How the White House Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Islamic Law
How the White House Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Islamic Law
“The advance of women’s rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable.”
– President Bush, 3/14/04
“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.”
– First Lady Laura Bush, 3/8/05
“The commitment of this administration to women’s rights in Iraq is unshakable.”
– Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, 3/9/04
“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.”
– U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, 8/8/05
VERSUS
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. … 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.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ah yes, the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:41 amI didn’t realize Bush was all that interested in women and their rights. Was I wrong in assuming that Laura was the loneliest woman in Washington? And that Gannon was crowned “princess” by the big man himself? :-)
Seriously, though. Its very clear that BushCo has no approach for how to solve the difficult problems they would be faced with once they invaded Iraq. They are making this up as they go. The US will be paying for this blunder for decades. :-(
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 amIt’s hard work. There are lots of people working hard, on the hard work. Becuase it’s hard.
Can they not get anything right? Remember, spreading democracy, everyone created equal, etc?
But then again, Bush doesn’t really care what our Constitution says. WHy would he care what theirs ends up saying.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 amHell, Bush would leave Stalin in charge if he thought it would get us out by next election.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 amThe Bushies don’t care about women’s rights, and never have. What they care about are drilling rights.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:58 am[...] Think Progress – How the White House Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Islamic Law [...]
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:37 pmAgain, I would love for a liberal to explain this to me: the U.S. rushes to get the Constitution finished but has to include some undesirable components, like the Islamic law portion, and the left is critical. But what if the Constitution process had gone on for another week — the left would be complaining then too. Which would you prefer?
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:41 pmAnd one other thing: the Iraqis clearly want their society to be guided by Islamic law. Why is that a problem with you? Why is it your decision? Does democracy, as interpreted by the left, mean that Iraqis get to choose their own future unless THinkProgress.org/Atrios/Kos disagrees?
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:43 pmJames, I guess you have been genetically selected against having a sense of irony. Too bad. This topic is ripe with it and you’ve missed the entire point.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pmIt isn’t a hypocracy for the left for Iraq to become an Islamic federation.
The reason we bring it up is to show the hypocracy of bushco and the Republican leadership as THEY are the ones who have steadfastly claimed we are creating a MORE MODERATE Iraq with FULL EQUALITY FOR ALL. You see it isn’t working out that way.
Would you like another serving of crow?
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:53 pm#7 & #8
Well, let’s start with we didn’t go to Iraq to spread democracy. We went to Iraq be cause they had WMDs. But they didn’t. We went to Iraq because they funded al Qaida. But they didn’t. So, we went to Iraq for regime change. That is an illegal reason to go to war.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:58 pmIf Iraqi women played a crucial role in oil production, they would be be the top priority. Until that happens, they’ll be treated like mules.
If they wanted a moderate Iraq, religious clerics should have less of a role in forming their constitution. Of course, that could never happen in a society deeply based on religion. How is it that our leaders didn’t see that one coming?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:00 pmMy t-shirt says:
“I invaded Iraq, lost 1800 of my buddies and all I got was this lousy theocracy?”
How does this revelation fit with ’supporting the troops’ who are presumably not signed up to die to have 50% of the population returned to Shari Law.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:07 pmJames B – the problems that come with Islamic theocracy are well-illustrated if you consider the recent history:
1) Afghanistan, complete with the Taliban, Osama, terrorist training camps, etc.
2) Pakistan, complete with precarious military dictatorship, madrassas, and a haven for people who plan to bomb our allies.
3) Saudi Arabia, supplier of most of the 9/11 hijackers.
4) Iran, ready to go nucular.
And that’s just the headline grabbers from this century.
Theocracies have not tended to serve America well, if you catch my drift.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:16 pmAnd one other thing: the Iraqis clearly want their society to be guided by Islamic law. Why is that a problem with you? Why is it your decision? Does democracy, as interpreted by the left, mean that Iraqis get to choose their own future unless THinkProgress.org/Atrios/Kos disagrees?
Personally, I think the Iraqis should be able to choose whatever form of government they want. If theocracy really is their choice, then so be it.
But if Iraq is really just getting what it wants, why do we need a military occupation? Why are they killing our soldiers right and left in an attempt to get us to leave? Obviously they aren’t getting what they want, whatever that is.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:19 pm14 — but isn’t the problem with those countries that they’re un-democratic, not necessarily that they’re theocratic? Why does anyone here have the right to oppose an Iraqi theocracy if it is formed via democratic means>?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:21 pm16 – Iran just voted in an Islamic hardliner. Not wholly democratic I grant you, but not wholly illegitimate either.
The paradox, unfortunately, is that theocracies do not respect the kind of democratic principles we take for granted. In a theocracy – you get free speech (solong as you don’t question the Koran); you get the Rule of Shari’a Law (which tends to involve the beating of confessions out of suspects); you don’t get separation of powers (because everything is subordinate to the religious authorities); you get an excuse for a Bill of Rights (because women and non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens).
