Forum

PRIEZ, MES FRÈRES…

La prière du jour, ce jour du Seigneur, le 20/3/2003 (sur le “President Prayer team”)

http://presidentialprayerteam.org/index.htm

“Pray for the newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and its Director, John O. Brennan. This agency, announced by President Bush in his State of the Union address, will begin operation on May 1.

As President Bush continues to seek support for America’s plan to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, pray for help to come from every corner. Pray that our allies will join with the President in this critical hour.

Pray that the vacancies in our judicial system will be filled promptly through the Congressional confirmation process. Pray that the roadblocks that are preventing the confirmation of many judicial nominees will be removed and that judges who will honor God in their rulings will be affirmed and placed on their respective benches.

Give thanks for the vote in the Senate on the ban of partial-birth abortions.

Give thanks and praise for the miraculous and safe return of Elizabeth Smart in Salt Lake City, as many prayers have been offered on her behalf. Pray that her adjustment to life again with her family will be smooth and grace-filled.

Pray for the soldiers who await orders in the Gulf region. Pray that whether they are drilling, practicing maneuvers or taking advantage of free time, they will be safe and ready, no matter what they are called on to do. Pray that many will come to faith in God in their time of uncertainty.”

On croit ou on ne croit pas en Jésus : mais qu’on y croie ou non, le fait est que l’on aura rarement aussi bien réussi à prostituer son nom sur l’autel de l’ignominie au cours de ces dernières années…

Ironie suprême de l’histoire, le Washington Post du 20 mars nous l’apprend, on vient de retrouver une copie de la Déclaration des Droits américains volée depuis 140 ans (à l’époque de la Guerre de Sécession).

Quand on pense que le Patriot Act et d’autres mesures totalitaires en préparation sont justement en train de raboter complètement les Droits de l’Homme aux États-Unis, l’affaire ne manque vraiment pas de piquant. “Ruse de l’Hisoire”, aurait dit G.W. Hegel ?
Si l’on était fondamentaliste puritain, on serait sans doute tenté d’y voir un “signe” du Ciel. Si seulement notre Grand Ayatollah G.W. Bush (béni soit son Saint Nom) pouvait y voir lui aussi un signe du Ciel !... Mais ne nous faisons pas d’illusions : son herméneutique est singulièrement sélective. Un G.W. n’est vraiment pas un autre…

(Sur ce sujet du virage totalitaire aux U.S., on peut notamment lire le livre très intéressant de Gore VIDAL intitulé La Fin de la Liberté, Vers un nouveau totalitarisme ?, publié dans la Bibliothèque Rivages, aux Editions Payot et Rivages, 2002).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57421-2003Mar19.html

FBI Recovers Missing Copy of Bill of Rights
Document Was Stolen From N.C. During Civil War

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 20, 2003; Page A02

Lost since a Union soldier stole it from the North Carolina state house in the waning days of the Civil War, an original handwritten copy of the Bill of Rights was recovered in a sting operation by FBI agents yesterday in Philadelphia, the city where the document first came into existence more than 200 years ago.

The faded document of vellum parchment had been passed from hand to hand for nearly 140 years but did not appear too worse for the wear. It is worth perhaps $40 million, though, in any real sense of the word, it’s priceless.

“It’s inconceivable that there could be a more important document in American history,” said Joseph Torsella, president of the National Constitutional Center, the soon-to-open museum in Center City Philadelphia.

The FBI learned about the document after a broker got in touch with Torsella’s museum a few months ago and offered to sell it. Torsella thought at first that this was the long-missing Pennsylvania copy. Five of the original 13 states have lost their copies of the Bill of Rights over the years. But as members of his staff held more talks, and investigated the claims, they came to understand that this was the missing North Carolina copy.

At this point, the museum contacted North Carolina officials and the FBI. An FBI agent posing as a philanthropist met on Tuesday with a broker representing the seller, who demanded $4 million—a tenth of the document’s value. They met at the law office of Stephen Harmelin, who represents the National Constitution Center.

