Hillary: Iraqi Women Better Off Under Saddam

[John Ashcroft]

Sen. Hillary Clinton said this week that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein, arguing that when the brutal dictator ran the country women were at least assured the right to participate in Iraq's public life.

In comments that went unreported by the mainstream press, the former first lady told the Brookings Institution on Wednesday that since Saddam's removal from power, Iraq's postwar governing councils had engaged in "pullbacks in the rights [women] were given under Saddam Hussein."

Sen. Clinton noted that while Saddam had been "an equal opportunity oppressor," women were at least assured certain constitutional guarantees.

While ignoring reports about the brutal dictator's rape rooms and other forms of persecution that were routine for women under his regime, Sen. Clinton insisted: "On paper, women had rights."

And that's all that really matters, right? I mean, who needs results as long as there is a "process"...

And for Iraqi women, those paper promises translated into real benefits, she claimed.

"They went to school, they participated in the professions, they participated in the government and business and, as long as they stayed out of [Saddam's] way, they had considerable freedom of movement," Clinton insisted.

But since Saddam's removal, the plight of Iraq's women has taken a significant turn for the worse, she contended.

"Now what we see happening in Iraq is the governing council attempting to shift large parts of civl law into religious jurisdiction," Sen. Clinton explained, saying the loss of Saddam's guarantees amounted to a "horrific mistake" for women.

During her trip to Iraq last November, Clinton said, Iraqi women told her personally how they felt less safe since the U.S. deposed Saddam.

"Women tell me they can't leave their homes, they can't go about their daily business. And there is a concerted effort to burn schools that are educating girls [and] to intimidate aid workers who are women," the leading Democrat complained.

The former first lady called on President Bush to issue a statement that the U.S. "will not become the vehicle by which women's rights in Iraq are turned back."

Link: Link:

[ELVIS]

It must be true.. Hillary said it...

[Cathedral]

Actually, this is true to a point. Yes they have lost some liberty that was guarenteed through Saddam, but NO, they are not better off under Saddam.
I think President Bush issuing a statement that we won't be a party to that event is a fair request.
But it won't do any good after we turn control back over to the Iraqi's.

Democracy is not something that is turn key. it has to be worked and designed through trial and error simply because of their religious beliefs and how they differ so much.
A Constitution is a great start but in my opinion it will be at the very least 10 years before Iraq becomes a success story from this war.
The day they can provide their own inner security without coalition assistance will be the first day of their true liberation.
It's a long road ahead of them and they may just end up doing a better job being a free nation than we are.
We were on track some 30 years ago, but in the last 2 decades we have really dropped the ball and the evidence is right in front of us every single day...

Hillary Clinton is playing politics and probably spoke with 1 or 2 Iraqi women with attitudes. I'd bet that the ones she spoke with were never Rape victims. So, if a woman who was tortured and raped by Saddams soldiers made those statements they would hold more water to me.

But her request is still a reasonable one in my opinion. We had slaves in the first segment of our American History and it will take time for Iraq to get it together.
It would however be in everyone's best interest to work together to ensure Iraq's success as opposed to playing ankle biting politics with the conditions and speed bumps that will surely be present.

[John Ashcroft]

I know, they expect "Chia-Pet" democracy. They fail to acknowledge that it's taken us a couple of hundred years to get where we are.

[ELVIS]

Maybe Hillary could be President of Iraq...

[Cathedral]

Yeah, i have heard some Liberals complaining already that it will fail based on the fact that Democracy is never perfect in the beginning and that we cannot just transfer our system to them. that would never work in my opinion anyway.
They are the one's that have to develope their own core values and learn from their mistakes.

But, they will be in control of their own destiny and with any luck they won't end up becoming our enemies in the process.

They are a different and complex people, but they are made the same way we are and they are not stupid, just a little prehistoric.

My brother has a Morrocan brother in law and he seems to think that even though the way Bush went about things wasn't very reassuring in the beginning, the people are strong and will take the initiative as was evident over the last few weeks.
The attacks that have killed Iraqi Police Officers have only promoted pride in the family members that made them apply for the positions their murdered loved one's were filling when they died.

They are going to make it as long as they keep getting stronger. also, the more time they spend as a free nation the harder it will be for terrorists or another dictator to break their spirit to the point they allow themselves to become oppressed again.

Hey, Terrorists were intimidating and created fear with the 9-11 attacks. But what i see more and more each day is that fear turning into resolve (as is this nations strength) which is basically what is going to defeat them.
They cannot advance their agenda if their ability to inflict terror upon us fails to be successful.
The fact is that the Terrorists are getting weaker and we are getting stronger simply by accepting what they plan to do and then confronting them.
Iraq is getting stronger and it won't be long until they will be in numbers large enough to resist the enemy on their own.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Sen. Hillary Clinton said this week that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein,

Hahahaha
Under Saddam!

[Full Bug]

Originally posted by Sarge

Under Saddam!

Thats were most of them were, at least with the 2 brothers that were killed......

[BITEYOASS]

Yeah, tell that to the girls & women who were raped by Saddam's sons!

[diamondD]

Who gives a shit what that bitch thinks?

[Rubnose]

Perhaps we could do a pre-emptive stike on Hillary.

[steve]

Whatever.
Her words are being totally misconstrued here.
I heard her speak on the condition of women in Iraq one time when I was watching CSPAN, and yes, these were some of the phrases she used, but the rather obvious meaning to it all was this...

'Since the brutal dictator is gone, a lot of the religious dictators have risen up and are opressing women. Right now, this is going unchecked. President Bush, please do something about this.'

It wasn't reported in major news media because it wasn't exactly a controversial statement.

So take a deep breath, count to three, and realize that "yes = Hillary Clinton has boobs AND opinions".
-steve

[John Ashcroft]

Uh... She's said similar things about Afghanistan. Clearly women are better off without the Taliban, no?

Dude, she's just a hack. Face it. Hopefully her career in politics will be short lived.

[steve]

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were polar opposite in terms of their lynchpins of philosophy.

The Taliban's lynchpin came from literal interpretations of religious text and distortions of it... and being general assholes to boot. A large part of literal liturgical translation of the Koran is female disenfranchisement - to put it lightly.

Saddam's philosophical foundation came from Stalin and "The Godfather" - which depend more upon physical brutality towords males and other threats to power than to female legal disenfranchisement.

And what Hillary is proposing for The President to do is to stop a particular aspect of the social structure (and the woman's place in it) from merely moving from one form of dictatorial wrong to another.

I don't see how anyone could look badly upon her saying that.

However, I could see someone looking harshly, as has been done in this thread, upon WORD FALSLY PUT INTO HER MOUTH.