Bernie Sanders, \u00e0 gauche de Clinton, proc\u00e8de par hauts et bas. Alors qu’on le croit \u00e9limin\u00e9 et sans espoir, il reparaît par un coup d’\u00e9clat. Il est encore loin du compte mais il n’est pas irr\u00e9m\u00e9diablement battu, et peut-\u00eatre finirait-il par se d\u00e9cider \u00e0 comprendre par quel biais fondamental il doit porter son attaque contre Clinton : contre l\u00e0 où, justement, elle s’affirme elle-m\u00eame comme la plus forte et comme au-dessus de lot, qui est son exp\u00e9rience unique de pouvoir et de direction de politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Jusqu’ici, Sanders s’est beaucoup trop gard\u00e9 de mettre en cause cette comp\u00e9tence, alors que c’est justement cette comp\u00e9tence qu’il faudrait mettre en cause, surtout et imp\u00e9rativement parce qu’il s’agit d’une l\u00e9gende, ou d’une narrative<\/em> si l’on veut. Cette \u00ab\u00a0comp\u00e9tence\u00a0\u00bb d’Hillary Clinton, notamment pendant sa charge de secr\u00e9taire d’État de 2009 \u00e0 2013, s’est traduite par \u00e9norm\u00e9ment de d\u00e9placements \u00e0 l’\u00e9tranger et une succession peu ordinaire de folies et de catastrophes<\/strong> qui ont notablement aggrav\u00e9 le caract\u00e8re d\u00e9structurant et dissolvant de la politique ext\u00e9rieure de l’administration GW Bush, d\u00e9j\u00e0 bien avanc\u00e9e \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. Peut-\u00eatre le point d\u00e9cisif \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, concernant un changement de strat\u00e9gie de Sanders, est-il l’entr\u00e9e en jeu, encore trop discr\u00e8te pourtant, de Tulsi Gabbard. (On parle beaucoup de la remarquable Tulsi Gabbard, d\u00e9put\u00e9e d\u00e9mocrate d’Hawa\u00ef, dans notre F&C du 2 mars 2016<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Robert Parry fait grand cas, le 29 mars 2016<\/a> sur son ConsortiumNews<\/em>, de l’apparition sur une annonce t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e de la campagne de Sanders, de Tulsi Gabbard. Cette annonce concerne pour la premi\u00e8re fois la seule mati\u00e8re de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, – la mati\u00e8re suppos\u00e9e \u00eatre l’avantage exclusif sinon irr\u00e9sistible de Clinton sur Sanders, – et c’est \u00e0 Gabbard qu’est confi\u00e9e la t\u00e2che d’argumenter \u00e0 ce propos. Elle en a l’exp\u00e9rience et la capacit\u00e9, s’\u00e9tant battue en Irak comme soldat de l’U.S Army, et ayant acquis depuis une r\u00e9elle expertise en mati\u00e8re militaire et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale. Elle est antiguerre et adversaire farouche de la politique-Syst\u00e8me<\/a> belliciste et expansionniste, non pas par seule id\u00e9ologie au d\u00e9part, mais par exp\u00e9rience personnelle entraînant jugement et position dite \u00ab\u00a0id\u00e9ologique\u00a0\u00bb (sans la connotation de l’arbitraire th\u00e9orique de la chose).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n De ce point de vue, elle a beaucoup plus d’exp\u00e9rience que Clinton, qui parle en id\u00e9ologue constamment appoint\u00e9e et corrompue, et qui n’a jamais eu la moindre exp\u00e9rience personnelle de la guerre, cela va de soi. Gabbard dispose d’une autorit\u00e9 d’exp\u00e9rience qui lui permet de mettre en \u00e9chec la rh\u00e9torique de Clinton. Elle vient combler ce qui est sans aucun doute la plus grande faiblesse, \u00e0 la fois tactique et strat\u00e9gique de Sanders, – avec la question d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e0 l’esprit de savoir exactement quelle influence elle exercera sur Sanders et quel r\u00f4le pr\u00e9cis, si c’est le cas, elle tiendra dans sa campagne ; de cela, peut-\u00eatre bien, d\u00e9pend la possibilit\u00e9 d’un succ\u00e8s ou de ce qui s’en rapprocherait, ou de l’\u00e9chec de Sanders.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n C’est d\u00e8s l’origine de la campagne que Sanders a laiss\u00e9 le champ libre \u00e0 la pr\u00e9tendue \u00ab\u00a0comp\u00e9tence\u00a0\u00bb de Clinton : lors de ses d\u00e9clarations initiales, notamment lors de leur premier face-\u00e0-face t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9, lorsque Sanders affirma qu’il n’aborderait pas l’affaire de l’emailgate<\/em>, ce qui constitua une faute tactique et un signe de sa na\u00efvet\u00e9 ou de son manque d’ambition, en repoussant de la sorte les questions de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale qui sont fondamentalement impliqu\u00e9es dans cette affaire. Pour expliquer sa position, Sanders avait d\u00e9clar\u00e9 qu’il ne voulait pas aborder de sujets pol\u00e9miques. On se trouve loin de la pol\u00e9mique lorsqu’une enqu\u00eate