“A courier appeared with this document in a cardboard box, if you can believe that,” Jeffrey A. Lampinski, the FBI special agent in charge of the Philadelphia office, said at a noon news conference in Philadelphia.

The FBI has not made any arrests, and officials said the civil seizure warrant has been sealed by court order. The investigation is ongoing.

The faded but still legible document, written in sepia-colored ink, is not, strictly speaking, a copy. In 1787, the Constitutional Congress passed the Constitution and sent it out to the states for ratification. Then, at the demand of the anti-federalists who feared an over-powerful central government, Congress agreed in 1789 to draw up the Bill of Rights—the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. President George Washington directed that three scribes write 14 copies by hand. One was kept by the federal government, and the others were sent to each of the 13 original states. Those copies were to be ratified by each state.

Five of those original handwritten documents are missing—one of those is known to have been destroyed.

The recovered North Carolina document contains 12 amendments—the first two, governing congressional pay raises and reapportionment, were subsequently struck from the document.

The Union soldier grabbed the copy as he marched south through North Carolina with Gen. William T. Sherman in 1865. The soldier took it home to his native Tippecanoe, Ohio, and apparently sold it a year later. Every 30 years or so, one owner or another tried to sell it back to North Carolina, always through intermediaries.

But North Carolina officials refused each time, insisting that they would not purchase back what was stolen from the state. “North Carolina’s stolen Bill of Rights has been out of state for nearly 140 years but never out of mind,” North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley (D) told the Associated Press. “It is a historic document, and its return is a historic occasion.”

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Un pays de 280 millions d’habitants, surdéveloppé (sur le plan matériel)  va envahir
un autre de moins de quinze millons de spectres, vivant grâce aux soins des ONG qui
permettent de survivre à plus de 80% de sa population.
Et l’agresseur, contrairement à ses habitudes (assurer que ses guerres garantissent à 100 % la survie de ses héroïques soldats), annonce maintenant à sa nation horrifiée que cette fois, il y aura des morts, donc des héros. En réalité, les dirigeants de la nation prédatrice comptent sur zéro morts, sûrs de créer ensuite lasurprise : le danger étant nul, il n’y en aura pas, des macchabs; l’habileté des dirigeants de la superpuissance aura protégé leurs soldats. Et le grrand PPPrésident sera porté aux nues, puisque le bilan des pertes de la nation héroïque, combattant pour la CCCivilisation, sera nul.
Tel est le calcul. Hélas,  des pertes , il y en aura, du côté des agresseurs; ils sont tellement nombreux , dans un territoire trop exigu pour le déploiement soudain d’une telle armée,
qu’ils s’entrécraseront les uns les autres, qu’ils se tireront dessus, comme en 1991.
Et puis, il y aura une accalmie de quelques semaines; Et puis, comme en 1946-47,
cette immense troupe fatiguera par ses excès les pays qu’elle occupe. Et puis, il y aura
des meurtres de soldats d’occupation, comme en 1940-45, des représailles sanglantes,
et des contre-réactions en chaîne, non seulement chez les spectres, mais dans tout le Moyen-Orient, exaspéré.
La paix, vous disiez, “ce sera la paix” ? Ce sera le bourbier vietnamien.
Good luck, Mr.Bush and Co !

