Reuters’ Jonathan Wright puts “freedom” in scare quotes:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has alarmed many reformist Arabs with comments suggesting a new U.S. approach that promotes rapid political change without regard for internal stability. Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for “freedom” without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.
Then Wright goes on to quote several “liberal” Arab “academics” but blithely ignores the Lebanese street. Nevertheless, I’m sure Wright’s views are “accurate”. (via Reasonable Prudence)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
6 Comments
1. Bostonian:In addition to the interesting quotes (which are really doubt quotes, if-you-say-so quotes), we see a recurrence of this notion that wise minds would and should know what the exact outcome is.
(No matter what outcome this administration predicts, it won’t be precise enough. A wiser president and staff would have figured out all the details.)
The fact is, when you let people vote for the first time, that’s your first chance at finding out what they truly think. The outcome is uncertain by definition.
And a country ruled either directly by voters or more indirectly by representatives does not behave the same as a dictatorship. It’s messy, conflicted, and changes course.
That’s what’s scary to the naysayers. There’s no central authority to make everything right. The naysayers really do like the world better when all you have to consider is a handful of despots.
Mar 31, 2005 - 8:01 am 2. dougf:“This a very dangerous scheme. Anarchy will be out of control,”———-
As opposed to the fine art of ‘in-control’anarchy,so perfected by most of the current Middle-East regimes.Sure these countries may not really be ’states’at all,but at least they are stable.Give us another 200 years or so and we will get this under control without those ‘cowboys’looking under all the rocks.
Mar 31, 2005 - 8:36 am 3. ray_g:From the article “the Arab world would face the threat that societies and states could collapse completely”
He says that like it is a bad thing.
Seriously, would anarchy be worse than tyranny and/or kleptocracy? These folks also forget that from the U.S. view, if these governments are supporting terrorism, we really don’t care if they collapse. We have no interest in the stability of a state or society that supports or harbors terrorists.
Mar 31, 2005 - 9:18 am 4. Kyda Sylvester:Gee, I wasn’t aware that “freedom” required a “model”. And my goodness, since when do we ever “know” what the “outcome” will be?
My favorite quote is from the “liberal” Arab “diplomat” who assures us that “people” would rather live under undemocratic rule than in Iraqi-style “chaos”.
Lord deliver us from those who worship “stability” and the “status quo”.
Mar 31, 2005 - 1:07 pm 5. WichitaBoy:Kyda Sylvester,
…since when do we ever “know” what the “outcome” will be?
Indeed.
It is the very nature of life itself that we cannot know its outcome. Underneath all the gloss these people have a death wish.
Mar 31, 2005 - 1:37 pm 6. LarryD:Perhaps its’s past time we started refering to Reuters as a “news” service and people like Wright as “journalists”.
Mar 31, 2005 - 2:55 pm