Iraq: Women's rights to be set back 50 years (NYT editorial)

[AlinPA]

<snip> ........the one surviving argument for overthrowing Saddam Hussein:...it was a chance to bring freedom and equality to the citizens suffering under a brutal dictatorship. For those of us holding onto that hope, this week brought disheartening news on multiple fronts.
Most chilling of all are the prospects for Iraqi women. As things now stand, their rights are about to be set back by nearly 50 years because of new family law provisions inserted into a draft of the constitution at the behest of the ruling Shiite religious parties. These would make Koranic law, called Shariah, the supreme authority on marriage, divorce and inheritance issues. Even secular women from Shiite families would be stripped of their right to choose their own husbands, inherit property on the same basis as men and seek court protection if their husbands tire of them and decide to declare them divorced.......................
Is this the kind of freedom President Bush claims is on the march in the Middle East? ......Is this the result that American soldiers, men and women, are sacrificing their lives for?
........
Most days, the news from Iraq is dominated by suicide bombers and frightening scenes of carnage. Occasionally, the smoke clears for a day or two to reveal the underlying picture. That looks even scarier.
snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/opinion/21thu1.html?ex=1279598400&en=bb540d4631731f15&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

[patdem]

1. Well, at least in Iraq they can allow the Sunni's their freedoms

will Roberts offer Democrats a different Constitution from Republicans?

[Patty Diana]

2. meanwhile back at the ranch___repukes set to put America's

women's right back to the Civil War Era when women knew their places. GROVELING!!!!!

[DELUSIONAL]

3. And NYT really cares? They were one of the cheer leaders of

bushie's war.

[AlinPA]

5. True!

[Kurovski]

4. So much for "mission accomplished" on the Democracy thing.

I'm reminded of the articles I read during George's race to war from scholars on the Middle East who, in the nicest ways possible, called the administration a bunch of arrogant dim-wads for thinking they could force democracy on people who really didn't want it. At least according to thousands of years of history thus far.

Wanting to be rid of Hussein and wanting a democracy are clearly two different things.

Not that that was ever the administrations intent. But it was nice that so many fine minds gave them the benefit of the doubt.

And what does Laura Bush have to say about all this? Ain't this her "thing."?

Recommended.