Look, once you got a theocracy, you’re usually stuck with it because the religious authorities rig the system so people can never have it any other way. That’s the direction Iraq is heading in – and whilst Dubya contends Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, the Iraqi’s closest ally so far is Iran. You could call it the law of unintended consequences had it not been so predictable.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:40 pm#17, that’s right, in a theocracy you get:
1. Religious symbols all over the government – ten Commandments for example
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:46 pm2. Leading theocrats won’t say on national television if they think that government posts should be decided by religious affiliation tests
3. Government intervenes in the family and overrides the courts in life and death decision-making
4. Matters of faith are forced onto school children disguised as science
Dumb Fox wrote:
“Look, once you got a theocracy, you’re usually stuck with it because the religious authorities rig the system so people can never have it any other way. That’s the direction Iraq is heading in…”
You could easily substitute America for Iraq in that statement. You could also interchange kleptocracy and aristocracy for theocracy. We’re in deep dogshit unless we rise up.
Sept. 24th in Washington D.C. Be ready!
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:58 pm“Sept. 24th in Washington D.C. Be ready!”
Amen.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:10 pmKleptocracy for me. The religio-nuts here are just first base for the GOPers – once they’re reached first, it’s all special interests, baby.
You watch when Congress reconvenes next month. The media will have everyone locked on the Roberts confirmation, and buried from sight the Repubs will go after the trial lawyers who currently have Merck by the balls. It’ll go the distance – federal, retroactive, trading punitive damages for legal bills… the mother of all bills of attainder.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:12 pmYes not-so-Dumb Fox, I’m expecting something similar to the tobbacco settlement.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:16 pmHow the White House Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Islamic Law
From Think Progress: “The advance of womenÂ’s rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable.” – President Bush, 3/14/04 “President Bush has made the advance of womenÂ’s human rights a global policy priority. Â… We all have an obligat…
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:22 pmThe Bush Regime/the Religious Reich are working hard to diminish rights of women in this country and change our Democracy into an extremest theocracy. Women get to be regular Stepford Wives ala Santorum, Frist and Delay. Santorum thinks we should not have any right to privacy and there should be no birth control for women. Check out the Dominionists on the web, of which Delay is one, who outright declare their work to dismantle our Democracy to create their heinious theocracy.
All Praise! (or sieg heil)
So maybe the Iraq government was what they had in mind all along; we’ll have so much in commen with them that we might as well incorporate them as another state in the union! Oh yeah–an’ we get the oil—Glory!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:26 pmJames B, would it be okay with you if we complained that we’re fighting a bloody war two years after the President declared victory?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:27 pmJames B – you’re right, we have no right to oppose whatever the Iraqi electorate chooses by democratic means. But you completely missed the irony of the main topic, which is that the White House kept carping about the war as an advancement of women’s rights when in reality, (a) American bombs killed hundreds of women whose rights certainly were not advanced, (b) 2.5 years after the war started, women still fear venturing outside for fear of kidnapping, and (c) the resultant constitution provides less rights for women than even Saddam did.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:33 pmNot only have we created an Islamist state where there wasn’t one, we’ve paradoxically contributed at the same time to the further breakdown of a state whose territorial integrity we supported.
We’ve even helped spread gay prostitution. Now, that’s family values.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:09 pmOh, the irony of it all. We illegally invade a secular country and, in a surreal turn of events, it becomes an Islamic regime. The secular Iraq, despite being under the control of a ruthless dictator in Saddam Hussein, allowed for freedom for women. It appears the new constitution of Iraq will provide for a theocratic rule, following the rules of Islam, but leave it to the BushCo. to find a way to spin this into something they can boast about – “oh yeah, that’s the ticket.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 pmBefore we got to Iraq, they had commerce, electricity, water, sewers, schools and hospitals. Today we must rebuild that country on our dime because we destroyed
it. Don’t forget the 8.8 BILLION that has gone unaccounted for. Paraphrasing the late Sen. Dirksen, pretty soon, it will start adding up to some real money!
Remember the reason we went to Iraq in the first place — WMD!!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:36 pmThen it was democracy, then human rights, etc., etc. The goalposts keep changing according to whose got the ball.
Bush’s “flypaper” policy – get them there before they come here — is as hollow as the Viet Nam Domino effect. In the end, we tucked tail and ran out, leaving 58,000 dead and many more wounded, including the American spirit.
