Tulsi Gabbard est en train de devenir une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence nationale \u00e0 Washington, dans un jeu \u00e0 la fois avantageux pour ses ambitions de candidate aux pr\u00e9sidentielles en 2020, et dangereux pour sa capacit\u00e9 \u00e0 tenir contre les attaques d’une puissance inou\u00efe qui sont lanc\u00e9es contre elle. Si elle a jusqu’ici assez bien \u00e9volu\u00e9, elle a aussi fait des erreurs<\/strong>, – en fait, une principalement, qui montre qu’elle est \u00e9ventuellement vuln\u00e9rable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lorsqu’on dit qu’elle est une \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9f\u00e9rence nationale\u00a0\u00bb, c’est par rapport aux sollicitations des m\u00e9dias, et particuli\u00e8rement Tucker Carlson de Fox.News<\/em>, le pr\u00e9sentateur des nouvelles politiques le plus populaire aux USA. Ainsi \u00e9tait-elle interrog\u00e9e hier<\/a> sur la question de la politique de regime change <\/em>des USA, ce qui lui a permis notamment de faire un commentaire sur le sommet de Hano\u00ef entre Trump et Kim qui s’est termin\u00e9 sur un \u00e9chec. Plut\u00f4t que de chercher qui \u00e9tait responsable de quoi et pourquoi dans le d\u00e9roulement de la rencontre, elle a pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 d\u00e9tailler la position de la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, — ne pas l\u00e2cher l’arme nucl\u00e9aire sans des garanties inalt\u00e9rables de concessions US, – la forme de l’interview lui a permis de d\u00e9velopper une attaque extr\u00eamement claire contre la politique de regime change <\/em>des États-Unis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Pour le cas de la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, la possession de l’arme nucl\u00e9aire et la volont\u00e9 de ne rien c\u00e9der sans des garanties fondamentales, c’est une assurance presque certaine que les USA n’attaqueront pas ce pays pour changer le r\u00e9gime comme ils le font aujourd’hui d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment dans diverses occurrences. Cette analyse de Tulsi Gabbard est d’autant plus remarquable dans la confusion et la couardise courantes \u00e0 Washington qu’\u00e9tant d\u00e9put\u00e9e de Hawaii, elle repr\u00e9sente un État directement concern\u00e9 par d’\u00e9ventuelles \u00ab\u00a0menaces\u00a0\u00bb nord-cor\u00e9ennes, lesquelles nous ont valu il y a un an une fausse alerte et 38 minutes<\/a> de chaos où elle-m\u00eame [Gabbard] tint son r\u00f4le.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Gabbard said that although she was \u00ab\u00a0deeply concerned\u00a0\u00bb that the summit ended without any agreement, she was not surprised. She argued that the regime change policy championed by the US is to blame for undermining its own security, as it is ultimately responsible for the failure in breaking the Korean stalemate.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » The congresswoman noted that the US playing global gendarme by \u00ab\u00a0overthrowing and toppling dictators or countries who we don’t like\u00a0\u00bb comes with a heavy price to both the American people, who pay \u00ab\u00a0trillions of dollars\u00a0\u00bb to fund these military adventures, and to the people in the countries that suffer as a result of the interventions. It is the military-industrial complex and the top guns in Washington that \u00ab\u00a0invested their entire career\u00a0\u00bb in drumming up support for regime change who profit from constant wars, not the American people, Gabbard said. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Asked why Americans still continue to back military action despite overwhelming evidence against it, Gabbard lamented that people are being duped into thinking they are helping those in need.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » The most unfortunate thing is that they sell them under the guise of humanitarianism to American people, who want to be able to do good things, to be able to help people who are suffering, but not pointing out the fact that regime change led by the US has resulted in far more suffering for the people who they supposedly were trying to help.\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>[…] \u00ab\u00a0Constantly I see people from both parties resorting to name-calling or superficial attacks, because they refuse to engage on the substance of this argument about why they continue to push for and try to wage these regime change wars ignoring these disastrous consequences.