6078,868,2856,1104,3213],"class_list":["post-68157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-administration","tag-bush","tag-critique","tag-neocons","tag-perle"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68157","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=68157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}