PNACer on MTP: "women's social rights are not critical to ... democracy"

[StefanX]

PNAC flunky on Meet the Press:

In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

via Atrios, 21 Aug 2005

So we're going to spend a 1.3 trillion dollars and kill thousands of people in order to find WMDs in order to establish democracy in order to create another women-hating Islamic republic. That's the noble cause!

More info here:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_digbysblog_archive.html#112464812775510764

Apparently the neocon who said this was AEI and PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht. Here's what Digby has to say about the mess we brought to Iraq:

Getting Off the Bus (-Digby)

Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives.

...

The country is on the verge of civil war. Chaos reigns. Daily life is dangerous and uncomfortable.

It simply cannot be heroic for the richest, most powerful democratic country on earth to claim the mantle of liberator only to create a government that makes more than half the population second class citizens and forces the entire country live in conditions that are less free and more dangerous than before.

It is certainly not acceptable for that country to take any credit for spreading freedom. Creating an Islamic theocracy is anything but noble. It is a moral failure of epic proportions.

-- DigbysBlog, 21 Aug 2005

[kestrel91316]

1. ............... which is why we women in the US feel "oh-so-safe".

When your own government does not believe your rights matter, be afraid. BE VERY AFRAID.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. The Dominionists would like THIS country to go back to the 1900s democracy

as would the corporatists.... and the neocons and fundies would not put up a big fight either.

[Wind Dancer]

23. The Dominionists are a scary group.

We will be experiencing the Salem Witch Trials all over again.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. You can bet on it, if they have their way.....

[Wind Dancer]

25. This article is heartbreaking.

Iraq's Second-Class Citizens
Yifat Susskind
August 18, 2005


This week’s constitutional crisis in Baghdad demonstrates again that the Bush administration’s drive to recreate the Middle East in its own image is producing theocracy, not democracy, in Iraq. On Bush’s watch, Iraq’s once-secular government has been delivered to religious parties (Dawa and the Prime Minister’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) that want Iraq to be ruled by Islamic law. In the provinces they control (which make up roughly half the country), Islamists have already imposed severe restrictions on the rights of women and religious minorities. Now, they are fighting to ensure that Iraq’s new constitution paves the way for the creation of an Islamic state.

Like religious fundamentalists in the United States and around the world, these parties use religion as a means of asserting a reactionary political agenda that begins with the subjugation of women within the family. That’s why the first battle over the new constitution concerns family status laws governing marriage, divorce and women's inheritance and property rights. The Islamists are pushing to replace Iraq’s current statutes—among the most progressive in the Middle East—with language that would subordinate women’s human rights to arbitrary interpretations of Islamic law.

The Bush administration bears direct responsibility for this crisis. Prior to the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Iraqi women in exile warned that religious extremists would step into any political vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But rather than support Iraq’s formidable women’s movement and other democratic forces, the United States chose the politically expedient route of courting right-wing extremists. In summer 2003, Bush appointee Paul Bremmer—who headed the U.S. administration in Iraq—hand-picked several reactionary Muslim clerics to sit on the Iraqi Governing Council, empowering leaders with a stated commitment to restricting women's rights. Then, in the period leading up to this year’s election of the National Assembly, Bremer derailed a series of demands by Iraqi women's organizations, including calls to create a women's ministry; appoint women to the drafting committee of Iraq's interim constitution; guarantee that 40 percent of U.S. appointees were women; and pass laws codifying women's rights and criminalizing domestic violence, which has skyrocketed under U.S. occupation.

The administration’s decision to trade women's rights for support from religious conservatives has left Iraqi women worse off today under U.S. occupation then they were under the notoriously repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. The Ba'ath Party utilized women's rights only to consolidate its own power. Yet, for all its brutality, Saddam Hussein’s government guaranteed women’s rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, equal pay for equal work and universal day care, as well as the rights to inherit and own property, choose their own husbands, vote and hold public office. Ironically, these fundamental rights stand to be abolished in an Iraq “liberated” by the United States in the name of (among other things) promoting democracy.

more

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050818/iraqs_secondc...

[Roland99]

34. It's the Mises Effect in action.

Intervening in a situation that was already the result of a prior intervention will often have the opposite desired effect.

