Wingnuts: Women's Rights Optional

I caught the end of the re-run of Meet the Press (known in blogtopia as "Press the Meat") and heard an astonishing statement. Checked the transcript today, and yes, I heard right, women's rights are "not critical to the evolution of democracy."

David Gregory was substituting for Tim Russert and he put the following quote from the NYTimes up on the screen:

"[American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay] Khalilzad had backed language [in the constitution] 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. ...

After getting the reaction of Larry Diamond, former advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, also a fellow at the right wing think tank the Hoover Institution at Stanford (& don't get me going on the over-abundance of right wing views on the MSM, where are the liberals?) Gregory turned to Reuel Marc Gerecht, who he had introduced as a "former Middle East specialist for the CIA." (He's also Director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for the New American Century, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and contributing editor at the Weekly Standard Magazine.) Christopher Allbritton at BacktoIraq in 2002 described Gerecht's "ties to the American Enterprise Institute, a noted right-wing think tank peopled with with conservative cognoscenti with deep ties to the Bush Administration. Lynne Cheney, the veep's wife, is one of its scholars, along with Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Jean Kirkpatrick and (drum roll, please) Richard Perle, the bombastic hawk who's been itching to invade Iraq since before Bush ever got into office."

OK, now that we've established his right wing bona fides, here's his answer.

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.

So let me get this right. We're sending female soldiers to Iraq to establish a male-supremacy as well as a theocracy? American women are dying for this?

I guess the Bush administration is getting ready to throw the Iraqi women overboard.

They never gave a cheese sandwich* about women's rights anyway.




*I have taken a vow to use the phrase "cheese sandwich" in place of all curse words.