James B, Is that the reason that 1866 are dead? Is that the reason thousands are maimed? Is that the reason Iraqi citizens are collateral damage? So they can have a regressive Islamic regime in place? A Muslim nation = an Islamic government — if Bush had said this was the goal, would anyone have supported him?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:40 pmJames B,
Let me see if I can help you understand. Saudi Arabia has oil. The Bush’s have been sucking up to the Saudis for decades. Saddam, whom we installed in the 1950’s when we thought he would help us, and then reinstalled after the Iraqis threw him out, had all that Iraqi oil, and sanctions were about to end, allowing him to sell that oil for European technology and base the Iraqi economy on the Euro. America would have been cut out of the profits and the control. A Saudi, using other Saudis and Saudi financing, attacked the US on 9/11. We did not attack the Saudis back. We attacked Afghanistan long enough to take over the oil route from Russia and start building an oil pipeline for American oil companies. The opium trade is back stronger than ever and the Taliban is stronger than ever too. Women, not doing so well, but, hey, it’s all about small steps, huh, James? Then, we quit even pretending to look for the Saudi royal behind the attack on us – Osama Bin Forgotten. Instead, we attacked Iraq. Now, the Iraq economy is based on the dollar, we control the oil fields, and the Saudis, who hated Saddam and his secular government, will get a friendly Islamic theocracy in Iraq.
And it’s all the fault of American liberals, isn’t it?
How many more Americans will have to die to establish an Islamic Theocracy?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:59 pm#31 great summary roooth. It’s all about oil. That’s all it has ever been. No democracy, no high falutin cause, no nothin’. It’s about oil!
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:43 pm(No one ever talks about the oil pipeline in Afghanistan.)
What else could we expect from Christian fundamentalists?
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Eph.5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
1 Pet.3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:26 pmThese guys realy slay me with their BS and I mean BS. What have been telling my wife for months that the Iraqis would have an Islamic based Constitution. Only those pinheads inside the Beltway would think otherwise. Any highschool student with half a brain could have told them what we found out today. Yes, it’s true the Iraqis decided to have Islam as the basis for Law rather than one thing to be considered when determining Law.
Put plainly, they are going to be another Islamic Republic like Iran. No matter how much they (the adminstration) stand and shout at the rain, they are still getting wet. Why? Because they are so drunk with power, they still believe the same BS spin they put out everytime the get into trouble. It’s simple, if they say something it’s true regardless of what the real facts are. Who needs facts when you got political spin master Karl Rove to think for you.
I for one am glad we spent 300 billion dollars to create another Islamic Republic, I mean democracy in the Middle East. Not to mention all of those dead soldiers who died help establish a new Islamic Republic, I mean democracy in Iraq. I think we should increase taxes on America to pay for all of the new Madrasas to teach the young men to hate, I mean love America. Helping to create a new Islamic Republic makes up less, I mean more safe from terrorist. We are losing, I mean winning the war in Iraq. Like Gen. Westmoreland, I’m sure they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. However that light just happens to be an oncoming train (their policy) that’s about to wreck. I would tell them that loud noise is a train approaching, but as usual they would swear it’s the just the wind blowing or something.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:48 pmi am just taking an educated guess here, but i think at bush’s next donors dinner, he will be chuckling as he looks under tables, in his pocket, under his plate, as he says, iraqi womens rights, i think i saw them here, oh no, maybe under here, or maybe over there. ha-ha-ha.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:57 pmso, we went to war to bring fundemental islam and close ties to iran for the iraqi people. seems like some iraqis will long for the good old days of a madman and his sons
I’m not surprised. Bush can say all he wants about women’s rights but he doesn’t want them for the women is THIS country, why would he want them for the women in Iraq? His idea of women’s rights has nothing to do with what women actually want.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 pmA necon munchkin says: “And one other thing: the Iraqis clearly want their society to be guided by Islamic law. Why is that a problem with you? Why is it your decision? Does democracy, as interpreted by the left, mean that Iraqis get to choose their own future unless THinkProgress.org/Atrios/Kos disagrees?”
The Iraqis are free to do as they wish–just not defended by our soldiers. If they want to institute Islamic or the Law of the Jungle I don’t care but they can’t do it under the protection of our soldiers, spending our dollars and lives doing it. So if they want Islamic law so be it but our boys will be home.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 pm“James B – you’re right, we have no right to oppose whatever the Iraqi electorate chooses by democratic means.”
But Iraqis and Neocons have no right to assume we will continue to prop up an Islamic Republic with our blood and treasure. If they insist on a friggin Islamic Republic then can defend themselves. NOT ONE MORE DEAD American for the defense of a political system that violates our values.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 pmJust curious, If we have “no right” (and I presume that also means “no responsibility” at this point) to ensure that Iraq becomes a ‘democracy’ to our liking, how does one rationalize illegally invading and destroying it’s government and infrastructure in the first place? Did we have the “right” to do that?
One other thing, not all Iraqis “clearly want their society to be guided by Islamic law.” The Kurds don’t. The Sunnis don’t. The women don’t. Until Monday, the invaders didn’t either.
And if I hear one more fool say, “Well, the world is better off without Saddam” as justification for this atrocity I’m going to scream!
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:46 amtoo good to be true.
October 13th, 2005 at 6:03 pm