Cette réponse a été refusée
“Ceux qui parlent et ecrivent si franchement contre la guerre, peuvent le faire
grace aux allies en 1944. Visitez les cimitieres en Normandie! Rapellez Oradure-sur-Glane! Combien de villages y a-t-il comme ca en Irak?  Je comprends vos peurs. Je n’aime pas Bush et sa bande, moi non plus. Personne ne veut la guerre, mais, quelquefois c’est juste “
Stuart Tiffin. Citoyen anglais. 50 ans
REPONSE
Cher Ami anglais,
Votre message aurait pu s’intituler :“Leçon à des ingrats”.
Vous vous prévalez de vos cinquante ans. Vous nous donnez la preuve, avec cet argument d’ancienneté, que vous n’étiez pas encore conçu en 1944, lors du débarquement. C’est bien plus tard que vous avez pu juger la signification de ces événements : il faut atteindre au moins l’âge de 15 ou 16 ans pour porter un avis plus ou moins objectif. Vous devez être né vers 1953, et c’est donc en 1970 que vous avez pu essayer de vous former une opinion personnelle sur le passé.
Je pense que votre insularité vous a coupé des récits et des lectures continentales.
Le maccarthysme avait sévi auparavant, dans les années cinquante, et la guerre froide
continuait. Je doute de l’objectivité des cours d’histoire que l’on vous a infligés. Comme
chez nous, on vous a présenté une vérité boiteuse : à cette époque sur le continent, on nous
présentait la guerre d’Algérie comme une opération légitime, de même qu’en 1960, des anciens du contingent soutenaient que notre belle colonie d’Indochine avait été perdue faute d’hommes énergiques au pouvoir.
La belle légende ! les Américains et les Britanniques délivrant, à eux seuls, les populations
européennes de l’esclavage.
Il est certain que si les nazis l’avaient emporté, nous serions dans une dictature pire que celle de Saddam. Heureusement, ce cher Hitler a commis une erreur aussi monstrueuse (pour son régime) que ses camps de la mort : il a rompu le pacte de non-agression signé avec l’URSS.
On a célébré un peu partout la bataille de Stalingrad, des animateurs de radio l’ont même
présentée comme un tournant de l’histoire, ce qui est juste. Mais pourquoi ont-ils insisté sur la “sauvagerie” des troupes russes, au lieu de montrer leur héroïsme. Que dire de la sauvagerie des nettoyeurs de tranchée, en 1914, utilisant des couteaux de boucherie ou encore “Rosalie”, la baïonnette ! Ils n’ont pas lu Dorgelès, ni Gabriel Chevalier, ni Barbusse, ces présentateurs jeunets!
Mais comme disait ce bon vieux Rudyard, ceci est une autre histoire…
Vous nous avez confié votre âge: très bien ! Moi, j’ai soixante-quinze balais. J’avais
17 ans en 1944 : l’âge de raisonner et de réfuter, ce que je faisais continuellement, car j’étais alors en classe de Philosophie. J’ai vécu l’angoisse des bombardements alliés, j’ai connu l’efficacité de la Résistance, qui a immobilisé de nombreuses divisions allemandes, fait qui est minimisé aujourd’hui. Mais en décembre 1944, j’ai connu les affres de la peur lors de l’offensive de von Runstedt, dont les “Panzers” se sont arrêtés à TROIS kilomètres de chez moi, paralysés par une pénurie d’essence. J’ai vu fuir, comme des lapins, les troupes américaines. Les soldats de “Monty” ( général Montgomery) n’étaient pas très fiers, eux non plus.
Et pendant ce temps-là, le “rouleau compresseur russe”(expression de la BBC de l’époque) écrasait inexorablement cette armée allemande dont on avait laborieusement distrait quelques divisions pour infliger une terrible tripotée aux Alliés.
Si la Russie avait été laissée en paix, en juin 1941, nous serions probablement encore asservis.
Et voilà ! Si vous doutez, revoyez votre histoire dans des livres échappant à la propagande nationaliste et néoc…. Eric Hobsbawm a écrit ” The Age of Extremes”.
Ayez donc le courage de lire cette oeuvre magistrale.

I take your hand and shake it vigorously.

http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html
apres le faux dossier, les aveux de generaux irakiens arranges pour les besoins de la propagande, voici le dernier mensonge en date: le VX produit en 91 et que tout le monde cherche ne pouvait pas durer plus de quelques semaines.
UNMOVIC dixit.

Votre analyse de la “conférence” des Açores est très pertinente.
Vous vous étonnez de la présence d’Aznar ? Moi je m’en inquiète : le personnage compte entrer
au Conseil de l’Europe où il pourrait fort bien jouer le rôle d’ “oeil de Big Brother”.
Ne trouvez-vous pas ?
Encore bravo pour votre site.

CD

L’Attorney général Ashcroft poursuit sans désemparer sa démolition des Droits de l’Homme aux U.S.

Les U.S. tendent à ressembler de plus en plus à un curieux et effrayant mélange d’ayatollisme iranien et de totalitarisme soviétique. Ce qui ne les empêche nullement de prétendre vouloir simultanément exporter, manu militari, la démocratie de par le monde.

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0310/hentoff.php

Ashcroft Out of Control
    Ominous Sequel to USA Patriot Act
    By Nat Hentoff
    Village Voice

    Friday 28 February 2003

    Many of the new security measures proposed by our government in the name of fighting the “war on terror” are not temporary. They are permanent changes to our laws. Even the measures that, on the surface, appear to have been adopted only as long as the war on terror lasts, could be with us indefinitely. Because, as Homeland Security director Tom Ridge himself has warned, terrorism is a “permanent condition to which America must . . . adjust.”  - American Civil Liberties Union, January 29

    Since September 11, 2001, a number of us at the Voice have been detailing the Bush administration’s accelerating war on the Bill of Rights - and the rising resistance around the country. This battle to protect the Constitution, and us, has entered a new and more dangerous dimension.

    On February 7, Charles Lewis, head of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, received a secret, but not classified, Justice Department draft of a bill that would expand the already unprecedented government powers to restrict civil liberties authorized by the USA Patriot Act. This new bill is called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Lewis, in an act of patriotism - since this still is a constitutional democracy - put the 86-page draft on the center’s Web site, where it still remains (http://www.publicintegrity.org/).

    On the evening of February 7, Charles Lewis discussed this new assault on our fundamental liberties on Bill Moyers’s PBS program, Now.

    Three days later, on the editorial page of the daily New York Sun, primarily a conservative newspaper, Errol Louis wrote: “[The] document is a catalog of authoritarianism that runs counter to the basic tenets of modern democracy.”

    I have the entire draft of the bill. Section 201 would overturn a federal court decision that ordered the Bush administration to reveal the identities of those it has detained (imprisoned) since 9-11. This sequel to the USA Patriot Act states that “the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until . . . the initiation of criminal charges.”

    Many of the prisoners caught in the Justice Department’s initial dragnet were held for months without charges or contact with their families, who didn’t know where they were. And these prisoners were often abused and out of reach of their lawyers - if they’d been able to find a lawyer before being shifted among various prisons. When, after much pressure, the Justice Department released the numbers of the imprisoned, there were no names attached, until a lower court decided otherwise.

    Under the proposed Ashcroft bill reversing that court decision, for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted. That section of bill is flatly titled: “Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information.” In Argentina, those secretly taken away were known as “the disappeared.”

    Moving on, under Section 501 of the blandly titled Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, an American citizen can be stripped of citizenship if he or she “becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a ‘terrorist organization,’ if that group is engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

    Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But~Wand read this carefully from the new bill - “the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.” (Emphasis added).

    Who will do the “inferring”? A member of the Justice Department. Not to worry. As John Ashcroft’s spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, says of objections to this draft bill: “The [Justice] department’s deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties.” (This is a faith- based administration.)

    What this section of the bill actually means is that if you provide “material support” to an organization by sending a check for its legal activities~Wnot knowing that it has been designated a “terrorist” group for other things it does - you can be stripped of your citizenship and be detained indefinitely as an alien. While South Africa was ruled by an apartheid government, certain activities of the African National Congress were categorized as “terrorist,” but many Americans provided support to the legal anti-apartheid work of that organization.

    Under Section 302 of John Ashcroft’s design for our future during the indefinite war on terrorism, there is another change in our legal system. Under current law, the FBI can collect DNA identification records of persons convicted of various crimes. But under the USA Patriot Act II, the “Attorney General or Secretary of Defense” will be able to “collect, analyze, and maintain DNA samples” of “suspected terrorists.” And as Georgetown law professor David Cole notes - “mere association” will be enough to involve you with suspected terrorist groups. What does “association” mean? For one thing, “material support,” under which you could lose your citizenship.