\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’analyse de Tulsi Gabbard sur la situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, et la justification qu’elle donne \u00e0 la possession de l’arme nucl\u00e9aire \u00e0 partir d’une appr\u00e9ciation tout aussi g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la politique de regime change<\/em>, est pour le moins originale \u00e0 Washington, dans les milieux institutionnels, et correspond sans aucun doute \u00e0 ses positions habituelles. Cela n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 le cas il y a quelques jours, lors d’un incident qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 largement et n\u00e9gativement comment\u00e9 par ses soutiens<\/strong>. Lors d’un passage TV devant plusieurs commentateurs et pr\u00e9sentateurs, pour l’\u00e9mission de ABC The View <\/em>du 21 f\u00e9vrier, Gabbard s’est notamment trouv\u00e9e devant la fille de John McCain, Meghan McCain, particuli\u00e8rement agressive, et qui l’a conduit \u00e0 r\u00e9pondre (rapport de RT.com<\/a>) dans un sens tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rent de ce qu’elle dit d’habitude sur le sujet du pr\u00e9sident syrien Assad (\u00ab\u00a0Tout le monde sait qu’Assad est un dictateur sanguinaire et qu’il a employ\u00e9 des armes chimiques contre son peuple\u00a0\u00bb), tout comme sur le sujet des attaques de regime change <\/em>dont elle a estim\u00e9 que certaines \u00e9taient lanc\u00e9es sur \u00ab\u00a0selon des motifs humanitaire\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « US Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is being accused of \u00ab\u00a0flip-flopping\u00a0\u00bb on her Syria stance and \u00ab\u00a0caving\u00a0\u00bb to mainstream media pressure after a combative interview on The View. Questioned aggressively by panelist Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late Senator John McCain, Gabbard said there was \u00ab\u00a0no disputing the fact\u00a0\u00bb that Syrian President Bashar Assad is a \u00ab\u00a0brutal dictator\u00a0\u00bb who \u00ab\u00a0used chemical weapons against his people.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » The comments stand in stark contrast to previous statements made by the Hawaii congresswoman, who in the past said she was \u00ab\u00a0skeptical\u00a0\u00bb about allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on citizens and called US efforts to overthrow Assad an \u00ab\u00a0illegal war.\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>She faced a major backlash from both the media and her colleagues in congress for taking a trip to Syria and meeting Assad himself in 2017.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » While Gabbard tried to offer a balanced view of the situation in Syria, it was the antagonistic questioning from McCain that immediately grabbed headlines, with many framing the interviewer in a heroic light for \u00ab\u00a0confronting\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard, the \u00ab\u00a0Assad apologist.\u00a0\u00bb During the interview, Gabbard also said that US military interventions are often \u00ab\u00a0begun and waged from a place of humanitarianism\u00a0\u00bb despite having previously taken a tougher stance on \u00ab\u00a0military adventurism\u00a0\u00bb and the reasons behind it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Gabbard did push back many times against the panel of hostile hosts, saying repeatedly that US interventions have historically made bad situations worse and increased suffering, some of her supporters accused her of folding in the face of \u00ab\u00a0bullying\u00a0\u00bb from McCain. Others acknowledged that Gabbard might have been trying to appease the panelists to get her wider point about the human costs of US interventions across, but argued that she risked alienating the people who already supported her in the process — and said that if she starts making concessions now, she will be forced to make more.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » When the conversation turned to Venezuela, Gabbard angered the panel again, saying that the US trying to choose the leader of that country was \u00ab\u00a0not something that serves the interests of the Venezuelan people,\u00a0\u00bb despite co-host Ana Navarro’s hailing Donald Trump for \u00ab\u00a0leading the solidarity and support of freedom-loving Venezuelans.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Certaines critiques de ces faux-pas de Gabbard sont particuli\u00e8rement fond\u00e9es, notamment celle qui est de mettre en \u00e9vidence que tenter d'\u00a0\u00bbapaiser\u00a0\u00bb les faucons hyst\u00e9riques<\/strong>, telle la fille de McCain, ne lui apporte aucun avantage et la met en position d\u00e9fensive et de faiblesse<\/strong>. (Par exemple, ce tweet<\/a> de OffGuardian <\/em>: « #TulsiGabbard<\/a> a commis l’erreur classique, – elle pense que faire une concession \u00e0 la narrative de la presseSyst\u00e8me sur la Syrie devrait l’aider. Cela ne l’aidera en aucune fa\u00e7on. Les forces qu’elle tente d’apaiser ne seront pas apais\u00e9es mais par contre elle s’ali\u00e8nera ceux qui l’approuvent de dire la v\u00e9rit\u00e9<\/em>. »)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n