[kestrel91316]

28. No, the Dominionists want to take us back to the 1ST century.

[Frances]

2. Great job of summarizing why we are in Iraq

nt

[MrModerate]

3. If there is a stupider statement than . . .

"Women's rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy," I haven't heard it.

If you needed any more proof how wicked and ignorant these rightwing twits are, here you go.

This quote needs to get out to the right people -- ya know, like women? In particular, women who have supported the Bush war up to now.

They're sending their sons, daughters, and husbands to die so some cleric can have free reign to oppress their sisters in Baghdad?

[BrklynLiberal]

4. That is exactly what that blonde zombie said on Bill Maher Friday night.

This must be the new talking point to justify the lack of womens rights in the new Iraqi "Democracy".

Get ready to hear this crap word-for-word from all the RW media talking heads.

[AnnInLa]

10. "Lowering Expectations"

They're gonna be workin' like hell to lower those expectations for the sheeple....then claim victory. And, ya know what? The sheeple will buy it, because they wanted a little war...9/11 made them blood-thirsty...Mexican or Canadian blood would have done just as well.

[Inland]

5. We die to bring Iraq into the 1900s democracy. Hooray.

Just think, a less democratically inclined neocon would have been satisfied with the vote being withheld to free white male landowners.

[JohnnyBoots]

12. The USA is pretty much a do over of the gilded age right now

[AnnInLa]

6. Wonder how U. S. female soldiers feel about that statement?

[eleny]

7. And then the DLC will prompt Dems to put Roberts in the SCOTUS

PNAC & DLC make a good couple. But that begs the question - A couple of what???

[fishnfla]

8. attn PNAC flunky : Islamic theocracy will never=democracy

what a rube!

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Nominate this. It deserves more attention..

[Nite Owl]

13. Since it's ok for certain groups

no to have rights let's make it men that don't have the rights! Not advocating that but just imagine the uproar.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4409302&mesg_id=4409761

[okieinpain]

16. yeah, try taking away the pnac's gun. I could believe it when he

said that shit, and then the host looks into the camera and goes "that's all the time we have for this show".

[jimshoes]

15. Didn't preznit dumbya

dribble something about a democracy is judged on how it treats its women?

[The2ndWheel]

17. Quite true

"If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled"

Depends on who he means by "all". I'm guessing he means that people that run this country, not the rabble. He kept it generalized enough to not say that though. So hats off to him for that one.

1900 America; women had no rights, black people weren't considered human, no worker rights, no regulation, just beginning to expand the empire across oceans...what a beautiful time, what a beautiful time indeed.

[Kurovski]

18. Oh, brother!

It's either a Democracy or it's not.

That guy is talking about a patriarchy.

[AnnInLa]

19. Wolcott has it up

The Shame Game
Posted by James Wolcott

snip

Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21: "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there, I think they will be there, but I think we need to keep this perspective."

So those who think this war isn't worth fighting are shameful because of their craven indifference to women's rights while one of the leading neocon architects of the very war that Simon champions--and not just any architect, but a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Director of the Middle East Initiative for the Project for the New American Century--isn't that concerned that a new Iraq constitution might roll back and restrict women's freedoms, subjecting them to Islamic law.

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

Why am I reminded of George's boss Kruger on Seinfeld, who shrugged off every crisis with, "I'm not too worried about it"?

Simon has been conned by his new comrades, which is no excuse for conning his readers, whose gullibility could fill a pelican's pouch. Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. If neocons have to choose between women's rights or permanent US military bases in Iraq, it'll be, "Burkas are a small price to pay for democracy. Besides, black is so fashionably slimming!"
08.21.05 2:27PM

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/08/the_shame_game.php

[niallmac]

20. I can't even sort thru all the swear words in my head

to make a sentence. Thousands dead. Women in Burkas. Torture prisons now run by US!
Good job ass hat.

[bobbieinok]

21. 'when women have access to education, the economy and the country

improve'

this was the generally accepted opinion (backed by many studies) after the women's movement of the 60s and 70s......

but, hey, women and scholarship have no place in modern US under bushco,.......right?????

[Warren Stupidity]

22. You have to understand the neoliberal/neocon mindset.

'Democracy' means that corporations, especially transnational corporations, especially OUR transnational corporations, are allowed to do their thing unfettered by annoying government regulations. This whole voting/enfranchisement thing is so 20th century.

[jp4peace]

26. theocracy, just like Iran, and for what?

the oc ra cy....

government by Priests claiming to rule with divine authority

just like Iran, and at what cost?

All thanks to the NeoCONs and the Project for a New American Century.

BRING THEM HOME NOW!

iT GETS MUCH, MUCH, WORSE, BEFORE IT WILL EVER GET BETTER.

uNTIL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STOP HAVING BLIND FAITH

AND AT WHAT COST. HOW MANY BRAVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS WAS THIS WORTH?

What did Iran have to do with getting us into this WAR in the first place?

[newyawker99]

27. Hi jp4peace!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jp4peace]

36. Thank U, The oc ra cy government by priests calming to rule

with divine authority.

Another Iran. And at what cost....

This peace movement needs to start talking about each spirit path found to peace.

Cindy has shown the way.

A mother who has lost a wonderful Son.

We all need to stand up and tell our spirit path to peace.

It is the Common Good we must find in this Nation now.

And when we do. Love and light will find a way for Peace

To silence Hate and Fear

The Iraq people have their own problems. They are not going to be anything like us, anytime soon.

Let me find their own spirit path to peace?

Is it being shown now? By anyone over there.

We can not help people who will not help themselves.

The cost is already, far, far, to high.

Let them search for the common good on their own.

Give them back their country and let them decide what they will and will not do. It is none of our business in the first place.

They would rather fight to the death than have their laws, religion and rights effected by anyone from anywhere.

We may not agree with their customs, however is that our business either.

Who made us judge and jury over them?

And so years later it comes to this, another Iran, at what cost?

[Lisa]

29. if he thinks 1900 is so peachy-keen ...

As soon as we develop time travel, let's send him back there. Of course, he'd have to experience it as a woman, visible minority, or poor person, so he could enjoy the delights of being barred from higher-paying jobs, the danger of lynchings, union-bashing, death due to lack of access to health care, etc.

It's the 21st century. The Iraqi people deserve something way better.

I've noticed that the only people who go on about how great the good old days were are those who weren't around back prior to WWII to see what things were really like -- or those who were sheltered/not paying attention to what most people had to go through.

[jbnow]

37. No...since we can't do time travel now

I say we strip men here of their rights for a few decades. There are many men I think highly of, but I'm not sure they are essential to a democracy.

Women under direction of the Goddess will tell them what to wear, who they can speak to and when, we will own the property, but they can trust us to know what is best for them, praise Goddess.

I'm sure we will see less war, more social justice, less crime. I mean I would like men to have rights, that would be nice, but it just isn't essential. If we don't strip them from all men we should at least those men who are not concerned about the women in Iraq. And I'm sure there'd agree, no big deal.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

30. Slaves' rights weren't critical to the evolution of "democracy" either

...the "democracy" of land-owning white males, that is.

[RamboLiberal]

31. Yep this guy is definitely a PNAC'er

I posted this before I noticed this thread:

MR. GREGORY: Fast forward to this morning. Gentlemen, we put this on the screen from The New York Times. " Khalilzad had backed language that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. ... that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state."

Mr. Diamond, is that a change of position?

MR. DIAMOND: It would be, I think, a substantial change if it's true. We need to wait and see what exactly is true. All of these are just reports. Let me say, I don't think we have--and I think Reuel would agree with this--we don't have the power anymore to foreclose this, to veto this. We're not a veto player there anymore. But neither do I think the United States should be endorsing it. And I think our clear stand should be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, as vigorously as possible. So I hope the ambassador on the ground is standing up for that principle.

MR. GREGORY: Mr. Gerecht, the consequences of this?

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/

James Wolcott on this:

So those who think this war isn't worth fighting are shameful because of their craven indifference to women's rights while one of the leading neocon architects of the very war that Simon champions--and not just any architect, but a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Director of the Middle East Initiative for the Project for the New American Century--isn't that concerned that a new Iraq constitution might roll back and restrict women's freedoms, subjecting them to Islamic law.

