Reply
Sat 13 Aug, 2005 10:52 am
August 13, 2005
Reformer Without Results
By MAUREEN DOWD
New York Times
President Bush has done so much for women. Not at home, of course.
Women in jeans in America may have their rights eroded by an administration where faith trumps science, but women in burkas? The president can't talk enough about how important their rights are.
And in the administration's diplomacy-free foreign policy, five of its top spokesmen on the Muslim world are women: Condi Rice; Laura Bush; Liz Cheney, No. 2 in the Near East bureau of the State Department and head of the Middle East democracy project; Karen Hughes, the new under secretary of state for public diplomacy; and her deputy, Dina Powell.
W. thinks so highly of Ms. Hughes, his longtime Texas political nanny, spinner, speechwriter and ghostwriter, that he put his Lima Green Bean, as he called her when she prodded him about the environment, in charge of the critical effort to salvage America's horrendous image in the Islamic world - even though what she knows about Islam could fit in a lima green bean. Why get any Muslims involved in reaching out to Muslims? That would be so matchy.
The real role for the newly minted ambassador hasn't been defined yet, but so far it looks as if Ms. Hughes's first priority will be to take her spinning skills, honed for W. in 2000 and 2004, to improve his image, and his policies' image, on a global scale.
Just as she retooled Bush as "a reformer with results" and a "compassionate conservative," Ms. Hughes plans to inundate Muslims with the four E's: "engagement, exchanges, education and empowerment."
On Thursday, when Mr. Bush came out of his Crawford ranch with Ms. Rice - it was odd, if refreshing, to see a secretary of state wearing lilac - he once again justified the war in Iraq by talking about the treatment of women.
The way to defeat our enemies' "hateful ideology," he said, is to offer an ideology "that says to young girls, you can succeed in your society, and you should have a chance to do so." He also said, "Hopefully, the drafters of the constitution understand our strong belief that women ought to be treated equally in the Iraqi society."
Hopefully? Is that the best we can do for a country that we broke, own and are sacrificing young men and women every day to keep?
Americans like it when the president talks up women's rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he does it often. It helped him sell the invasions of those two countries. But W. should stop listening to "My Sharona" on his iPod and start listening to their Sharia.
The fundamentalist Taliban is recrudescing in Afghanistan, young girls in Iraq are afraid to leave their homes because there are so many kidnappings and rapes, and women's groups in Iraq are terrified that the new constitution will cut women's rights to a Saudiesque level.
Some Shiite politicians are pushing to supplant the civil courts that have long governed marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance with religious courts that are based on Sharia, or Islamic law. The New York Times reported that one of the crucial articles in various drafts of the constitution is: "The followers of any sect or religion have the right to abide by their religion or sect in their personal affairs, and a law should organize this."
That little provision could jeopardize any chance for women's equality. Clerics running religious courts based on the Koran could legitimize polygamy, honor killings, stonings and public beheadings of women charged with adultery, and divorce by "talaq" - where all a husband has to do is declare, "I divorce thee," three times.
Saddam repressed Islamic politics, so under him, Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. It has become far more fundamentalist since the U.S. took over.
The back-to-burka trend has been widely reported throughout Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, and young women activists told The Los Angeles Times that their mothers had more freedom in the 60's.
Najla Ubeidi, a lawyer in the Iraqi Women's League, agreed: "During the 1960's, there was a real belief in improving women's conditions. We could wear what we liked, go out when we liked, return home when we liked, and people would judge us by the way we behaved."
If W. liked exercising his mind as much as his body, he could see that his mission to modernize Muslim countries is backfiring on women. The most painless way for Muslim men to prove that they have not abandoned Arab culture and adopted Western ways is to tighten the burka.
To us, the "liberated" but repressive Iraq is a paradox. To the women, it's a prison.
I guess free elections mean nothing. Not to mention that people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics and the ability to protest when ever they wish.
Baldimo wrote:I guess free elections mean nothing. Not to mention that people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics and the ability to protest when ever they wish.