    In reaction to the stealth with which the Justice Department has been crafting this invasion of the Bill of Rights, Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on February 10: “The early signals from the administration about its intentions for this bill are ominous. . . .

    “For months, and as recently as just last week, Justice Department officials have denied to members of the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package. There still has not been any hint from them about their draft bill.”

    Leahy continued: “The contents of this proposal should be carefully reviewed, and the public must be allowed to freely engage in any debate about the merits of any new government powers the administration may seek.”

    But where is the debate in Congress or in the media? After a few initial press stories about the USA Patriot Act II, there has been little follow-up. To be continued here.

    (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Un document du Département d’Etat US révélé par la Los Angeles Times du 14 mars (repris par le site alternatif Truthout http://truthout.org/docs_03/031603B.shtml) exprime le sentiment que la théorie Bushienne des dominos (d’abord la démocratie en Irak et ensuite dans le reste de la région) a peut de chances de se voir confirmer par les faits.

“The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

“Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve,” says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to The Times.

“Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.”

The thrust of the document, the source said, “is that this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.”

Even the document’s title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled “Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes.” “

(...)

The report was produced by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm.

The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting.

“Middle East societies are riven” by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability “regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change,” the report said, according to the source.

The report is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

It’s not clear whether the president has seen the report, but such documents are typically distributed to top national security officials.

“A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,” Bush said.

Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months.

But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel.

Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be “the first Arab democracy” and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would “cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.”

Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq “has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential.”

Dans la théocratie U.S., le Ciel n’arrête décidément pas de se manifester. On savait qu’il communiquait régulièrement avec G. W. Bush, mais il communique aussi avec d’autres, Juifs ou Gentils.

Ainsi, la dernière fois que Dieu s’est exprimé, c’est en prenant les apparences d’une carpe, comme nous l’apprend l’Observer du 16 mars 2003…

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915125,00.html

Word is made flesh as God reveals himself… as a fish

Edward Helmore New York
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

An obscure Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb carp that was heard shouting in Hebrew, in what many Jews worldwide are hailing as a modern miracle.
Many of the 7,000-member Skver sect of Hasidim in New Square, 30 miles north of Manhattan, believe God has revealed himself in fish form.

According to two fish-cutters at the New Square Fish Market, the carp was about to be slaughtered and made into gefilte fish for Sabbath dinner when it suddenly began shouting apocalyptic warnings in Hebrew.

Many believe the carp was channelling the troubled soul of a revered community elder who recently died; others say it was God. The only witnesses to the mystical show were Zalmen Rosen, a 57-year-old Hasid with 11 children, and his co-worker, Luis Nivelo. They say that on 28 January at 4pm they were about to club the carp on the head when it began yelling.

Nivelo, a Gentile who does not understand Hebrew, was so shocked at the sight of a fish talking in any language that he fell over. He ran into the front of the store screaming: ‘It’s the Devil! The Devil is here!’ Then the shop owner heard it shouting warnings and commands too.

‘It said “Tzaruch shemirah” and “Hasof bah”,’ he told the New York Times, ‘which essentially means that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is near.’

The animated carp commanded Rosen to pray and study the Torah. Rosen tried to kill the fish but injured himself. It was finally butchered by Nivelo and sold.

However, word spread far and wide and Nivelo complains he has been plagued by phone calls from as far away as London and Israel. The story has since been amplified by repetition and some now believe the fish’s outburst was a warning about the dangers of the impending war in Iraq.

Some say they fear the born-again President Bush believes he is preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ, and war in Iraq is just the opening salvo in the battle of Armageddon.

Local resident Abraham Spitz said: ‘Two men do not dream the same dream. It is very rare that God reminds people he exists in this modern world. But when he does, you cannot ignore it.’

Others in New Square discount the apocalyptic reading altogether and suggest the notion of a talking fish is as fictional as Tony Soprano’s talking-fish dream in an episode of The Sopranos .

