Nous poursuivons de loin en loin notre enqu\u00eate sur cette \u00e9trange formidable \u00e9poque, avec auparavant dans le m\u00eame registre notre mention d’un s\u00e9minaire aux Bahamas<\/a>. Cette fois, une aide grandiose nous vient de Johann Hari, qui a suivi une croisi\u00e8re organis\u00e9e par The National Review<\/em>, dont il a fait un long rapport dans The Independent<\/em>, le 13 juillet<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tHari cite dans son titre la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 la nef des fous, convenant parfaitement sans doute : \u00abShip of fools<\/em>\u00bb, avec ce sous-titre si r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur : \u00abThe Iraq war has been an amazing success, global warming is just a myth and as for Guantanamo Bay, it’s practically a holiday camp… The annual cruise organised by the National Review’, mouthpiece of right-wing America, is a parallel universe populated by straight-talking, gun-toting, God-fearing Republicans.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tSon long article nous pr\u00e9sente effectivement un autre univers, un univers parall\u00e8le, lunatique, compl\u00e8tement habit\u00e9 par les plus extravagantes croyances. Ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article pr\u00e9sentant un moment pol\u00e9mique des diverses interventions qui anim\u00e8rent la croisi\u00e8re. Bien s\u00fbr, entendre Norman Podhoretz donner sa vision du monde, victoire en Irak comprise, constitue une exp\u00e9rience \u00e9tonnante.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abA fracture-line in the lumbering certainty of American conservatism is opening right before my eyes. Following the break, Norman Podhoretz and William Buckley two of the grand old men of the Grand Old Party begin to feud. Podhoretz will not stop speaking I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I’m going to have some ex-friends on the right, too, he rants and Buckley says to the chair, Just take the mike, there’s no other way. He says it with a smile, but with heavy eyes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbPodhoretz and Buckley now inhabit opposite poles of post-September 11 American conservatism, and they stare at wholly different Iraqs. Podhoretz is the Brooklyn-born, street-fighting kid who travelled through a long phase of left-liberalism to a pugilistic belief in America’s power to redeem the world, one bomb at a time. Today, he is a bristling grey ball of aggression, here to declare that the Iraq war has been an amazing success. He waves his fist and declaims: There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria … This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn’t have gone better. He wants more wars, and fast. He is certain Bush will bomb Iran, and thank God for that.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBuckley is an urbane old reactionary, drunk on doubts. He founded the National Review in 1955 when conservatism was viewed in polite society as a mental affliction and he has always been sceptical of appeals to the people, preferring the eternal top-down certainties of Catholicism. He united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a world view that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and he is fighting.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAren’t you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons? Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. No, Podhoretz replies. As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf War I, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran. He says he is heartbroken by this rise of defeatism on the right. He adds, apropos of nothing, There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we’re winning. The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn’t he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley a coward. His wife nods and says, Buckley’s an old man, tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tEncore a-t-on choisi l’un des passages les plus ordonn\u00e9s. Ecouter les r\u00e9flexions de quelques-uns des passagers de la croisi\u00e8re donne une impression bien plus forte de cet univers parall\u00e8le, et les proclamations de victoire en Irak de Podhoretz paraissent alors \u00e9videntes et raisonnables.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCertes, il s’agit de timbr\u00e9s et de toqu\u00e9s, dira-t-on pour se rassurer. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antagoniste constante que fait l’auteur, souvent en citant des participants \u00e0 la croisi\u00e8re, aux lib\u00e9raux (progressistes dans l’imagerie politique US), tendrait \u00e0 nous rassurer. En face de ces zinzins assoiff\u00e9s de sangs divers et de couleurs diff\u00e9rentes, il y a, se dit-on, des gens pos\u00e9s, humanistes, g\u00e9n\u00e9reux et ainsi de suite. Si c’est parler ainsi des USA (et pas seulement des USA mais parler de toute notre \u00e9poque sous influence des USA), on nous permettra de repousser cette impression un peu trop facile. Le New York Times<\/em> (NYT) est bien aussi fautif que les toqu\u00e9s de la nef des fous, et m\u00eame bien plus \u00e0 notre avis, puisque pr\u00e9tendument \u00e9clair\u00e9 par son statut de lib\u00e9ral, d’intellectuel, de grande conscience et d’esprit parfaitement \u00e9quilibr\u00e9. Le NYT n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 moins hyst\u00e9rique que les participants de la croisi\u00e8re sur la nef des fous au moment o\u00f9 il ne fallait pas l’\u00eatre, lorsque les guerres catastrophiques furent lanc\u00e9es. L’on sait bien que le NYT, avec les lib\u00e9raux US, s’il d\u00e9nonce certaines (pas toutes, tant s’en faut) bavures du r\u00e9gime et les pauvres d’esprit qui en applaudissent trop bruyamment les effets les plus pervers, n’en reste pas moins un pilier de ce m\u00eame r\u00e9gime.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTout compte fait, les timbr\u00e9s de la nef des fous ne nous rassurent pas du tout, \u00e0 \u00eatre \u00e9pingl\u00e9s comme ils le sont et \u00e0 sembler \u00eatre isol\u00e9s du reste comme des b\u00eates curieuses, ridicules et r\u00e9trogrades. La critique porte essentiellement sur leur style droitier de dire leur am\u00e9ricanisme, pas sur leur am\u00e9ricanisme. Ils disent cr\u00fbment, sottement, aveugl\u00e9ment, ce que d’autres, plus grands esprits qu’eux, disent avec plus de mesure et de maestria. C’est leur style et l’absence de nuances de leurs discours qui les discr\u00e9ditent ; pour le reste, pour la substance des choses, ils sont moins isol\u00e9s qu’on croit. Et puis enfin, Norman Podhoretz est un des conseillers de politique ext\u00e9rieure de Rudy Guliani, candidat tr\u00e8s bien plac\u00e9 pour \u00eatre le candidat r\u00e9publicain aux pr\u00e9sidentielles; Podhoretz \u00e9tait de gauche (et m\u00eame d’extr\u00eame-gauche) avant d’\u00eatre de droite style-nef des fous; et Giuliani est \u00e9tiquet\u00e9 plut\u00f4t mod\u00e9r\u00e9 chez les r\u00e9publicains. Alors, la messe est dite.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 18 juillet 2007 \u00e0 13H44<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nous poursuivons de loin en loin notre enqu\u00eate sur cette \u00e9trange formidable \u00e9poque, avec auparavant dans le m\u00eame registre notre mention d’un s\u00e9minaire aux Bahamas. Cette fois, une aide grandiose nous vient de Johann Hari, qui a suivi une croisi\u00e8re organis\u00e9e par The National Review, dont il a fait un long rapport dans The Independent,… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-69029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69029","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=69029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}