Kinda like the freedom to protest and freedom to "have a voice" like Cindy Sheehan?
Haven't noticed you jump to her defense anywhere
in the other thread.
You conveniently support individual rights so long as they fit neatly into your little square box.
candidone1 wrote:Baldimo wrote:I guess free elections mean nothing. Not to mention that people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics and the ability to protest when ever they wish.
Kinda like the freedom to protest and freedom to "have a voice" like Cindy Sheehan?
Haven't noticed you jump to her defense anywhere
in the other thread.
You conveniently support individual rights so long as they fit neatly into your little square box.
She's been allowed to protest hasn't she? Did they remove her from where she has been?
Baldimo wrote:candidone1 wrote:Baldimo wrote:I guess free elections mean nothing. Not to mention that people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics and the ability to protest when ever they wish.
Kinda like the freedom to protest and freedom to "have a voice" like Cindy Sheehan?
Haven't noticed you jump to her defense anywhere
in the other thread.
You conveniently support individual rights so long as they fit neatly into your little square box.
She's been allowed to protest hasn't she? Did they remove her from where she has been?
I'm not talking about any "they".
I'm here referring directly to you. You trumpet the hypothesis of newfound Iraqi freedoms and allude to these freedoms as an integral part of the new Iraq, yet you are critical of a women in America exercising her constitutional right to stage a peaceful protest...and write it off as grandstanding.
Hypocrite.
candidone1 wrote:Baldimo wrote:candidone1 wrote:Baldimo wrote:I guess free elections mean nothing. Not to mention that people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics and the ability to protest when ever they wish.
Kinda like the freedom to protest and freedom to "have a voice" like Cindy Sheehan?
Haven't noticed you jump to her defense anywhere
in the other thread.
You conveniently support individual rights so long as they fit neatly into your little square box.
She's been allowed to protest hasn't she? Did they remove her from where she has been?
I'm not talking about any "they".
I'm here referring directly to you. You trumpet the hypothesis of newfound Iraqi freedoms and allude to these freedoms as an integral part of the new Iraq, yet you are critical of a women in America exercising her constitutional right to stage a peaceful protest...and write it off as grandstanding.
Hypocrite.
Did I ever say she couldn't be there? I disagree with her and think she is using her dead son as a political tool. I never said she shouldn't be there. There is a difference. Try to learn it before you accuse me of anything.
[quote="Baldimo]
Did I ever say she couldn't be there? I disagree with her and think she is using her dead son as a political tool. I never said she shouldn't be there. There is a difference. Try to learn it before you accuse me of anything.[/quote]
You origianl post stated that
Quote: people no longer have to fear having a voice when it comes to politics
Sheehan's issue is political and it is emotional. You have a blatent disregard for the Sheehan message because the message itself is like bile on the tongue...and you therefore seek to discredit her discourse.
....but as long as she doesn't fear protesting...
Quote:Showing the value of its nearly round-the-clock coverage, the Lone Star Iconoclast, a weekly in Crawford, Texas, reported this morning from the scene that shots had been fired near the Cindy Sheehan antiwar encampment near the Bush ranch, which has drawn national attention.
Source
It's rather naive and shortsighted to start blowing the freedom horn in Iraq when this occurs in your own backyard.
candidone1:
Quote:Sheehan's issue is political and it is emotional. You have a blatent disregard for the Sheehan message because the message itself is like bile on the tongue...and you therefore seek to discredit her discourse.
I disagree with her. I never said she should be tortured and thrown in jail. Do I have the right to disagree with her and express my own opinions on why she is there? Do you seek to silence me?
Quote:....but as long as she doesn't fear protesting...
Has she been removed? Has she been told by the govt or a police force to leave?
Quote:It's rather naive and shortsighted to start blowing the freedom horn in Iraq when this occurs in your own backyard.
She is free to do as she wishes as long as she doesn't break the law.
EDIT: silly remark deleted.
