Self-Delete - Dupe

[RamboLiberal]

To this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4415996

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

[RamboLiberal]

1. I'm shamelessly giving this a kick - Important PNAC said this!

:kick:

[fooj]

2. Not shameless...NECESSARY!!!

Peace.:patriot:

[Mythsaje]

3. Kicked and nominated.

People need to see this.

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Too bad you're getting a 1400's theocracy.

[bluestateguy]

5. A 1900 "democracy"

So, women could not vote.

Racial segregation would be explicitly legal too. Let us not forget that the American "progressive" era was a golden age for racial segregation in the US, with laws establishing racial discrimination in public places and cumbersome voter registration restrictions in southern states that all but removed blacks from voting. In many ways black people were better off in the 1880's than they were in the first decade of the 20th century.

Also, a 1900 "democracy" would be a Gilded Age state with corporate power running almost totally unchecked, few labor laws, union busting and no environmental laws. Wealthy people would have almost full control over the political economy of the state.

Sorry, but to me that's just a dictatorship under new management, a reshuffling of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

[peacetalksforall]

6. I'm sure all the men checked with Danielle Platka of AEI and she said

no problem - women-no vote-let the clerics handle it - women can be sacrificed in order to get this 'constitution' written. We LOVE the 1900's around here anyway, though the 1600's would be even better - serfdom.

These people are enemies of the world and let me say it again - it is all in collusion with Israeli leaders. I wonder when the people are going to get it.

The U.S. needs to be neutral, but instead we have an extreme form of partnership being instituted and executed secretly by a few. Secretly - in that those who follow this and can read between the lines know, but the poor two and three job people don't know.

[bluestateguy]

7. THAT WOMAN

is a fucking cunt. She should be deported back to Australia NOW.

on edit: bitch has been replaced with the word cunt.