urgence<\/a>, jusqu’ici suivi d’aucun effet. Ainsi certaines contradictions prennent-elles une allure de symbole de l’impuissance o\u00f9 se trouve d\u00e9sormais le syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThere is, however, an even more fundamental contradiction. In its opening passages, the editorial announces that the Times has dropped its previous opposition to setting a withdrawal date because, It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThus the premise for the policy shift outlined by the Times is the unwillingness and inability of Bush and Cheney to change course and avert a full-scale catastrophe. Yet the statement repeatedly appeals to the White House to do precisely that.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIt states, for example, Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe New York Times, considered the most authoritative organ of the US ruling elite, outlines a crisis of historic proportions and describes a level of irresponsibility, incompetence and criminality in the White House that has no precedent. A serious response, from the standpoint of the interests of American imperialism, would begin with the demand that the current government resign, or that Congress initiate immediate impeachment proceedings against both Cheney and Bush. That would be the prerequisite for the candid and focused conversation on the war which the newspaper claims to desire.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut the Times proposes nothing of the kind. In fact, it proposes no measures to hold any of those responsible for dragging the country into an unnecessary war accountable. This, above all, is what gives its entire pronouncement an aura of unreality.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThere are many reasons for this glaring silence. In the first place, the entire political establishment, including its liberal wing, is implicated in the Iraq disaster. The Times itself supported the invasion, with whatever tactical quibbles, and played a critical role in promulgating the lies about weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the invasion. To this day, it has concealed from the American people the scale of the death and destruction the US was wreaked on the Iraqi people.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBeyond that, there is the organic cowardice of the liberal, Democratic Party establishment, and its fear of the political consequences within the US of an attempt to dislodge the current administration. These sections of the ruling elite sense that an open attack on Bush and Cheney could unleash pent-up social anger and popular forces that could spiral out of the control of the entire political establishment.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAn international disaster for US imperialism of such magnitude as that which the Times describes cannot but have the most far-reaching economic and political consequences within the US itself. This side of the matter is not even broached by the newspaper.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut the US debacle in Iraq will have profound ramifications for which American working people must prepare<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 9 juillet 2007 \u00e0 18H10<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Le fameux \u00e9dito du New York Times du 8 juillet, qui ressemble \u00e0 un article-fleuve et refl\u00e8te la panique des \u00e9lites washingtoniennes, est d\u00e9coup\u00e9 au scalpel et examin\u00e9 au microscope par le site WSWS.org de ce jour. L’article du NYT s’attache \u00e0 exhorter la direction US \u00e0 \u00e9vacuer les troupes US d’Irak. WSWS.org, lui, s’attache… <\/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":[6833,4118,3256,4551,2852,3952,3257],"class_list":["post-68989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-edito","tag-establishment","tag-new","tag-panique","tag-times","tag-wsws","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68989","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=68989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68989\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}