29 janvier 2007<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tNous ne nous attarderons pas, ici, au raisonnement et \u00e0 la d\u00e9monstration, mais \u00e0 un d\u00e9tail juteux, une d\u00e9finition que donne Bacevich en passant. Le fameux bipartisan issue<\/em>, cette gloire du r\u00e9gime qui fait pleurer d’\u00e9motion nos midinettes pro-am\u00e9ricanistes, sorte d’union nationale \u00e0 la sauce des P\u00e8res Fondateurs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tVoici ce que Bacevich, professeur d’histoire et de relations internationales \u00e0 l’universit\u00e9 de Boston, nous en dit (en gras, de notre fait, pour garder \u00e0 l’esprit plus ais\u00e9ment la d\u00e9finition) :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abBaker, the trusted Bush family factotum, resurfaced most recently as co-chair, along with former Congressman Lee Hamilton, of the Iraq Study Group. Almost without fail, media references to the Baker-Hamilton commission emphasize its bipartisan composition as if that alone were enough to win a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Yet to imagine that bipartisanship signifies wisdom or reflects a concern for the common good is to misunderstand the reality of present-day politics.<\/em> The true purpose of bipartisanship is to protect the interests of the Washington Party, the conglomeration of politicians, hustlers, and bureaucrats who benefit from the concentration of wealth and power in the federal city. A bipartisan solution to any problem is one that produces marginal change while preserving or restoring the underlying status quo.<\/em><\/strong>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 31 janvier 2007 \u00e0 17H39<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nous ignorons quand cette chose inf\u00e2me finira son parcours mais, au moins, l’absurde aventure aura permis \u00e0 quelques beaux esprits de s’exprimer. Pfaff, Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal, and so on, tradition des restes glorieux de la libert\u00e9 de l’esprit dans cette basse-cour de la corruption des caract\u00e8res. Andrew J. Bacevich en fait partie. Donc, lisez… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5438,4094,6387,6014,6388,3014],"class_list":["post-68472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bacevich","tag-baker","tag-bipartisan","tag-isg","tag-issue","tag-systeme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68472","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=68472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}