Comments on: Most Reactionary Lede of the Day

By: LarryD

LarryD — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:55:49 +0000

Perhaps its’s past time we started refering to Reuters as a “news” service and people like Wright as “journalists”.

By: WichitaBoy

WichitaBoy — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:37:43 +0000

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.

By: Kyda Sylvester

Kyda Sylvester — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:07:02 +0000

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”.

By: ray_g

ray_g — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:18:53 +0000

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.

By: dougf

dougf — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:36:18 +0000

“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.

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:01:44 +0000

Washington would speak out for “freedom” without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.

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.