<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Et de 8 !</title>
	<atom:link href="http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/</link>
	<description>J'ai vécu aux Etats-Unis, en Pennsylvanie sur le campus de Pennstate University, de janvier 2003 à novembre 2005. J'ai témoigné grâce à ce blog et vous invite à consulter les archives de cette période. De retour en France, je continue à m'intéresser à ce fabuleux pays.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:11:35 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jérôme</title>
		<link>http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11147</link>
		<dc:creator>Jérôme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11147</guid>
		<description>Jean-Philippe,
Ce ne sont que des généraux à la retraite, évidemment. Ceux qui sont en activité ne doivent pas avoir la même liberté de parole, sans aucun doute.

Mais ça ajoute à l&#039;atmosphère pesante autour de Rumsfeld, d&#039;autant que c&#039;est Fox News qui apporte l&#039;info. Serait-ce un réglement compte interne chez les républicains ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jean-Philippe,<br />
Ce ne sont que des généraux à la retraite, évidemment. Ceux qui sont en activité ne doivent pas avoir la même liberté de parole, sans aucun doute.</p>
<p>Mais ça ajoute à l&#8217;atmosphère pesante autour de Rumsfeld, d&#8217;autant que c&#8217;est Fox News qui apporte l&#8217;info. Serait-ce un réglement compte interne chez les républicains ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11146</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11146</guid>
		<description>A voir aussi la (re)charge de The Economist contre Rumsfeld (il avait déjà demandé sa démission lors de l&#039;affaire Abu Ghraib) dans l&#039;éditorial Lexington intitulé &quot;Time for him to go&quot; 

Morceaux choisis par mes soins:
&quot;There is now widespread agreement on what he got wrong. His biggest mistake—the fons et origo of all the others—was to try to fight the war with too few troops. His second-biggest was to make no proper provision for restoring order afterwards. But there is no shortage of other mistakes. Mr Rumsfeld misread the intelligence in the build-up to the war, and much of it was simply wrong in any case. He failed to plan for the occupation. He ignored the growing insurgency. He disbanded the Iraqi army, scattering 300,000 armed and unemployed men into the population. The more interesting question is why he messed up so comprehensively.
The most obvious reason, of course, is arrogance.
[...]
The biggest reason that Mr Rumsfeld made such a mess of things was that he was fighting the wrong war.His greatest passion was to “transform” the lumbering old army into a much lighter and more flexible force, and he seized on Iraq as a perfect opportunity to demonstrate it. In a few short weeks, American troops victoriously took Baghdad—but then failed completely to impose control and end the violence.
[...]The tragedy of Mr Rumsfeld is that his vices are the flip side of his virtues. He was right that the American armed forces had barely woken up to the end of the cold war. He was right that the Pentagon bureaucracy is one of the most reactionary in the world. And he was right that, with very precise air-strikes based on good intelligence, minimum muscle could be used in modern warfare. But Mr Rumsfeld ended up suffering from the very problem that he saw in his critics: a failure to adjust his thinking to new circumstances. He allowed “transformation” to distract attention from the war (army officers accuse him of “trying to fix the car while the engine&#039;s running”). And he mistook criticism as a sign of bureaucratic resistance. 


Et le meilleur pour la fin...;)
&quot;But this is a tragedy that America can no longer tolerate&quot;
&quot;Mr Bush made a huge mistake in not accepting Mr Rumsfeld&#039;s offer to resign in the wake of Abu Ghraib. Every day he keeps him in his job he compounds his mistake and weakens his presidency. &quot;


ouch !Rumsfeld au tapis! Karl fais quelquechose!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A voir aussi la (re)charge de The Economist contre Rumsfeld (il avait déjà demandé sa démission lors de l&#8217;affaire Abu Ghraib) dans l&#8217;éditorial Lexington intitulé &#8220;Time for him to go&#8221; </p>
<p>Morceaux choisis par mes soins:<br />
&#8220;There is now widespread agreement on what he got wrong. His biggest mistake—the fons et origo of all the others—was to try to fight the war with too few troops. His second-biggest was to make no proper provision for restoring order afterwards. But there is no shortage of other mistakes. Mr Rumsfeld misread the intelligence in the build-up to the war, and much of it was simply wrong in any case. He failed to plan for the occupation. He ignored the growing insurgency. He disbanded the Iraqi army, scattering 300,000 armed and unemployed men into the population. The more interesting question is why he messed up so comprehensively.<br />
The most obvious reason, of course, is arrogance.<br />
[...]<br />
The biggest reason that Mr Rumsfeld made such a mess of things was that he was fighting the wrong war.His greatest passion was to “transform” the lumbering old army into a much lighter and more flexible force, and he seized on Iraq as a perfect opportunity to demonstrate it. In a few short weeks, American troops victoriously took Baghdad—but then failed completely to impose control and end the violence.<br />
[...]The tragedy of Mr Rumsfeld is that his vices are the flip side of his virtues. He was right that the American armed forces had barely woken up to the end of the cold war. He was right that the Pentagon bureaucracy is one of the most reactionary in the world. And he was right that, with very precise air-strikes based on good intelligence, minimum muscle could be used in modern warfare. But Mr Rumsfeld ended up suffering from the very problem that he saw in his critics: a failure to adjust his thinking to new circumstances. He allowed “transformation” to distract attention from the war (army officers accuse him of “trying to fix the car while the engine&#8217;s running”). And he mistook criticism as a sign of bureaucratic resistance. </p>
<p>Et le meilleur pour la fin&#8230;;)<br />
&#8220;But this is a tragedy that America can no longer tolerate&#8221;<br />
&#8220;Mr Bush made a huge mistake in not accepting Mr Rumsfeld&#8217;s offer to resign in the wake of Abu Ghraib. Every day he keeps him in his job he compounds his mistake and weakens his presidency. &#8221;</p>
<p>ouch !Rumsfeld au tapis! Karl fais quelquechose!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jean-Philippe</title>
		<link>http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11141</link>
		<dc:creator>Jean-Philippe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11141</guid>
		<description>8 generaux sur ... combien en service ?
500 ? 600 ?

Bon y a un peu de marge encore ..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>8 generaux sur &#8230; combien en service ?<br />
500 ? 600 ?</p>
<p>Bon y a un peu de marge encore ..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dorothée</title>
		<link>http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11133</link>
		<dc:creator>Dorothée</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidetheusa.net/2006/04/24/et-de-8/#comment-11133</guid>
		<description>si au moins, il pouvait debarquer Cheney et Rumsfeld d&#039;un coup, ca ferait du bien... Apres Karl Rove... Suivant !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>si au moins, il pouvait debarquer Cheney et Rumsfeld d&#8217;un coup, ca ferait du bien&#8230; Apres Karl Rove&#8230; Suivant !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
