J'aime bien cet article qui nuance tout le "grenouillage" politique autour de la gestion de l'administration Obama dans le cas de la Libye. Si quelques réponses se font toujours attendre, il y a quelques républicains et quelques démocrates qui ne reculent devant rien (incluant oublier leur propre passé...) pour du capital politique.
The commentary on the president’s course in Libya has been instinctively adversarial. Much of the press may be compensating for its cheerleading or supine acquiescence in the fraud of the Iraq War. So reporters chase administration officials around briefing rooms and TV studios, pressing questions that can’t be answered at all (about operational details), or can’t be answered candidly — for example, about the targeting of Moammar Gadhafi. On both sides, partisans join in — some Democrats apparently against any conflict anywhere — and Republicans who never questioned Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, but somehow would scorn Obama even if he got Iran to surrender its nuclear weapons.
Having forged a genuine multilateralism on Libya and pulled off the miracle of no Chinese or Russian veto in the Security Council, the administration now has to speak diplomatically while wielding big missiles. But through the white noise of the media and political scrum, some truths ought to be clear even if Obama and company can’t clearly say them.
First, why did Obama dither?
He didn’t. He was waiting until conditions were right and perhaps hoping, at least at first, that the rebels would win on their own. The president did lean forward, announcing that Gadhafi had to go. John Kerry wrote an early op-ed advocating a no-fly zone.
La suite: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/213526/it-really-is-about-regime-change-in-libya
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire