{"id":69349,"date":"2007-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-23T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/10\/23\/its-rhetoric-stupid\/"},"modified":"2007-10-23T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-10-23T00:00:00","slug":"its-rhetoric-stupid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/10\/23\/its-rhetoric-stupid\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cIt’s rhetoric, stupid<\/em>\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Curiosit\u00e9? Nouvelle dimension de l’art oratoire? Il semble que les dirigeants am\u00e9ricanistes au sommet, on parle du couple Bush-Cheney, aient adopt\u00e9 une m\u00e9thode originale ou bien est-ce que leurs d\u00e9bordements et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de l’\u00e9quilibre des choses politiques y poussent-ils Il s’agit de la fonction que nous qualifierions de It’s rhetoric, stupid !<\/em>. L’un ou l’autre parle, lance une philippique implacable, ou bien un mot terrible, et, quelques heures plus tard, un porte-parole vient expliquer que bon, apr\u00e8s tout n’est-ce pas, la philippique ou le mot terrible, ce n’est pas un drame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa semaine derni\u00e8re, c’\u00e9tait GW<\/a> avec sa World War III<\/em>. Il l’avait dit, certes, mais c’\u00e9tait simple rh\u00e9torique n’est-ce pas. Il ne faut pas dramatiser. Hier, c’\u00e9tait au tour de Cheney<\/a>. Apr\u00e8s son discours accueilli comme foudroyant et mena\u00e7ant par les commentateurs, il y a eu une rectification ou une mise au point d’un porte-parole. On vous explique ce qu’il fallait comprendre, comment il fallait entendre, etc. Ainsi AFP, via le site RAW Story<\/em> rapporte-t-elle hier<\/a> l’affaire :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIn what may be the boldest statements yet from the Bush administration regarding Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability, Vice President Dick Cheney pledged on Sunday that the US and international community is prepared to impose serious consequences on the Iranian regime if the nation did not abandon its uranium enrichment program.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe United States joins other nations in sending a clear message we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, Cheney said during a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The remarks come on the heels of comments at a press conference last week by President Bush warning of World War III if a nuclear weapon was ever developed by Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut White House spokesman Tony Fratto said on Monday that the Cheney remarks were not significantly different in substance than previous comments on the subject from Bush administration officials.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI wouldn’t call it stepping up the rhetoric, Fratto said, asked if the close timing of comments about Iran from both President Bush and Cheney was purely coincidental. In fact what the vice president said was a very clear review of the situation in the Middle East.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd by the way, it’s not at all different from what he has said before, what the president has said before, what Secretary [Condoleeza] Rice has said before, he continued, adding that the administration was seeking a diplomatic solution, and working with our international partners in a unified way to put pressure on Iran to stop its activities.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 23 octobre 2007 \u00e0 07H04<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Curiosit\u00e9? Nouvelle dimension de l’art oratoire? Il semble que les dirigeants am\u00e9ricanistes au sommet, on parle du couple Bush-Cheney, aient adopt\u00e9 une m\u00e9thode originale ou bien est-ce que leurs d\u00e9bordements et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de l’\u00e9quilibre des choses politiques y poussent-ils Il s’agit de la fonction que nous qualifierions de It’s rhetoric, stupid !. L’un ou… <\/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":[868,1294,7142],"class_list":["post-69349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bush","tag-cheney","tag-rhetorique"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69349","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=69349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}