Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
703
26 mai 2004 — Depuis quelques jours, à nouveau beaucoup de rumeurs sur une possible attaque terroriste aux USA, à Washington si possible, avant l’élection présidentielle. Le site WSWS.org fait une recollection de quelques signes récents de cette tendance, dans la presse américaine. Son décompte n’est pas complet, ce qui témoigne de la richesse du domaine.
Quelques extraits de WSWS.org :
« Two more pieces published in the press in recent days point to a continuing discussion within the political elite in the US about the electoral consequences of a pre-election terrorist attack. Top officials and analysts speak as if an attack were probable if not certain, and indicate the major concern in Washington is how such an attack would affect the outcome of the elections.
» In the “Washington Whispers” section of this week’s US News & World Report, columnist Paul Bedard reports: “White House officials say they’ve got a ‘working premise’ about terrorism and the presidential election: It’s going to happen.” Bedard quotes a top administration official as asserting, “We assume an attack will happen leading up to the election,” and that it will happen in Washington, D.C.
» Bedard continues by noting, “Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president.” He quotes another official who has been involved in recent terrorism response drills: “I can tell you one thing, we won’t be like Spain.” Earlier this year, Spain’s conservative government was ousted by voters after the deadly train bombings in Madrid on the eve of a national election.
» The US government has been carrying out terrorism response drills involving the first tests of the revised “continuity of government” plans developed by the administration after the September 11 attacks.
» In a piece published May 20 entitled “Beware of any stretch-run surprises,” Wall Street Journal columnist Albert Hunt writes that the November elections could hinge on “unanticipated events.” First on the list of such events is a terrorist attack. Hunt notes: “The Bush administration and outside terrorist experts repeatedly have cautioned that another attack on the homeland is likely. The White House, politically, has it both ways: taking credit for avoiding any assault since 9/11, while at the same time warning that another is likely.”
» There is a more sinister subtext to Hunt’s column in the suggestion that the Bush administration would like to “have it both ways” in another manner: it would like to benefit politically by presenting itself as the strongest force against terrorism, while preparing to politically exploit any future terrorist attack. He quotes Charles Black—a Republican strategist and close confidante of President George W. Bush—as stating that “my instinct is there likely will be a rally around [the incumbent] effect” in the event of another attack. »
Les autres signes très récents que WSWS.org ne signale pas sont, au moins, au nombre de deux.
• Time.com publie le 20 mai une information sur une alerte du FBI à l’attaque terroriste.
« The FBI is warning law enforcement agencies to be on the alert for the possibility that suicide bombers may attempt to strike inside the United States. A lightly classified intelligence bulletin circulated Thursday to 18,000 U.S. law enforcement bodies is headlined “Possible suicide bomber indicators,” and was distributed via the Bureau’s secure Law Enforcement Online (LEO) Intranet. It warns local badge-carriers to look for obvious signs of trouble — people wearing heavy, bulky jackets on warm days, smelling of chemicals, trailing wires from their jackets — as well, more subtle ones, such as tightly clenched fists. Someone who never shows his palms could be gripping a detonator rigged to go off when a button is released. “If you shoot him, you ' re still not safe because his hands relax and the bomb explodes,” says a counter-terrorism official.
(…)
» In fact, U.S. analysts are at a loss to explain why the homeland has thus far escaped such attacks, since a number of extremist groups, particularly Hamas, have a sizeable presence here. One factor, officials say, is that terror leaders still regard America as a cash cow, and don't want to antagonize moderate Muslim donors. Another reason, says one specialist, may simply be that while there seems to be an endless supply of fanatical youths willing to die for the cause in the Middle East, most of them simply can't get visas to the U.S. »
• L'information de Time.com est renforcée et confirmée par une analyse du Washington Post, en date d'aujourd'hui (et que nous rajoutons in extremis dans cette analyse).
• Le brave Thomas Friedman qui n’en rate pas une nous offre le 24 mai une chronique paniquarde où il analyse avec terreur la technique et la psychologie des attaques-suicide. Friedman désespère de la présence US en Irak, dont il juge qu’elle ne fait qu’accroître l’incitation pour les terroristes-suicide à frapper tout ce qui se rapproche des Américains. Il cite l’information de Time.com (« Time.com reported last week that the FBI had alerted law enforcement offices around America to be on the lookout for possible suicide bombers »), exhorte Washington à se retirer d’Irak le plus vite possible, termine enfin en agitant ce spectre d’une attaque proche des USA ou aux USA mêmes : « We must shut this play down before it comes to a theater near us. »
L’hypothèse d’une attaque terroriste avant les élections est désormais devenue un facteur admis de la campagne électorale, une sorte de chronique, si l’on veut, avec des alertes médiatiques répétitives ramenant l’intérêt sur le sujet. Il y a en plus l’évidence d’un establishment d’experts fonctionnant selon une logique interne basée sur une analyse catastrophique de la situation. (D’où l’espèce d’incongruité qu’il n’y ait pas eu encore d’attaque aux USA depuis le 11 septembre 2001 : « In fact, U.S. analysts are at a loss to explain why the homeland has thus far escaped such attacks… »)
Cette situation est d’autant plus mise en évidence que la position générale de GW Bush est mauvaise, que les événements en Irak sont extrêmement déstabilisants et préoccupants, ceci et cela poussant à rechercher un événement extérieur, un deus ex machina amenant un changement de fond en comble. (Il n’est même pas assuré que la population américaine elle-même ne souhaite pas, au fond d’elle-même, un événement qui, en la mettant à nouveau en position de victime, lui permettrait d’oublier tout ce qui, aujourd’hui, fait paraître les États-Unis comme coupables d’actes extrêmement dommageables.)
WSWS.org à nouveau :
« It is also an administration that confronts an intractable crisis. The revelations of torture of Iraqi prisoners have been met with worldwide revulsion. The administration’s Iraq policy is in shambles as the US occupation confronts the opposition of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. Support within the United States for the Bush administration is at an all-time low, even according to opinion polls that generally overestimate Bush’s popularity.
» On the economic front, the government faces the prospect of rising inflation spurred by escalating gasoline prices over the coming months. There is nothing more dangerous for the ruling elite than a political debacle combined with an economic crisis. And there is nothing more dangerous for the American people than a ruling class in panic.
(…)
» How will the Bush administration and the section of the ruling class that it represents—the most criminal and ruthless section—respond? A terrorist attack—engineered or allowed by the government—can by no means be ruled out.
» The quoted Washington official’s statement warning that the US “won’t be like Spain” [in the eventuality of a terrorist attack] can be interpreted in two ways. Either the Bush administration is determined to manipulate a terror attack to benefit the Republican Party in the elections, or it may use such an attack to call off the elections altogether. »
-
