| Submit your comments on this article |
| Hillary: Iraqi Women Better Off Under Saddam |
| 2004-02-27 |
| EFL 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 post war governing councils had engaged in "pullbacks in the rights [women] were given under Saddam Hussein." ...the trains ran on time... "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. Say, how did Sammy’s son treat women? "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. |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #18 "...were better off under Saddam". "Under" has several meanings, you know. |
| Posted by: Sorge 2004-2-27 7:44:06 PM |
| #17 "Only someone who had not experienced living in a dictatorship could say women had it better under Saddam. " So which dictatorship have you lived under to come forth with such an informed opinion? I mean, when the women them selves are saying conditions are worse maybe someone should listen. I am not trying to argue the reasons for there being less law or blaming it all on the US. I am just pointing out at this point in time things are not as good for women there. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-2-27 5:16:24 PM |
| #16 Crime was lower, because personal freedom was non-existent. It's not just because "personal freedom was non-existent," it's is also because Saddam emptied the prisons of criminals before the US took over. He wasn't letting out the real political opposition (he'd killed those guys), he was letting out murderers and rapists . . . |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-2-27 4:20:14 PM |
| #15 Only someone who had not experienced living in a dictatorship could say women had it better under Saddam. Certainly you and your family might get raped, your children dragged off and shot, but you don't have fears that someone might force you to wear a vale. Now that's terrible. The US has had nearly a year and Iraq hasn't joined the G8 yet, something is wrong. Haliburton! Haliburton! |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-2-27 4:14:26 PM |
| #14 Hi Hillary - here's some rope and here's a shovel; knock yourself out. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-27 3:40:31 PM |
| #13 Were women better of under Saddam? Well, they're lives were laid out for them, true. But did they have freedom? That depends on your point of view. This topic could be twisted and argued in so many ways it gives me a headache. However, Hillary is being despicable. She's saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because the women are suffering now. That Bush has caused the problems for women in Iraq. She didn't out right say it, but she's suggesting it in undertones. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-2-27 3:05:32 PM |
| #12 Z2so4: Secret Master is right...we tend to be a surly bunch (but we've got an excuse ; ] ) Here's my point: surrendering one's freedom for security is not an answer. That's a core belief for any right thinking American regardless of politics. Women worked under Saddam - as virtual slaves to a dictatorship. Crime was lower, because personal freedom was non-existent. It's a universal truth that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Iraqi men and women must now shoulder that responsibility and that's a good thing. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-2-27 3:00:13 PM |
| #11 Rex my point is that over the situation was not as bad for Women. That is independent of what Hussien did to people, which were not sex based crimes for the most part. Women did work, and crime against women were lower. I am not saying Hussien was better, but rather pointing out that things could be improved for women. I am not a Hillary supporter, a democrat, or a US citizen for that part. I just find it odd that one would let partisian resentment superceed the issue. The issue being that general lawlessness and lack of appropriate planning has made it more difficult of women. Thanks for letting me know secret master. I don't know, I can't see anger leading to any sort of rational conclusions. *shrugs* |
| Posted by: z2so4 2004-2-27 2:31:18 PM |
| #10 I'm far from a Hillary fan, but she has actually been better on Iraq than most democrats. And I agree with ne1469: I think her point here was to add pressure and resistance against those Shia who want Iraq to become a Sharia state, Islam enshrined in the constitution, etc. That would be the worst possible outcome, and there are plenty of forces working toward that end. |
| Posted by: sludj 2004-2-27 2:28:20 PM |
| #9 Regardless of Hillary's treachery, she is right to put pressure on the council guys. Next thing I want her to say is how Bremer is just a pussy for not standing up to this asshat Sistani. |
| Posted by: ne1469 2004-2-27 2:00:29 PM |
| #8 z2so4: The problem that most of us here have with the Clintons is that they NEVER say anything that doesn't have some sort of self-serving political spin on it. The fact that any given statement made by one or the other of them may (or may not) have a grain of truth to it does little to change that. This isn't your fault, but when you deal with the Clinton family put your waders on: the hypocrisy is going to be waist deep. And, to be honest, most Rantsburgians spend a lot of time being mad. These clowns are part of the reason why! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-2-27 1:45:19 PM |
| #7 Oh yes, the women had some great guarantees under Saddam. Guaranteed to have their husbands rot in his jails, their sons sent of to die in his wars, their daughters to be raped by his thugs. Oh, and lets not forget about the guarantee for Kurdish women to be gassed en masse along with their families. Sorry z2so4 but your argument does not fly. Some truth is not the whole truth....it's the same as saying if it takes one day to dig a hole, then it takes half a day to dig half a hole. It does't work that way. The country as whole, including the women, is far better off with Saddam gone. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-2-27 1:36:45 PM |
| #6 Get angry much? My point was to show that what Hillary pointed out did have some truth to it (I am not naive enough to say it was not without her own spin). Not everything with a different opinion is automatically false. |
| Posted by: z2so4 2004-2-27 1:22:56 PM |
| #5 either the women will demand their rights and a cultural revolution will occur, or not.. we could try to force things, but then z2so4 will bitch about us being horrible dictators that are trying to force the poor arabs to be westeners.. feh |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2004-2-27 1:15:33 PM |
| #4 Well right now the sharia movement is coming in at full force, and there is also great increase in lawlessness going on around there. My Gf's sister does not go out there anymore without several male family members because of the amount of times there have been attempted attacks on her since war. However things such as the new centers for women's rights are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately in Afghanistan due to the society I am not as optimistic. As RAWA continues to complain about the state of affiars there. |
| Posted by: z2so4 2004-2-27 1:00:09 PM |
| #3 Things sure are dynamic. I have a lady friend in Baghdad who is working now for the first time in 3 years. She is a college educated journalist, but could not work because Saddham's son's body guards were stalking her for the harem, and she went into hiding. So, at least until some of the Sharia stuff goes into effect (like in Afghanistn where they kicked girls outta school) I still think they are in a better spot than before. |
| Posted by: Beau 2004-2-27 12:48:59 PM |
| #2 Although only the insane will argue that Sadaam was a good guy, or that his son did not rape women, the fact remains the over all state of women at the moment is worse there. Especially with the proposal (which has thankfully been droped) to allow individual sections of Iraq to govern itself. That is not to say things will not get better for women, but at the moment there are more potential problems then before. |
| Posted by: z2so4 2004-2-27 12:40:06 PM |
| #1 apparently Hill's projecting for her husband. I mean, when they say "no", they really mean "yes, as long I can participate in government and business, and have considerable freedom of movement". There really is no such thing as rape, just ask Juanita Broaderrick |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-2-27 12:06:04 PM |