{"id":74362,"date":"2011-12-24T12:17:14","date_gmt":"2011-12-24T12:17:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/12\/24\/le-new-york-times-et-paul-des-sinuosites-revelatrices\/"},"modified":"2011-12-24T12:17:14","modified_gmt":"2011-12-24T12:17:14","slug":"le-new-york-times-et-paul-des-sinuosites-revelatrices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/12\/24\/le-new-york-times-et-paul-des-sinuosites-revelatrices\/","title":{"rendered":"Le New York Times<\/em> et Paul : des sinuosit\u00e9s r\u00e9v\u00e9latrices"},"content":{"rendered":"

On ne va pas s’attarder ici \u00e0 l’attitude d’ignorance-censure que le New York Times<\/em> (NYT) a pratiqu\u00e9, comme ses cong\u00e9n\u00e8res de la presse-Syst\u00e8me, durant des mois vis-\u00e0-vis du non-candidat Ron Paul. On s’attardera plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un nouvel article qui est indirectement favorable \u00e0 ce m\u00eame Ron Paul, on dirait objectivement, comme sans y toucher, sans se compromettre mais en s’y mettant tout de m\u00eame. C’est le deuxi\u00e8me article en une semaine (on signalait d\u00e9j\u00e0, le 19 d\u00e9cembre 2011<\/a>, l’article du NYT du 16 d\u00e9cembre 2011<\/a>, assez favorable \u00e0 Ron Paul sauf, paradoxalement par rapport \u00e0 ce qui suit, ou bien significativement au contraire, pour ce qui est de sa politique ext\u00e9rieure anti-guerre)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl s’agit d’un article sur la popularit\u00e9 de Ron Paul chez les militaires US. On ne peut dire qu’il soit br\u00fblant<\/strong> d’actualit\u00e9, puisque la chose est d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement acquise depuis des mois (voir, par exemple, notre texte du 22 juillet 2011<\/a>). Mais quoi, c’est No\u00ebl et le temps de la paix, n’est-ce pas, paix sur la terre aux hommes de bonne volont\u00e9, et le NYT ne manque pas de c\u00e9l\u00e9brer l’occasion Car c’est exactement de cette fa\u00e7on que commence l’article du 22 d\u00e9cembre 2011<\/a> du NYT, de Timothy Egan : \u00abSo this is Christmas, season of peace, time to reflect on the people coming home from a war that most Americans say was not worth it, and those still fighting in another war that raises new doubts by the day<\/em>\u00bb, bla bla bla<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApr\u00e8s avoir rappel\u00e9 des d\u00e9clarations de Ron Paul et observ\u00e9, d’une fa\u00e7on matoise et soi-disant habile, pour m\u00e9nager le suspens pour nos chers lecteurs, qu’un tel candidat anti-guerre ne devrait pas plaire aux soldats, eh bien non, nous dit l’auteur, voil\u00e0 que ce langage pla\u00eet aux soldats ; et, apr\u00e8s tout, comment ne pas le comprendre, et les comprendre eux-m\u00eames, nos braves boys<\/em> ? Le propos est go\u00fbteux, quand l’on sait ce que le NYT a d\u00e9pens\u00e9 d’encre pour nous convaincre de nous lancer dans ces guerres diverses, de l’Irak \u00e0 l’Afghanistan. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abWhat seems, at first blush, counterintuitive makes more sense upon further review. There’s a long tradition of military people being attracted to politicians with Paul’s strict interpretation of the Constitution.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbNot even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. The troops have become props for politicians who shower them with fulsome praise, while dreaming up schemes to send them into harm’s way. Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost in trauma, in lives ruined, in friends lost, in good intentions gone bad of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in a campaign, paltry though it may be in comparison to the corporate lords who control a majority of our politicians, says a great deal.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd if the overwhelming service support for Ron Paul is any indication, the grunts of American foreign policy are gun-shy about further engagement in useless wars, to use Dr. Paul’s term. It’s not a good sign when the people doing the fighting are saying, Why are we here?’ said Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran who lives in Des Moines, Iowa, and is supporting Paul for president. They realize they’re being utilized for other purposes nation building and being world’s policeman and it’s not what they signed up for.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApr\u00e8s avoir d\u00e9taill\u00e9 quelques faiblesses de Paul, et affirm\u00e9 comme il se doit, que Paul ne serait pas d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par le parti r\u00e9publicain (mais sans dire qu’il ne sera pas pr\u00e9sident, c’est-\u00e0-dire, sans \u00e9voquer l’hypoth\u00e8se nucl\u00e9aire qui terrorise tout le monde, les r\u00e9publicains en premier, d’une candidature ind\u00e9pendante de Paul), le NYT conclut, toujours fort accommodant pour Ron Paul, sinon apolog\u00e9tique apr\u00e8s tout Et voil\u00e0 Ron Paul, l’homme qui, lui, au moins, a fait son service dans l’USAF selon sa qualification professionnelle, glorifi\u00e9 aux d\u00e9pens d’un Newt Gingrich<\/a>, le chickenhawk<\/em> qui joue avec la guerre sans avoir port\u00e9 une seule fois l’uniforme. (Le mot chickenhawk<\/em>, expression<\/a> intraduisible sinon par des phrases du type la poule mouill\u00e9e qui joue au guerrier ou le planqu\u00e9 qui joue au va-t’en-guerre, fut employ\u00e9 souvent pour d\u00e9signer les neocons<\/em> et autres partisans de la guerre \u00e0 outrance, type Dick Cheney, qui n’avaient jamais port\u00e9 l’uniforme et \u00e9vit\u00e9 les guerres de l’Empire de leur temps, comme le m\u00eame Cheney qui se priva du service au Vietnam en arguant qu’il avait, \u00e0 l’\u00e9poque, d’autres priorit\u00e9s.) Etonnez-vous, apr\u00e8s cela, si nos glorieux boys<\/em> pr\u00e9f\u00e8rent envoyer leurs dollars au premier (Paul) qu’au second (Gingrich).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abBut, strictly considered, as the iconoclast among the toy warriors seeking to be the next president, Paul has performed an admirable service. His jabbing at Gingrich, now trying to get traction with an unconstitutional plan to arrest judges whose rulings he disagrees with, has been particularly productive. In Gingrich, we have the perfect combination of a blowhard who wants to play with real weapons, a chicken hawk and a politician who wears a rental sign to cover the empty space where principles should be.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbGingrich and other Republicans sound eager to rush into combat with Iran, should that theocratic nightmare of a country develop a nuclear weapon. Paul shrugs at the thought. And he’s consistently called the Iraq war an unnecessary disaster.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRomney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented an astonishing failure. True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe young people who actually fought in Iraq know better. They can tell a phony warrior from a real one. And in Ron Paul, the veteran who served as a flight surgeon for the Air Force, the man some call crazy, they hear a voice of sanity at least in the realm of war and peace.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAinsi le NYT n’est-il pas vraiment pour Ron Paul, mais pas vraiment contre non plus. L’\u00e9volution de notre grand quotidien de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 tous est un indice int\u00e9ressant de la situation int\u00e9rieure aux USA, dont l’\u00e9volution en 2012 est si \u00e9videmment capitale<\/strong> pour nous tous<\/strong> tant ce pays joue un r\u00f4le moteur, vers le bas comme vers l’avant, vers l’autodestruction comme il le tint vers la surpuissance. Encore plus qu’une signification pour le cas lui-m\u00eame de Ron Paul, nous verrions dans les sinuosit\u00e9s arrangeantes et d’une habilet\u00e9 de boutiquier vis-\u00e0-vis de Ron Paul du NYT, une indication de l’incertitude<\/strong> extraordinaire de cette situation int\u00e9rieure telle que la per\u00e7oit le m\u00eame NYT. Cette situation nous dit que m\u00eame les vertueux et incomparables professionnels du canard glorieux ne savent plus o\u00f9 nous allons, vers quoi nous nous dirigeons En attendant, quelques gages de bonne volont\u00e9 vis-\u00e0-vis de l’impayable Ron Paul, ce n’est pas inutile.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’hypocrisie pateline et pompeuse du NYT, illustrant parfaitement l’\u00e9volution des grands esprits lib\u00e9raux de notre contre-civilisation, n’est certainement pas inutile. C’est un pr\u00e9cieux barom\u00e8tre de l’orientation des grands \u00e9v\u00e8nements des USA \u00e0 partir desquels se r\u00e9percutent ceux qui secouent toute notre contre-civilisation. La perspective est bien incertaine… 2012, Here we come<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 24 d\u00e9cembre 2011 \u00e0 12H18<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On ne va pas s’attarder ici \u00e0 l’attitude d’ignorance-censure que le New York Times (NYT) a pratiqu\u00e9, comme ses cong\u00e9n\u00e8res de la presse-Syst\u00e8me, durant des mois vis-\u00e0-vis du non-candidat Ron Paul. On s’attardera plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un nouvel article qui est indirectement favorable \u00e0 ce m\u00eame Ron Paul, on dirait objectivement, comme sans y toucher, sans… <\/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":[11813,4566,6969,3538,3256,3140,3310,2852,3257],"class_list":["post-74362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-chickenhawk","tag-gingrich","tag-hypocrisie","tag-militaires","tag-new","tag-paul","tag-ron","tag-times","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74362","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=74362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}