Baldimo wrote:
I disagree with her. I never said she should be tortured and thrown in jail. Do I have the right to disagree with her and express my own opinions on why she is there? Do you seek to silence me?
I just find it odd that given the ridicule and hostilities from certain conservatives surrounding the Sheehan ordeal you have the audacity to think that a future Sharian state would tolerate an infinitesimal equivalent in Iraq.
....and easy Commando, I don't wish to silence you. I just don't think you pay much ttention to the news. Even with this little pseudo-Iraqi puppet government on it's strings, she'd be blown to bits.
candidone1 wrote:Baldimo wrote:
I disagree with her. I never said she should be tortured and thrown in jail. Do I have the right to disagree with her and express my own opinions on why she is there? Do you seek to silence me?
I just find it odd that given the ridicule and hostilities from certain conservatives surrounding the Sheehan ordeal you have the audacity to think that a future Sharian state would tolerate an infinitesimal equivalent in Iraq.
....and easy Commando, I don't wish to silence you. I just don't think you pay much ttention to the news. Even with this little pseudo-Iraqi puppet government on it's strings, she'd be blown to bits.
Politically the people are better off now then they were.
The soldier's mother is a totally different story. Did you hear that her husband has filed for divorce? Wonder how much it had to do with the current situation.
How many times does Sheehan expect the President to make time to see her and listen to her?
How many times will she lie about what she thought of the first visit?
She's delusional. Her family is embarrassed at how she has become a pawn of the left and is insulting her son's service. She likes the spotlight. I've seen some of her contrived photo ops.
Lash wrote:How many times does Sheehan expect the President to make time to see her and listen to her?
How many times will she lie about what she thought of the first visit?
She's delusional. Her family is embarrassed at how she has become a pawn of the left and is insulting her son's service. She likes the spotlight. I've seen some of her contrived photo ops.
I have to agree that it has become somewhat of a circus...though I have to say that she has evolved, and has allowed this ordeal to evolve into this circus.
The circus is now a full fledged anti-war protest enacted in the name of her son, brought about by the death of her son...whatever you make of her philosophical redirect.
At any rate, she is capitalizing on and bringing to the surface what more than half of the US feels--that this war was an assinine endeavor from jump.
candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:How many times does Sheehan expect the President to make time to see her and listen to her?
How many times will she lie about what she thought of the first visit?
She's delusional. Her family is embarrassed at how she has become a pawn of the left and is insulting her son's service. She likes the spotlight. I've seen some of her contrived photo ops.
I have to agree that it has become somewhat of a circus...though I have to say that she has evolved, and has allowed this ordeal to evolve into this circus.
The circus is now a full fledged anti-war protest enacted in the name of her son, brought about by the death of her son...whatever you make of her philosophical redirect.
At any rate, she is capitalizing on and bringing to the surface what more than half of the US feels--that this war was an assinine endeavor from jump.
She wants the troops in essence to surrender. She feels that if they come home everything will be ok and it won't. It will only encourage others to do the same thing in the future. Kind of how Clinton did nothing about terrorism and only kept backing away and then we get hit with 9-11. Weakness only encourages these people and I'm surprised you don't' see this.
Baldimo wrote:candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:How many times does Sheehan expect the President to make time to see her and listen to her?
How many times will she lie about what she thought of the first visit?
She's delusional. Her family is embarrassed at how she has become a pawn of the left and is insulting her son's service. She likes the spotlight. I've seen some of her contrived photo ops.
I have to agree that it has become somewhat of a circus...though I have to say that she has evolved, and has allowed this ordeal to evolve into this circus.
The circus is now a full fledged anti-war protest enacted in the name of her son, brought about by the death of her son...whatever you make of her philosophical redirect.
At any rate, she is capitalizing on and bringing to the surface what more than half of the US feels--that this war was an assinine endeavor from jump.
She wants the troops in essence to surrender. She feels that if they come home everything will be ok and it won't. It will only encourage others to do the same thing in the future. Kind of how Clinton did nothing about terrorism and only kept backing away and then we get hit with 9-11. Weakness only encourages these people and I'm surprised you don't' see this.
