chain of command<\/em>), dont on sait que l’aboutissement le plus haut est le commandant en chef des arm\u00e9es, le pr\u00e9sident lui-m\u00eame, c’est-\u00e0-dire la Maison-Blanche. Dans ce cas, l’absence de serment n’est pas un handicap.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tMcGovern : \u00abIf Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in? I had not the slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the committee assembled by John Conyers (D-Mich.) on June 16, 2005. Should generals be immune? Or did Petraeus’ masters wish to give him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter Libby?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWith the microphone finally fixed, much became quickly clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs. In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward. Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point at least for me:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAt the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIs not the commander in chief in Petraeus’ chain of command?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAs Harry Truman (D-Mo.) would have said, Does he think we were born yesterday?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tMcGovern fournit peut-\u00eatre l’explication r\u00e9elle en observant qu’\u00e0 force d’affirmations d’innocence et d’honorabilit\u00e9 du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral par les parlementaires, jusqu’\u00e0 des communiqu\u00e9s pompeux diffus\u00e9s par certains d’entre eux avant l’adition, avec la chasse impitoyables aux anti-guerres protestant contre les conditions de r\u00e9daction du rapport et de l’audition elle-m\u00eame, on a fini par faire de Petraeus un saint. Demande-t-on \u00e0 un saint de pr\u00eater serment?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLa formule n’est pas seulement ironique. Il y avait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 une solidarit\u00e9 de syst\u00e8me entre les parlementaires, d\u00e9mocrates compris, et le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, notamment parce que le Congr\u00e8s avait ent\u00e9rin\u00e9 en d\u00e9cembre la nomination de Petraeus en applaudissant \u00e0 ses vertus suppos\u00e9es, mais aussi pour des raisons plus vastes. Tous les parlementaires sont li\u00e9s \u00e0 un devoir d’all\u00e9geance et de soutien, par proclamation de la vertu du serviteur de l’Empire, aux forces arm\u00e9es et \u00e0 ses g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. En contrepartie, les g\u00e9n\u00e9raux livrent une narrative<\/em> de leurs guerres qui correspond aux int\u00e9r\u00eats politiques en vogue. La contestation de Petraeus, \u00e0 un moment si essentiel et pour un enjeu si consid\u00e9rable (la poursuite de l’engagement en Irak), les mettait tous en cause.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tDans un tel cadre de sanctification et de complicit\u00e9 r\u00e9ciproque, il est tr\u00e8s difficile pour le Congr\u00e8s, et notamment la majorit\u00e9 d\u00e9mocrate,de rejeter en bloc les conclusions de Petraeus. La r\u00e9alit\u00e9 apparue lors des auditions de cette semaine devrait \u00eatre celle de la complicit\u00e9 g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui les lie tous, eux qui ont tous souscrit \u00e0 la politique bushiste dans l’imm\u00e9diat post-9\/11 par des votes quasi-unanimes. La r\u00e9alit\u00e9 est qu’ils sont tous encha\u00een\u00e9s \u00e0 la guerre de Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 11 septembre 2007 \u00e0 18H23<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
La s\u00e9ance d’audition du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Petraeus, au Congr\u00e8s, hier, fut marqu\u00e9e de divers incidents. L’ancien officier de la CIA devenu contestataire, le commentateur Ray McGovern, se trouvait dans la salle. Il remarqua que Petraeus commen\u00e7ait sa d\u00e9position sans avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 invit\u00e9 \u00e0 pr\u00eater serment. Un incident (panne de micro durant dix minutes) permit \u00e0 McGovern… <\/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":[7023,3285,1132,6264,3465],"class_list":["post-69211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-complicite","tag-congres","tag-mcgovern","tag-petraeus","tag-serment"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69211","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=69211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}