Stand-up comedians have already incorporated the carp into their comedy routines at weddings. One gefilte company has considered changing it’s slogan to: ‘Our fish speaks for itself.’

Still, the shouting carp corresponds with the belief of some Hasidic sects that righteous people can be reincarnated as fish. They say that Nivelo may have been selected because he is not Jewish, but a weary Nivelo told the New York Times : ‘I wish I never said anything about it. I’m getting so many calls every day, I’ve stopped answering. Israel, London, Miami, Brooklyn. They all want to hear about the talking fish.’

A devout Christian, he still thinks the carp was the Devil. ‘I don’t believe any of this Jewish stuff. But I heard that fish talk.’

He’s grown tired of the whole thing. ‘It’s just a big headache for me,’ he added. ‘I pull my phone out of the wall at night. I don’t sleep and I’ve lost weight.’

40 millions d’Américains (ils sont 254 millions en tout, donc un sur six, à peu près) croient à la proche survenue de l’Apocalypse telle que décrite dans la Bible. Et ce serait en partie ce qui motive leur soutien à Bush. C’est ce que nous explique entre autres cet article du CSM qui nous invite à réfléchir sur le rôle décidément étonnant de la religion aux U.S.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html

“Christian Science Monitor”
from the March 17, 2003 edition

New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush’s policies

The president’s rhetoric worries even some evangelicals

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

President Bush has never been shy about injecting his faith into the public arena - his campaign remark that Jesus Christ was his “favorite political philosopher” was an early signal. But his rising use of religious language and imagery in recent months, especially with regard to the US role in the world, has stirred concern both at home and abroad.
In this year’s State of the Union address, for example, Bush quoted an evangelical hymn that refers to the power of Christ. “‘There’s power, wonder-working power,’ in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people,” he said.

Today’s feature

• If not war, then what? Examining the diversity of the antiwar movement.

• Daily Update: An online roundup of a post-Sept. 11 world.

• War against Iraq: questions and answers

• Full Iraq coverage

  E-mail this story

Write a letter to the Editor

Printer-friendly version

Permission to reprint/republish

 
Now, some critics are wondering whether the influence of Bush’s evangelical faith goes beyond public rhetoric to shape his foreign policy regarding Iraq and the Middle East.

With public speculation in full swing, the Christian Century last week insisted that “the American people have a right to know how the president’s faith is informing his public policies, not least his design on Iraq.”

No one presumes to know how another’s personal faith plays out in public life, and the president’s spokesman insists that Mr. Bush makes his decisions as a “secular leader.”

Not all evangelicals are pleased

Yet among those who share his evangelical Christianity, the satisfaction of having a born-again believer in the White House doesn’t necessarily preclude an uneasiness with some of his rhetoric and policies.

Forty evangelical leaders, for instance, wrote the president last summer seeking an “evenhanded US policy” toward Israel and the Palestinians and rejecting “the way some have distorted biblical passages as their rationale for uncritical support” for Israel. Some evangelical groups are close allies of the Sharon government and work in the US to build support.

Still, the infusion of religious conviction into presidential speeches warms many hearts. To one of his most vocal supporters, Bush is simply using the language of American civil religion.

“George Bush is standing squarely in a tradition as old as the country,” says Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address is like a sermon. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with rights and appeals to God for the success of the Revolutionary cause.”

As for the president’s frequent remarks on the US leading the fight of good against evil in the world, he adds, “Saddam Hussein is evil, and compared to him we are pure and good.”

Others applaud Bush’s clarity in a time of national crisis. “He has reintroduced into the culture the language of morality and moral distinctions,” says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif.

Lessons from past presidents

Yet Dr. Mouw worries about explicitly Christian phraseology that Jews and Muslims hear in the light of their own histories. And he sees lessons in how two other presidents communicated their convictions.

Jimmy Carter, for instance, carefully avoided using Christian language in public. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, regularly used the language of Scripture, yet invoked the will of God not for one side or the other in war, but to call everyone to humility, repentance, and reconciliation.