est officiellement ouverte contre une ancienne secr\u00e9taire d’État, mobilisant 142 officiers du FBI, sur un sujet dont le chef d’accusation pourrait \u00eatre purement et simplement la trahison en mati\u00e8re de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parry recommande cette tactique, imit\u00e9e d’un fameux entraîneur de football am\u00e9ricain, d’attaquer l’adversaire l\u00e0 où il est pr\u00e9tendument le plus fort, pour le forcer \u00e0 se replier sur des mati\u00e8res ou des sujets où il est plus faible. La tactique vaut d’autant mieux d’\u00eatre essay\u00e9e, on l’a vu, que Clinton peut \u00eatre prise dans l’exercice de ses fameuses \u00ab\u00a0comp\u00e9tences\u00a0\u00bb en flagrant d\u00e9lit de faux, de mensonges, d’invention de narrative<\/em><\/strong>, domaines où elle montre effectivement les plus grandes comp\u00e9tences…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parry insiste pour que Gabbard introduise cette dimension dans la campagne Sanders, et il en trouve le signe symbolique lorsque, dans l’annonce t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e en question, Gabbard d\u00e9clare « My name is Tulsi Gabbard and I support Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander-in-Chief<\/em> ». Ce titre de \u00ab\u00a0Commandant-en-Chef\u00a0\u00bb de toutes les forces arm\u00e9es US, qui est effectivement officiellement adjoint au titre de pr\u00e9sident des États-Unis, symbolise, de la part d’une parlementaire qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 combattante sous l’uniforme de l’US Army, l’un des aspects les plus fondamentaux des querelles qui d\u00e9chirent actuellement les divers candidats \u00e0 l’\u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle. Le choix de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, aujourd’hui, n’est pas seulement entre une orientation politique ou l’autre, mais beaucoup plus simplement et abruptement entre la guerre (les guerres) n\u00e9cessairement li\u00e9e(s) \u00e0 une orientation, et pour la plupart \u00e9cart\u00e9e(s) et \u00e9vit\u00e9e(s) dans l’autre orientation ; cela, impliquant dans le premier cas des d\u00e9vastations et des morts en grand nombre, dont des soldats US comme fut Gabbard (et, bien entendu, sans oublier, au contraire de ce que font souvent les politiciens du bloc-BAO, les morts notamment civiles caus\u00e9es par le type de conflits engendr\u00e9 par la politique dont Clinton fut et reste le porte-drapeau, avec le soutien affich\u00e9 des neocons<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’article de Parry est extr\u00eamement document\u00e9 et extr\u00eamement bien inform\u00e9 et ad\u00e9quat, par rapport au cas envisag\u00e9. Il constitue une le\u00e7on qui vaut pour Sanders, dont Parry est manifestement partisan, comme pour n’importe quel candidat d’ailleurs : l’\u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle US a pris de telles dimensions cette ann\u00e9e, elle soul\u00e8ve tant de probl\u00e8mes et introduit une telle atmosph\u00e8re quasi-\u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9volutionnaire\u00a0\u00bb, qu’elle ne peut se jouer seulement sur des mati\u00e8res int\u00e9rieures ou sur des mati\u00e8res \u00e9conomico-sociales<\/strong>. Les questions de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, c’est-\u00e0-dire ce que nous nommons \u00ab\u00a0politique-Syst\u00e8me\u00a0\u00bb, doivent entrer en jeu dans le d\u00e9bat au plus haut niveau parce qu’elles p\u00e8sent d’un poids \u00e9norme sur toute la situation US, y compris bien entendu et justement, sur la situation int\u00e9rieure. Pour cette raison l’intervention de Gabbard est un avantage consid\u00e9rable pour Sanders, si le candidat d\u00e9mocrate l’exploite d’une fa\u00e7on constructive et efficace, s’il l’exploite comme un atout de premier plan, s’il l’exploite assez vite… Ce qui conduit \u00e0 la phrase de conclusion de Parry de savoir « si l’aide que Gabbard apporte \u00e0 Sanders n’arrive pas trop tard<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Voici donc l’article du 29 mars 2016<\/a> de Robert Parry, sur son ConsortiumNews<\/em>. Il fait \u00e9cho \u00e0 celui de tom Engelhardt, pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 sur ce site le 29 mars<\/a>, en pr\u00e9sentant une autre perspective venue de la presse-antiSyst\u00e8me situ\u00e9e plut\u00f4t du c\u00f4t\u00e9 centriste\/progressiste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n _______________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Sen. Bernie Sanders’s landslide victories in Washington State, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday coincided with a long-awaited signal that he may finally be ready to challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the \u00ab\u00a0Commander-in-Chief\u00a0\u00bb question, which has been regarded as one of her key strengths.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In what may be the most striking campaign commercial of the presidential race, the Sanders campaign released an ad<\/a>, entitled \u00ab\u00a0The Cost of War\u00a0\u00bb and featuring Hawaii’s Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who endorsed Sanders not just as her preference for President but as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War,\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard says. \u00ab\u00a0He understands the cost of war, that that cost is continued when our veterans come home. Bernie Sanders will defend our country and take the trillions of dollars that are spent on these interventionist, regime change, unnecessary wars and invest it here at home.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gabbard also counters another strong point of the Clinton campaign, its contention that Clinton’s plans for incremental change are more realistic than Sanders’s calls for sweeping reforms – or a \u00ab\u00a0political revolution\u00a0\u00bb – to reverse the nation’s steady drift toward a country of lavishly rewarded haves and increasingly desperate have-nots.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The American people are not looking to settle for inches; they are looking for real change,\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard says. But perhaps her most important statement comes at the end of the 90-second commercial when she says: \u00ab\u00a0My name is Tulsi Gabbard and I support Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander-in-Chief.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The phrase \u00ab\u00a0Commander-in-Chief\u00a0\u00bb is one that Sanders has largely sidestepped in the early phases of the Democratic presidential race, conceding Clinton’s superior qualifications on foreign policy though questioning her judgment when she voted for the Iraq War in 2002. Yet, what the Gabbard ad seems to recognize is that Sanders’s campaign could rally a substantial part of the Democratic \u00ab\u00a0base\u00a0\u00bb and win over many \u00ab\u00a0regular\u00a0\u00bb Democrats by challenging Clinton on her hawkish proclivity for \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb wars.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Though many political analysts argue that it is too late for Sanders to overcome Clinton’s substantial delegate lead – bolstered by the unelected \u00ab\u00a0super-delegates\u00a0\u00bb drawn from party politicians – Sanders’s recent string of landslide victories suggest that many Democrats are uncomfortable with or opposed to Clinton, whose \u00ab\u00a0negatives\u00a0\u00bb are among the highest of national political leaders (in a race to the bottom with Donald Trump).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Many Democrats have a deep distrust of Clinton who – though now highlighting her more \u00ab\u00a0progressive\u00a0\u00bb positions – seems eager to \u00ab\u00a0pivot to the center\u00a0\u00bb once she nails down the nomination, a hunger that was reflected in her pandering speech<\/a> to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention last week.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Many neoconservatives and \u00ab\u00a0liberal interventionists\u00a0\u00bb now see Clinton as the vessel carrying their hopes for more \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb wars.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In 2002, Clinton famously supported President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, which – beyond costing more than $1 trillion and killing hundreds of thousands of people (including nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers) – destabilized the Middle East and gave rise to \u00ab\u00a0Al Qaeda in Iraq,\u00a0\u00bb which has since morphed into the Islamic State.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Apparently having learned no lessons from the Iraq War, Clinton consistently took hawkish and interventionist positions as President Barack Obama’s first Secretary of State.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In 2009, Clinton backed a coup in Honduras that removed democratically elected (and progressive) President Manuel Zelaya) and reaffirmed control by the Central American country’s oligarchy. Since then, Honduras’s human rights situation has worsened, driving thousands of children to flee northward seeking safety and leaving environmental and political activists at the mercy of death squads.