30 mars 2007 — Le moins qu’on puisse dire est que la situation washingtonienne est contrast\u00e9e. Le Congr\u00e8s vient de vivre une semaine agit\u00e9e et ce n’est pas fini. Jim Lobe \u00e9crivait hier<\/a> : «Washington appeared Wednesday to be moving rapidly toward a major confrontation between the White House and Democrats in Congress.<\/em>» La chose \u00e9tait confirm\u00e9e dans la journ\u00e9e par un vote du S\u00e9nat, 51 voix contre 47, d’un projet de loi qui, apr\u00e8s un compromis avec celui qu’a vot\u00e9 la Chambre vendredi dernier, aboutira sur le bureau du pr\u00e9sident Bush pour \u00eatre sanctionn\u00e9 par un veto.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’agence Associated Press nous en informait en ces termes<\/a> notamment :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «A defiant, Democratic-controlled Senate approved legislation Thursday calling for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year, propelling Congress closer to an epic, wartime veto confrontation with President Bush.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The 51-47 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of a separate, more sweeping challenge to the administration’s war policies a week ago, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. It came not long after Bush and House Republicans made a show of unity at the White House.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Tr\u00e8s curieusement sur les faits mais assez logiquement dans l’esprit, les d\u00e9mocrates se sont engag\u00e9s \u00e0 reculons dans une confrontation qu’ils ne voulaient pas vraiment, qui risque d’\u00eatre sanglante. D’autre part et, en un sens pour alimenter cette analyse, les r\u00e9publicains, pense-t-on, vont se regrouper derri\u00e8re un pr\u00e9sident Bush plus r\u00e9solu que jamais, pour contenir la pouss\u00e9e d\u00e9mocrate. Est-ce bien sûr ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lobe : «\u00ab\u00a0In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress – not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment,\u00a0\u00bb wrote veteran right-wing columnist Robert Novak earlier this week.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »That assessment was echoed by an astonishing ‘Insiders Poll’ of 84 key Republican activists and organizers conducted last week by the influential National Journal. A whopping 84 percent of respondents described the Bush administration as a net \u00ab\u00a0liability\u00a0\u00bb for the party, more than half said it was a \u00ab\u00a0major liability.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Quel est le conflit ? La loi que le Congr\u00e8s doit pr\u00e9senter \u00e0 la signature du pr\u00e9sident, pour autoriser le transfert de $124 milliards (somme de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence) qui repr\u00e9sentent une \u00ab\u00a0facture exceptionnelle\u00a0\u00bb (il y en a 2 \u00e0 3 par an) pour poursuivre l’effort de guerre en Irak. Cette loi contient diverses conditions, dont celle d’imposer une date pour commencer le retrait des forces US d’Irak. La chronologie et les modalit\u00e9s varient selon le texte de la Chambre et celui du S\u00e9nat. On trouvera un compromis. Peu importe la lettre (les dates du retrait), l’esprit est ici l’essentiel. Il s’agit d’imposer une limite de contrainte pour la guerre. GW a d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait savoir que c’est pour lui inacceptable, — point final.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pendant que le S\u00e9nat votait, le pr\u00e9sident recevait \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche le groupe r\u00e9publicain de la Chambre et annon\u00e7ait clairement ses intentions. (Ici, nous avons l’image de l’apparence n\u00e9cessaire. Le fait extraordinaire est que ce show<\/em> d’unit\u00e9 d\u00e9termin\u00e9 des parlementaires derri\u00e8re le pr\u00e9sident, — mais sous la contrainte du Pr\u00e9sident, on le comprend, — se fait sur le cimier des arri\u00e8re-pens\u00e9es pleinement expos\u00e9es par les enqu\u00eates cit\u00e9es par Lobe.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pendant que le S\u00e9nat votait, selon AP : «Several blocks away, the commander in chief stood with Republican House members and told reporters they were united. \u00ab\u00a0We expect there to be no strings on our commanders and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people’s money,\u00a0\u00bb he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »In private, Bush was at least as emphatic, according to participants at a closed-door session in the White House East Room with the GOP rank and file. \u00ab\u00a0He said he will veto a bill that comes to his desk with too many strings attached or too much spending,\u00a0\u00bb said one official in attendance, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed to the press.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Voici donc la sc\u00e8ne \u00ab\u00a0mise en sc\u00e8ne\u00a0\u00bb. La com\u00e9die a d\u00e9j\u00e0 commenc\u00e9. La question qui se pose aussit\u00f4t est de savoir s’il y a une possibilit\u00e9, pour ne pas parler de \u00ab\u00a0chance\u00a0\u00bb, qu’elle se transforme en trag\u00e9die.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Un appendice, tout de m\u00eame, avant de tenter de donner un commentaire. Il concerne la position du s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain Hagel<\/a>, dont on sait l’importance politique. Hagel a pris une position tr\u00e8s ferme contre l’intention de Bush de mettre un veto \u00e0 l’action du Congr\u00e8s, selon une logique qui, selon Steve C. Clemons (sur son site The Washington Note<\/em>, le 25 mars<\/a>), pourrait impliquer un appel \u00e0 une proc\u00e9dure de destitution en cas de veto.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «\u00ab\u00a0I think Congress is going to play a role now like we’ve not played before,\u00a0\u00bb said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a critic of Bush’s Iraq policy from his own Republican Party.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Bush’s weekend radio address in which he threatened to veto emergency spending legislation for the Iraq war if it included a timetable for withdrawing troops was \u00ab\u00a0astounding to me — saying to the Congress, in effect, you don’t belong in this, I’m in charge of Iraq,\u00a0\u00bb Hagel of Nebraska said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Hagel went on to say:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »\u00ab\u00a0I am opposed to the president’s further escalation of American military involvement. We are undermining our interests in the Middle East, we are undermining our military, we’re undermining the confidence of people around the world in what we’re doing,\u00a0\u00bb Hagel said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ program. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Senator Hagel is taking a dangerous step in challenging the White House in this way — and is probably calculating that his presidential opportunity will rise or fall on Iraq and America’s mismanaged engagement in the Middle East.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n