“We may have to go to war in Iraq,” Mouw says, but “we are at a place internationally where, if the president does want to use the language of religion, he might do better to admit some of our mistakes. What if he actually asked forgiveness on behalf of a nation that in the past supported Saddam Hussein?”

Some express concern, too, about Bush’s tendency to demonize the enemy, whether it be Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or the nations of the “axis of evil.”

“Demonization can produce hatred, and all of a sudden, we’re heading toward a battle of civilizations” when we don’t have to be, says Robert Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement, a think tank on religious freedom in St. Davids, Pa.

The Gospel, some evangelicals are quick to note, teaches that the line separating good and evil runs not between nations, but inside every human heart.

Although Bush consistently speaks well of Islam, some Americans worry his religious language makes it easier to connect him and US policy - in the eyes of the world’s Muslims - to evangelical preachers who call Islam “an evil religion.”

And more are beginning to question how the evangelicalism of Bush, key aides such as Condoleezza Rice, and his political constituency might play a role in Middle East policy.

According to evangelicals, the vast majority of them are very supportive of Israel for religious reasons. “The president certainly knows that and may be influenced by the same things,” Mouw says.

Roots of evangelical support for Israel

But the reasons aren’t those usually portrayed by the media. “The idea that evangelicals support Israel because they want to hasten the Second Coming is absolute nonsense,” says Dr. Land. “No human being can do anything to hasten or retard that.”

Evangelical support rests, Land explains, on God’s biblical promise to give the land of Israel to the Jews forever, and on God’s statement that he will “bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews.”

That statement holds considerable power among some evangelicals. “There’s a strong tendency toward uncritical support of Israel and that verse gets thrown at us whenever we are critical of some policy,” says Mouw, one of the leaders to sign the letter to Bush.

“My response to that is that anyone who wants to bless Israel needs to be sure that Israel does justice - the Old Testament prophets loved Israel, but [also] said God was angry with them because they had taken other peoples’ houses and land,” he adds.

Dr. Seiple is disappointed, too, in Bush’s failure to see the moral ambiguity and complexity in the Palestinian-Israeli question. “We went from an honest broker to one-sided emphasis,” he says. “It may play well with his base politically, and he might believe it theologically ... but it’s not where I would give him high marks for moral leadership.”

Even the potential war with Iraq has its biblical resonances. “Iraq as Babylon - I’ve been hearing that a lot lately,” Mouw says. “The two prominent images are the glorious city of Jerusalem and the wicked city of Babylon ... and there’s no question [that] the fact Iraq is the site of ancient Babylon is a motif that influences evangelicals.”

An intriguing question is the extent to which Americans share the apocalyptic views of some evangelicals that we are heading into the last days of the final battle between good and evil. Polls indicate that some 40 million do.

What’s clear is that while evangelicals greatly value the renewed moral tone and religious conviction in the presidency, they, like other Americans, differ over how the president expresses that conviction and the implications for his decisionmaking. Bush has said he tends to make decisions by gut instinct. Many Americans are wondering which religious instincts might hold sway as he acts to determine the course of history.

On mettra au crédit des Etats-Unis que c’est un journal lui-même religieux (du moins par appartenance, parce qu’en fait il s’efforce de rester objectif), le Christian Science Monitor, qui s’interroge sur le messianisme bushien. Mais peut-être est-ce aussi parce qu’il y voit un danger de “backlash” (contrecoup) contre la mouvance chrétienne.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

Les services secrets fournissent des faux documents et on se demande bien qui a pu ainsi tromper ... ces mêmes services secrets!
Autocensure, comique involontaire ou second dégré, c’est selon.

