Women’s rights? Bah…who needs ‘em

[Roland99]

http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/08/22/womens-rights-bahwho-needs-em/

I wonder how the Propagandist is going to spin *this* Flip-Flop!

Let’s take a short trip back into recent history. Specifically, about 18 months ago on March 14, 2004 when the Propagandist said this, “The advance of women’s rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable.”

Very profound words and some with which I actually agree. Let’s see what his Labor Secretary (Mrs. SonofaMitch McConnell, my “glorious” US Senator) Elaine Chao said just about a week before that, “The commitment of this administration to women’s rights in Iraq is unshakable.”

I wonder what the First Lady had to say about women’s right almost exactly a year after Mrs. McConnell’s…er…Ms. Chao’s…er….statement, “President Bush has made the advance of women’s human rights a global policy priority. … We all have an obligation to speak for women who are denied their rights to learn, to vote or to live in freedom.”

And, even the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said just a mere two weeks ago, “There can be no compromise on the principle that Iraqis can each have an equal role in the building of their country’s future without regard to their ethnic or religious background or gender.”

What was that again, Mr. Ambassador? “There can be no compromise on the principle….”

No compromise, eh? Strong words. And, one thing this administration has been is one that doesn’t “waver”.

Oh wait....

Conservative Shias, dominant in the Iraqi government, had clashed with Kurds and other minorities who wanted Islam to be “a” rather than “the” main source of law.

According to Kurdish and Sunni negotiators, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named “a primary source” and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance.

If approved, critics say that the proposals would erode women’s rights and other freedoms enshrined under existing laws. “We understand the Americans have sided with the Shias. It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit with American values,” an unnamed Kurdish negotiator told Reuters. “They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state.”

Dozens of women gathered in central Baghdad yesterday to protest against what the organiser, Yanar Mohammad, feared would be a “fascist, nationalist and Islamist” constitution. “We are fighting to avoid becoming second class citizens,” she said.

What was that about “no compromise”, Mr. Ambassador?

Umm…First Lady Laura? Any thoughts? How about you, Ms. Chao? Propagandist? Anything you want to add as the Asshole-in-Chief? No? Just more propaganda on a whirlwind tour of uber-red states?

Figures.

[redqueen]

1. We know the uber-rightwing wouldn't have it any other way.

Bastards.

[AtomicKitten]

5. You've got that right.

It's fundie lore that women should walk three paces behind the men. The Rs are not shocked by the fact that women have LOST their freedom in Iraq. That's restoring balance in their minds. Ironically, Iraq had probably the freest women in the middle east, but thanks to Bunnypants they've been liberated from their freedom. Praise the lord.

[redqueen]

6. Yup.

Heard an interesting bit of trivia the other day... women in Turkey got the right to vote before women here did. :o

[Eloriel]

2. And a PNACer weighs in

from yesterday's MTP:
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



Yep, democracy for men only is just peachy.

[rodeodance]

3. tell this jerk it is 2005 and we will not go back!!!!1

[Roland99]

4. But it's those brown-skinned non-christians.