{"id":68387,"date":"2007-01-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-08T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/08\/le-surge-en-irak-est-terriblement-impopulaire-chez-les-editorialistes-us\/"},"modified":"2007-01-08T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-01-08T00:00:00","slug":"le-surge-en-irak-est-terriblement-impopulaire-chez-les-editorialistes-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/08\/le-surge-en-irak-est-terriblement-impopulaire-chez-les-editorialistes-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Le \u201c<em>surge<\/em>\u201d en Irak est terriblement impopulaire chez les \u00e9ditorialistes US"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>C&rsquo;est peut-\u00eatre une premi\u00e8re dans la grande presse US : les six \u00e9ditorialistes du New York <em>Times<\/em> (Brooks, Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, Kristof et Rich) sont d&rsquo;accord sur un grand dossier br\u00fblant de politique ext\u00e9rieure. Ils sont tous contre le renforcement (<em>surge<\/em>) du contingent US en Irak, tel que GW Bush devrait l&rsquo;annoncer mercredi. D&rsquo;habitude, leurs diff\u00e9rences id\u00e9ologiques les s\u00e9parent nettement, et ce fut notamment toujours le cas pour les questions autour de l&rsquo;Irak. Les divers cas cit\u00e9s prennent position contre le renforcement pour des raisons diverses et m\u00eame parfois inverses : certains parce qu&rsquo;ils sont contre tout renforcement, certains parce que, selon eux, le renforcement est insuffisant ou\/et trop tardif (<em>too little, too late<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tD&rsquo;une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, ces projets de GW Bush sont tr\u00e8s d\u00e9favorablement consid\u00e9r\u00e9s par toutes les signatures importantes chez les chroniqueurs et les \u00e9ditorialistes ind\u00e9pendants, y compris chez les conservateurs. Cela repr\u00e9sente un changement important dans la presse MSM et mesure le caract\u00e8re extr\u00eamement improvis\u00e9 et irr\u00e9fl\u00e9chi, du point de vue op\u00e9rationnel, de la d\u00e9cision probable de Bush. (Au contraire, la presse MSM elle-m\u00eame, notamment au travers des textes de ses sp\u00e9cialistes, reste fid\u00e8le \u00e0 sa tradition type-9\/11 d&rsquo;alignement servile sur le pouvoir et manifeste plut\u00f4t son soutien \u00e0 GW Bush. Nous recommandons \u00e0 nouveau de lire \u00e0 ce propos le formidable article de Alexander Cockburn, mis en ligne le <a href=\"http:\/\/www.counterpunch.org\/cockburn01062007.html\" class=\"gen\">7 janvier<\/a> sur le site <em>CounterPunch<\/em>, \u00e0 propos du New York <em>Times<\/em> et du journaliste Michael R. Gordon.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tC&rsquo;est le site <em>Editor &#038; Publisher<\/em>, en date du <a href=\"http:\/\/www.editorandpublisher.com\/eandp\/news\/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528647\" class=\"gen\">7 janvier<\/a>, qui a r\u00e9alis\u00e9 ce pointage des positions des commentateurs ind\u00e9pendants US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>Among the many newspaper columnists questioning President Bush&rsquo;s plan to send 20,000 or more fresh troops to Iraq are quite a few conservatives breaking with the White House on this.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Oliver North, for example, attacked the idea in his syndicated column on Friday and today, in the Washington Post, George Will comments that the surge idea is basically too little and too late, and will only lead to a protracted U.S. struggle. The column is titled, Surge, or Power Failure?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Meanwhile, David Brooks at The New York Times comments, Unfortunately, if the goal is to create a stable, unified Iraq, the surge is a good policy three years too late. Its chance for success is almost nil, he explained.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>With Paul Krugman hitting the surge on Monday, this represents perhaps a first: all six regular opinion columnists (Brooks, Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, Kristof and Rich) are in agreement on a vital issue, all against the escalation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>George Will identifies a better policy as Richard Nixon&rsquo;s decision to announce a phased pullout from Vietnam: The announced policy of withdrawals gave the U.S. some leverage to force the government in Saigon  not a paragon, but better than the government in Baghdad today  to recognize that the clock was running on its acceptance of responsibility for Vietnam&rsquo;s security, Will writes.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 8 janvier 2007 \u00e0 14H56<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>C&rsquo;est peut-\u00eatre une premi\u00e8re dans la grande presse US : les six \u00e9ditorialistes du New York Times (Brooks, Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, Kristof et Rich) sont d&rsquo;accord sur un grand dossier br\u00fblant de politique ext\u00e9rieure. Ils sont tous contre le renforcement (surge) du contingent US en Irak, tel que GW Bush devrait l&rsquo;annoncer mercredi. D&rsquo;habitude, leurs&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[6308,857,3256,6263,2852,3257],"class_list":["post-68387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-editorialistes","tag-irak","tag-new","tag-surge","tag-times","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68387","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=68387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}