“Tu dois désarmer pour te conformer aux résolutions de l’ONU, sinon ce sera la guerre”. “De toutes façons quoi que tu fasses, nous t’attaquerons”. Tel est la double contrainte (“double bind”) dans laquelle les US enferment Saddam Hussein. S’il ne désarme pas ce sera la guerre ; et s’il désarme se sera quand même la guerre.
Le résultat totalement surréaliste de cette double contrainte c’est que l’on voit un pays détruire ses missiles alors qu’il sait qu’il va être sûrement être attaqué dans les jours qui suivent.
On a ensuite le culot d’affirmer que “la balle est dans le camp de Saddam”, que “la paix ou la guerre dépendent de lui et de sa bonne volonté”.
On peut n’avoir aucune sympathie pour ce tyran, mais comment pourrait-on avoir de la sympathie pour ceux qui, au nom de la liberté et de la démocratie, mettent autrui dans des dilemmes aussi insolubles ?
Le paradoxe de cette affaire, c’est que c’est finalement le camp des pays anti-guerre qui a facilité la tâche aux bellicistes US : en exigeant des inspections ONU vigoureuses et la destruction des missiles, les pays anti-guerre ont rendu la guerre plus facile à mener.
Ah, les bonnes intentions ! L’enfer en est manifestement pavé.

Il serait en tous cas étonnant qu’à la suite de cet épisode qui constitue probablement une première historique, il puisse encore se trouver des pays acceptant de procéder à un désarmement demandé par l’ONU.
“Face je gagne, pile tu perds”, tel est le type de propositions que la puissance US propose, ou plutôt impose, désormais au monde,  plus clairement que jamais, tout en soutenant haut et fort que chacun est, bien sûr, “libre” de choisir “pile” plutôt que “face”.
Accessoirement, les Américains semblent avoir décidément perdu tout sens de l’honneur : ils sont historiquement le premier pays à faire procéder à un désarmement avant d’attaquer. Quelle grandeur !

Pour moi, c’est simplement la qualité des analyses qui m’a rendu fidèle au site. Je regrette seulement que certains articles, reproduits dans leur anglais original, ne soient pas traduits. J’y arrive, mais c’est plus difficile.

L’Institut Caton (Washington D.C) est un lieu d’analyses politique et
géopolitique qui s’est toujours distingué de la politique pratiquée par
l’administration en cours. Sa position fut particulièrement objective durant la
guerre du Kosovo. En décembre 2002, il a publié une étude visant à
démontrer le caractère nuisible d’une guerre avec l’Irak . En bref, les auteurs
estiment que la stratégie la moins coûteuse est la diplomatie. Hussein est rationnel
au sens où les économistes et les politologues emploie ce terme.
En ne perdant pas de vue que Hussein ne songe qu’à se maintenir au pouvoir,
Washington peut développer une stratégie le dissuadant de mener des actions
au détriment de la sécurité des USA, sans s’engager dans une guerre.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa464.pdf

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31535

Michael Ratner, président du Centre pour les Droits Constitutionnels
qui a son siège à New York (consulter http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp ),
affirme que la volonté des USA et de l’Angleterre de déclarer la guerre à
l’Irak, sans la permission du Conseil de Sécurité, est le genre de menace auquelles
l’ONU a pensé, en rédigeant, en 1950, sa Résolution 377, baptisée “Union pour la paix”.
Selon Ratner, en invoquant cette résolution, l’Assemblée Générale peut se réunir dans les 24 heures pour considérer le problème, et peut recommander des mesures collectives aux
membres des Nations Unies, y compris l’usage de la force armée pour maintenir ou restaurer la paix et la sécurité internationales.
LES NATIONS-UNIES DECLENCHANT UNE ACTION MILITAIRE CONTRE LES USA ?
Shonna Carter, journaliste, estime qu’il serait légitime pour l’ONU d’utiliser la force militaire pour ” stopper l’agression US”. “Mais je doute que cela puisse se produire”
dit-elle encore. MORALITE : Les puissants peuvent tout se permettre. Quel cuisant`
échec pour le grand espoir que constituait l’O.N.U.dans les années 50 !
Consulter Shonna Carter, Riptide Communications
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/newsroom/releases/pReleases.asp?ObjID=Bc4VzOSKAL&Content=183