Joel , que pensez-vous de cet article sur la présidence d' Obama ?

Que lui reprochez-vous ?

Sa politique de guerre. Au moment où il a annoncé la soi-disant fin de la guerre en Afghanistan, il a envoyé 30 000 soldats supplémentaires dans ce pays ! Les troupes y sont encore, et à ce rythme, elles pourraient y rester pour toujours. C’est pire que la guerre du Viêt Nam, parce que l’Afghanistan est un pays sauvage, morcelé, ingouvernable. Maintenir une présence militaire là-bas, c’est de la pure folie. C’est une vive déception pour tous ceux qui pensaient qu’Obama allait changer la donne entre l’Amérique et le monde musulman.

Au Proche-Orient et en Russie, Obama poursuit une politique ultra-traditionnelle, qu’on pourrait résumer ainsi : diviser et conquérir. Quand il est intervenu en Libye, ça a entraîné le pays dans le chaos. L’Irak reste complètement effrité. En Syrie, il mène la guerre à distance avec des drones. Assassiner des gens par télécommande est non seulement lâche, mais c’est aussi inefficace. À chaque attaque de drone en Afghanistan, on tue un ou plusieurs civils innocents, ce qui renforce les arguments des talibans et des musulmans radicaux, selon lesquels la seule façon d’agir contre l’Amérique est d’utiliser la violence.


http://www.lactualite.com/actualites/monde/obama-fera-t-il-couler-hillary/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

Je tiens à vous rappeler que des le début de son premier mandat, j'avais émis l'opinion que Barack Obama ne serait être le sauveur de la race noire ou des minorités afrcaines ou musulmanes.

Les espoirs que son élection suscitait ne sauraient être accomplis.
Car, un président américain, quel qu'il soit, n'est capable de se démarquer de la ligne infranchissable de la SECURITÉ NATIONALE de ce pays.
Voilà qui décide et dirige la politique étrangère des Etats Unis.

Donc, à ce compte, Obama n'est pas différent de George Bush ou le père de celui-ci. Je l'ai réitéré sur ce site en maintes fois.
Le seul crédit que je lui accorde est d'avoir pu se faire élire et réélire comme
le premier président noir de ce pays raciste.

Pas si vite.Je ne vais pas tomber dans les clichés.
Je ne vais pas oser dire que la POLITIQUE AMERICAINE ne change pas.
C'est FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT qui avait force les deux puissances coloniales la FRANCE et l'ANGLETERRE a decoloniser leurs colonies.
Il leur avait impose la CHARTE DE L'ATLANTIQUE en 1941.
C'est une histoire fascinante que nous pourrions discuter apres.

Quant aux reactions de OBAMA dans le MOYEN ORIENT ;ses mains sont liees sur la question d'ISRAEL ey il use de beaucoup de prudence car une dministration republicaine serait deja dans une guerre avec l'IRAN.

Meme la question de RACISME .Les bombardements de CLINTON en YOUGOSLAVIE n'etaient pas contre de peuples "non-blancs"

Il y a une tendance par certains de dire que la POLITIQUE des ETATS UNIS ne changera pas ;c'est pas vrai ;il y a des regimes "SOCIAUX-DEMOCRATES" dans les CARAIBES.
Meme les PARTIS CONSERVATEURS de TRINIDAD,JAMAIQUE,BARBADE sont a la GAUCHE des PARTIS dits SOCIAUX-DEMOCRATES d'HAITI.
Pourquoi n'y a t-il jamais eu de COUPS D'ETAT dans ces pays?.

Voici ce qu'a dit aujourd'hui le TRES INFLUENT PAUL KRUGMAN sur la candidature de JEB BUSH.
Il y a une grande diversite d'opinions aux ETATS UNIS.
Comme vous pouvez le voir le PRIX NOBEL EN ECONOMIE a qualifie les REPUBLICAINS de MENTEURS et de DANGER pour la REPUBLIQUE.

Moi je suis certain que si AL GORE avait ete elu president an 2000;il n'y aurait pas eu de COUP D'ETAT contre ARISTIDE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html


Errors and Lies


MAY 18, 2015
Continue reading the main story


Paul Krugman  

Surprise! It turns out that there’s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago.

But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.

Paul Krugman

Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

Fraternity of Failure  MAY 15

Wall Street Vampires  MAY 11

Triumph of the Unthinking  MAY 8

Race, Class and Neglect  MAY 4

Ideology and Integrity  MAY 1

See More »

Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.

The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.

And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] ...sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.

This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.

Why did they want a war? That’s a harder question to answer. Some of the warmongers believed that deploying shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world. Some saw Iraq as a sort of pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes. And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that there was a strong element of wagging the dog, of using military triumph to strengthen the Republican brand at home.



Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Whatever the precise motives, the result was a very dark chapter in American history. Once again: We were lied into war.

Continue reading the main story

Recent Comments




Peter D. Cohen
Just now
While Marx may have said that history repeats itself first as tragedy, and then as farce, here it was reversed. General Edward Shinseki was...



Josh Bing
Just now
Retired Senator Tom Harkin was headed back to the bus in October 2008 when campaigning for somebody and I said to him that 'they' were going...



Alan R Brock
1 minute ago
The title to this piece says it all. I am sick of war criminals and their supporters hiding behind the nebulous "mistakes were made". The...

See All Comments
Write a comment

Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
Continue reading the main story  
84

Comments

On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting. And it doesn’t get much bigger — indeed, more or less criminal — than lying America into war.

But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that it’s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush’s verbal stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved in concocting a false case for war.

So let’s get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake. But (with apologies to Talleyrand) it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.




Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 18, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Errors and Lies. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe  



Paul Krugman

Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.



Fraternity of Failure
Fraternity of Failure  

In the modern Republican Party, catastrophic error seems to have become a required credential.

Pour continuer MARC !

La guerre d'IRAK est la guerre la plus stupide qu'une PUISSANCE IMPERIALE a jamais entrepris,depuis la PREMIERRE GUERRE MONDIALE en EUROPE ,quand ls puissances EUROPEENNES qui etaient les MAITRES du MONDE ont commence leur DECLIN.
Il n'y avait qu'un gagnant apres la guerre d'IRAK ;c'etait ISRAEL qui voulait detruire la puissance INDUSTRIELLE de l'IRAK qu'elle voyait comme un RIVAL et une potentielle menace.

Un autre gagnant potentiel est l'IRAN car l'IRAK LAIQUE servait de contrebalance a l'IRAN des MULLAHS.

Les ETATS UNIS sont les PERDANTS sur toute la LIGNE.Ils ne controllent rien ;ils ont depense 3 TRILLIONS DE DOLLARS pour rien et les TALIBANS sont toujours une menace en AFGHANISTAN.

J'hesiterai a blamer OBAMA dans cette affaire car il essaie de colmater les BRECHES.

Quant a cette affaire que les DEMOCRATES et les REPUBLICAINS sont les memes en politique etrangere;prenez une PAUSE.
La politique etrangere des REPUBLICAINS est controlee par les FONDAMENTALISTES CHRETIENS DU sud des ETATS UNIS,les NEO-CONFEDERES.
Ces gens sont des IDIOTS!