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Also, in 2009, Clinton joined with Bush-holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon-favorite Gen. David Petraeus in pushing Obama into a major escalation of the Afghan War, a counter-insurgency \u00ab\u00a0surge\u00a0\u00bb that sent another 1,000 American troops to their deaths – and many more Afghans – but has since been abandoned as a failure.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In 2011, Clinton joined with \u00ab\u00a0liberal interventionists\u00a0\u00bb in again pushing Obama into a \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb war in Libya that led to the overthrow and torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi – which she gleefully welcomed with the quip, \u00ab\u00a0We came, we saw, he died\u00a0\u00bb – but has since turned the once relatively prosperous North African country into a failed state with the Islamic State gaining another foothold.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Both as Secretary of State and since her departure in 2013, Clinton has pressed to escalate the \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb war in Syria, seeking a \u00ab\u00a0no-fly zone\u00a0\u00bb that would require the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government’s air force and air defenses, apparently without regard to the risk that the U.S. intervention could pave the way for Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and\/or the Islamic State to march into Damascus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Though the Syrian \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb strategy that Clinton has advocated has failed to oust President Bashar al-Assad, it has transformed another reasonably functional Mideast state into a bloody killing field and driven millions of refugees into what is now a destabilized Europe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In 2014, Clinton also has embraced the neocon-backed coup in Ukraine that has touched off a new and costly Cold War with Russia. Again showing her \u00ab\u00a0tough-gal\u00a0\u00bb side, Clinton likened Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. Two years later, the Ukraine \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb has not only given the Ukrainians a corrupt and dysfunctional government – kept afloat with billions of dollars from the U.S. and Europe – but the heightened U.S. hostility toward Russia has impaired chances for big-power cooperation on a number of these other conflicts.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n All of this may fit the neocon agenda of removing or punishing governments that are viewed as unfriendly to Israel, but these Clinton-embraced strategies have been highly destructive to a peaceful and prosperous world. There is also the increased danger that Clinton might represent as Commander-in-Chief when her most hawkish inclinations are not tempered or restrained by President Obama’s general resistance to interventionist wars.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n For months, Clinton has been identified by top neocons as their best hope to maintain influence at the highest levels of Washington, especially if \u00ab\u00a0America First\u00a0\u00bb Republican Donald Trump secures the GOP nomination.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which drew up the Iraq War and other \u00ab\u00a0regime change\u00a0\u00bb plans in the 1990s, was among the influential neocons to abandon the Trump-dominated Republican Party and announce support for Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A month ago in a Washington Post op-ed<\/a>, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trump’s rise and then asked, \u00ab\u00a0So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out.\u00a0\u00bb Then referring to himself, he added, \u00ab\u00a0For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.\u00a0\u00bb [See Consortiumnews.com’s \u00ab\u00a0Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton.<\/a>\u00ab\u00a0]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Kagan, whom Clinton appointed to a State Department advisory panel, is married to Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, a former senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who rose under Clinton and helped orchestrate the Ukraine coup which sabotaged Obama’s behind-the-scenes cooperation with Putin on touchy issues such as Iran and Syria.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Bernie Sanders as Commander-in-Chief<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
A Neocon Favorite<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n