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

Why am I reminded of George's boss Kruger on Seinfeld, who shrugged off every crisis with, "I'm not too worried about it"?

Simon has been conned by his new comrades, which is no excuse for conning his readers, whose gullibility could fill a pelican's pouch. Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. If neocons have to choose between women's rights or permanent US military bases in Iraq, it'll be, "Burkas are a small price to pay for democracy. Besides, black is so fashionably slimming!"

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/08/the_shame_game.php

Note How Meet the Press introduced Gerecht - no mention of PNAC.

And we're back and joined by former Middle East specialist for the CIA, Reuel Marc Gerecht. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/

Note who he really is:

Reuel Marc Gerecht is the Director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for the New American Century and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is recently a contributor to Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign Policy (Editors Robert Kagan & William Kristol; Encounter Books, 2000) and is the author under the pseudonym of Edward Shirley of Know Thine Enemy: A Spy's Journey into Revolutionary Iran (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1997). A former Middle Eastern specialist in the CIA, Mr. Gerecht writes frequently on the Middle East, Central Asia, terrorism, and intelligence, in such publications as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Middle East Quarterly, Playboy, and Talk.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/reuelmarcgerechtbio.htm

[Cocoa]

32. why stop at 1900?

why not go back a mere half-century further, the neocons could justify slavery in New Iraq.

[Gay Green]

33. It's not just women who are being set back in "The New Iraq"

http://www.washblade.com/2005/8-19/news/national/iraq.cfm

The ones being worst off will be the lesbian and bisexual women, not that gay men would be enjoying a picnic. :mad:

Gay Iraqi laments life after invasion
Americans form gay support group in Baghdad

By EARTHA JANE MELZER
Friday, August 19, 2005

As the drafters of the new Iraqi constitution debate the role of religious law, Salam Pax, the gay Iraqi blogger who became internationally known through his postings about life in Iraq during the war, told the Blade that conditions have worsened for gays in the country since the United States invaded.

Salam said that gays in Iraq have no rights and are seen as, “lower in status than sewer rats.”

An architect by training, Salam worked as a translator for an American journalist during the war. He began his blog to keep in touch with his friend, who had moved to Jordan to pursue a master’s degree. After gaining international fame as a writer, he covered the 2004 U.S. presidential election for the British Guardian newspaper. But since then, his voice has not been heard much on the Internet.

“Being ignored and not acknowledged is for me much better than being actively persecuted by a religiously zealous government,” he said.

“The previous regime didn’t actively persecute gay men, and we never got to the point where men were hanged like in Iran, but if you got accused if engaging in homosexual acts then get something like five months in prison which, as we know, is never going to be a pleasant thing in Iraq.”

Criminalizing homosexuality?

Shiite religious groups have come to play a far more prominent role in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship.

“There is now a real struggle to keep the demands of the religious extremists in check, to make sure that Iraqis are not denied basic human rights in the name of abiding to religious laws,” Salam said. “It is way too early for us to even think about gay rights. I want to make sure I will have the right to shave my beard and wear a tie if I want to.”

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan history professor who has been following the development of the new Iraqi constitution on his blog “Informed Comment” confirmed Salam’s concerns.

“I very much doubt the constitution will give rights to gays,” Cole said via e-mail. “If it enshrines Islamic law, in fact, being gay could be a capital crime.”

There are no political support groups for gays and no political party sees any benefit in mentioning gays in a positive or negative way, Salam said. Public discussion of gay issues is generally limited to discussion in the newspapers of how disgusting gays are and what type of punishment is appropriate for gay behavior.

The only group that has voiced an opinion about gay rights for Iraqis, Salam said, is the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, which is affiliated with the Iraqi Worker’s Socialist Party, “and they have never mentioned this inside Iraq because as progressive as they are in demanding women’s rights, they know that supporting same-sex relationships is a bit too progressive.”

Many high-level members of the government are eager to have religious law enshrined in the new constitution, said Farida Deif, researcher for the women’s rights division of Human Rights Watch said. Everywhere that conservative religious law has been written into a constitution, Deif added, it has codified inequality and discrimination.

“The question is, is Islamic law going to be a source of legislation or is it going to be the source of legislation,” Deif said.