Oh, I see it.
Someone stated somewhere in another thread that for Bush, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Kinda like being an enlisted soldier....
I think he underestimated the momentum her protest would gain once the appropriate organizations got a hold of it.
I like the obligatory Clinton inclusion Baldimo, but if we're going to dig up the past and pull skeletons out of the closet, can you remind me what Papa Bush did about big bad Saddam when he was on his own turf with the knowledge that he gassed civilians?
What did he do? Lace the country with embargos that crippled the average everyday Iraqi?
How virtuous.
candidone1:
Quote:Oh, I see it.
Someone stated somewhere in another thread that for Bush, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Kinda like being an enlisted soldier....
I think he underestimated the momentum her protest would gain once the appropriate organizations got a hold of it.
That is where the problem is. As I said before I think these groups are using her.
Quote:I like the obligatory Clinton inclusion Baldimo, but if we're going to dig up the past and pull skeletons out of the closet, can you remind me what Papa Bush did about big bad Saddam when he was on his own turf with the knowledge that he gassed civilians?
The fool listened to the UN. Bush 43 didn't listen to the UN and has had a much result with removing Saddam.
Quote:What did he do? Lace the country with embargos that crippled the average everyday Iraqi?
How virtuous.
They were only crippled in the fact that Saddam used the money for other things. He denied his people basic services in order to build himself many palaces, which our troops took over as barracks as soon as they landed. The oil for food scandal is still being exposed and this was a major reason for the average Iraqi to be "crippled".
Baldimo wrote:
That is where the problem is. As I said before I think these groups are using her.
Using her?
If you find this tro be an abuse of circumstance, then where were you when the shrub was 9/11 name dropping in every speech he had the opportunity to?
That was a blatant misuse of a largescale human tragedy for the purposes of bolstering support for a Bush family legacy, not a legitimate war of any sort.
Similar in kind, but greatly different in quality.
Too many Americans have been feeling misled about the war, and for many, she is the outlet and the voice against the conflict. Organizations have scooped this up and made it the week's grandstand show...kinda like the whole WMD myth promotion by the entire right wing propaganda machine.
Only smaller and legitimate in kind.
candidone1 wrote:I like the obligatory Clinton inclusion Baldimo, but if we're going to dig up the past and pull skeletons out of the closet, can you remind me what Papa Bush did about big bad Saddam when he was on his own turf with the knowledge that he gassed civilians?
Baldimo wrote:The fool listened to the UN. Bush 43 didn't listen to the UN and has had a much result with removing Saddam.
Mind explaining what Iraq was like following the gulf war?
We all know that the
entire WMD issue was bunk, but following Gulf War I, Saddam pretty much played by the rules did he not?
Saddam wasn't even a threat
immediately preceeding this conflict.
candidone1 wrote:What did he do? Lace the country with embargos that crippled the average everyday Iraqi?
How virtuous.
Baldimo wrote:They were only crippled in the fact that Saddam used the money for other things. He denied his people basic services in order to build himself many palaces, which our troops took over as barracks as soon as they landed. The oil for food scandal is still being exposed and this was a major reason for the average Iraqi to be "crippled".
You aren't taking this discussion to Oil For Food Land are you Baldy?
You wouldn't want to do that would you?
Oil For Food?
Really?
Click here if you want to revist the blemish....
Bush brought this on himself
If all of you who are criticizing Mrs. Sheehan would stop and think for a moment. Bush brought this escalating problem on himself. If he had taken a few minutes to invite her in for a cup of coffee and a chat following her first request, she would have gone home. All of this could have been avoided. The groups gathering around her to promote their own agenda in addition to her petition would not be there.
Bush, by avoiding any contact with Sheehan when she first made her request, made her a cause celeb in the anti-war movement. If he had been smart this could have been avoided. His imperious behavior caused his problem, not Sheehan.
BBB
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace