Posted on 3/1/2004, 9:51:28 AM by kattracks
The Iraqi people learned on Sunday about former first lady Hillary Clinton's praise last week for Saddam Hussein, even as mainstream U.S. news outlets continued to cover up her comments.
According to the BBC, the Baghdad edition of the Saudi-owned publication Al-Sharq al-Awsat carried the headline "Hillary Clinton: 'Iraqi women were better off under Saddam's reign.'"
Last Wednesday Sen. Clinton told the Brookings Institution that Iraq had recently seen "pullbacks in the rights [women] were given under Saddam Hussein."
The leading Democrat praised the Iraqi dictator for granting women a measure of equality, saying that under Saddam's rule "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."
In comments reported exclusively by NewsMax.com on Friday, Sen. Clinton complained, "Now what we see happening in Iraq is the governing council attempting to shift large parts of civil law into religious jurisdiction." She called the development a "horrific mistake" for women.
Sen. Clinton said Iraqi women personally complained to her during her trip to Baghdad last November that they no longer feel safe since Saddam left.
"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," she told Brookings.
Unfortunately, if they, or anyone in their families happened to get in Saddam's way, rape, torture and death would severly curtail their freedom of movement.
As much as I despise Shrillary, this article is more crap from NewsMax.
Shrillary has enough baggage so conservative organs shouldn't have to manufacture BS spin.
NewsMax sucks bigtime. Go way NewsMax. I hate the hell out of NewsMax. Why do we waste FR bandwith on crap from NewsMax?
While I "might" - just might - agree you a little about NewsMax, can you substantiate your "out of context" claim?
Dang Kattracks... I thought she was talking about Bill!!!
Senator Hillary! Women better off with Saddam - Transcript (long, know thy enemy)
Luckily I think the Iraqi's have avoided this stupidity in the consistutional agreement today
Why must we suggest that Shrillary is somehow endorsing the Hussein regime by implication? This is dumbo stuff.
Because that's exactly what she's doing, by implication, with this quote.
Now, back to your original claim:
"By pulling this quote out of context and spinning the hell out of it, NewsMax, once again, is the loser.
As much as I despise Shrillary, this article is more crap from NewsMax.
Shrillary has enough baggage so conservative organs shouldn't have to manufacture BS spin.
NewsMax sucks bigtime. Go way NewsMax. I hate the hell out of NewsMax. Why do we waste FR bandwith on crap from NewsMax?
Could you please point out where Newsmax took this quote out of context, etc. ?
. . . . . . . . . . Congress allocated $547 million for the Fund in 2004, the Administration's 2005 budget calls for $200 million. This, again, is a perfect example of the go-it-alone approach. And while we are recognizing problems through our new AIDS Initiative that the Administration is announcing, in 14 countries, we're, you know, setting up a parallel program, duplicating efforts, reinventing the wheel, not only with respect to what other governments are doing, but NGOs that have gotten into those countries.
And it is, I think, a lost opportunity that we don't support the Global Fund More and especially that, apparently, our AIDS strategy intends to ignore Asia, when even the CIA's analysis predicts that Asia will become an explosive problem for HIV
AIDS, in Russia, China, and India. Countries that, clearly, have long-term, strategic interest to us. And so, I think we are missing the boat not supporting the Global Fund and we're missing another boat by not supporting anti-AIDS efforts in those three nations.
We also have to do more on women's rights and roles. And I have been deeply troubled by what I hear coming out of Iraq. When I was there and met with women members of the governing councils and local--of the national governing councils and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk, they were starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights that they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government; and business and, as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement.
Now, what we see happening in Iraq is the governing council attempting to shift large parts of civil law into religious jurisdiction. This would be a horrific mistake and especially for it to happen on our watch. And I have spoken to the White House about this on several occasions. I appreciated Ambassador Bremer speaking out about the need to involve women. But we must go much further. I would like to see a statement from the President. I would like to see a much greater emphasis that we will not have become the vehicle by which women's rights in Iraq are turned back.
And, similarly, in Afghanistan, we know that we got good language in the constitutional process out of the Loya Jirga, but on the ground, the situation is very dangerous for a lot of women.
In both countries, the security issues are foremost. Women tell me they can't leave their homes; they can't go about their daily business. And in Afghanistan, there is a concerted effort to burn schools that are educating girls to intimidate aid workers who are women, both Iraqi and foreign. We've got to do a better job and we need a message from the highest level of our government, particularly since both President and Mrs. Bush played such a central and essential role in talking about women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, as we go forward, I think that we have to do a better job of meshing our Homeland Security needs with our national security needs. And, unfortunately, I think we are still far behind the curve when it comes to the Department of Homeland Security. And I have see a great deal of obstacles and problems in the way we created the department; how it is functioning; what kind of resources we're providing at the local level. I spoke at length about this earlier in the year at John Jay College in Manhattan.
And I still believe that the imperatives of bureaucracy are being put in front of the imperatives for security. <> And there are many changes there that need to occur, such as direct funding of local communities, first responders and the like. The money is not getting where it needs to go. And here at the national level, we have to have a much more coherent policy that takes into account what our true and most pressing threats. are. . . . . . . . . . .
It is clear to me that she wanted to say that women were better off under Saddam, and that it is Bush's fault that this happened.
She's speaking specifically about womens rights as they existed under Husseins regime. I see nowhere that she endorsed his regime.
Why do we allow NewsMax spin to work us up into a lather when Shrill and her ilk do a perfectly good job of giving us targets with no spin?
Move on-this is not news.....I heard Hannity raise this isssue and he came across sounding like a fool desparate to slam Shrill.
Why not just attack her administratiions lame handling of the terror war? There's enough real stuff there to last till kingdom come.
As I said, I believe the cooler heads prevailed in Iraq based upon todays news on the constitutional agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.