Since the adoption of the Code of Personal Status in 1959, Iraq’s family law has been fairly secular, Deif said.

Zaid A. Zaid, a gay American, worked in Iraq as a liaison between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Counsel between February and April of last year. Zaid said that his experience as an openly gay man in Iraq was a positive one.

Zaid said inside the Green Zone, the three square mile area guarded by American troops, he encountered other openly gay government workers, closeted U.S. service members and National Guard troops, and closeted gay civilians who had previously worked for Republicans in Washington.

Working in the Green Zone is stressful, Zaid said, with most people working 13 or 14-hour days and nothing to do but sleep during down time.

“It’s not like there were many opportunities for dating or anything else.”

Gay group for Baghdad Embassy

Those who deal with issues relating to being gay or lesbian while working with the embassy in Baghdad now have a new resource to help them.

According to the August newsletter of Gays & Lesbians In Foreign Affairs Agencies, the gay and lesbian employees of Embassy Baghdad have formed a support group.

The GLIFAA newsletter reports that agent Tim Lunardi initially approached post management about supporting June Pride events within the embassy community.

“Unfortunately, post decided not to support Pride events, due to management’s desire not to disturb State’s relationship with military colleagues by raising such an ‘emotional’ issue,” he said.

A subsequent request by Lunardi to create and advertise a gay and lesbian support group did win approval, the GLIFAA newsletter reports, and the group held its first meeting July 30.

MORE INFO

U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
Mailing address:
APO/FPO: APO AE 09316

Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies
P.O. Box 18774
Washington, DC 20036-8774
[e-mail]
www.glifaa.org

[wli]

35. which of these hasn't been proposed by neocons for the US? n/t

[rodeodance]

40. sad day for these groups in Irag (and the US --who shows they will NOT

fight for the ideals of ALL people!!).

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

38. Hey thanks you AEI mole!

This isn't Ariel Sharon's palace, you dolt. We take our democracy seriously. :mad:

[Hekate]

39. Easy for him to say...

... and I say there has GOT to be a special place in Hell for him and his pals in this maladmin.

Not enough swear words to do this justice.

Hekate

[Skidmore]

41. Wait till the PNACer in Chief gives his sales pitch this week,

which will include plenty of references to the amazing fact that women can now vote and go to school--just for starters.

[SoCalDem]

42. "It's really All About the Women" (redux) (265+ posts' worth)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4067158

SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-10-05 07:42 PM
Original message
It's really all about the women.
Radical Islam, The Taliban, The Religious Right, The African(Darfur) "Troubles".

The (mis)treatmment of women by any society is the measure OF that society.

In days gone by, societies were closed off and people didn't know what was happening a village away. Modern life has brought the whole world into their living rooms. Cloistered women in locked-down societies can now see that other women are treated better than they are, and they don't like it.

Even in western society, women have only been "equal" for under 100 years. Some would say that even now, in America, women are not equal...and they would be right, BUT women have it much better here (as a group) than anywhere else.

This is what is scaring the militant males of the world. Whether they are Taliban, Islamic, African..whatever.. they fear the rise of women, because it means they will lose power.

For centuries, males have been able to use females, and discard them at will.

Western culture frowns on this, and in order for non-westerners to be accepted, they must stop mistreating women.. They are not willing to do this. They want nothing to do with modernity if it means their women will stop obeying them.Nothing we say or do to them will change their minds...and they ARE willing to kill to preserve THEIR way of life.

In the US, we may not have honor killings" and arranged marriages, but women are still kept under the thumbs of men...and if the religious right has their way here, women will retreat to the sanctity of the kitchen and the car pool.

Women are the majority, but we have yet to act like it...

[Hubert Flottz]

43. "But I think we need to put this into perspective."

The PNAC wants to let the Iraqi version of the Taliban take charge of the PNAC's "Operation Noble Cause/Bullsh*t"("democracy")

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Texas Taliban/Fundie Div., counts it's blessings and divides the loot...

BTW...The Texas Taliban views mom, baby sis, the girl next door and grandma, as beasts of burden and second class citizens, much like the Talibans everywhere do. Mullah Foulwill and Mullah Dodson can splain it all, if you tune in.

You may Contact Mullah Dobson at:
Focus on Fatema, 24/7