We admit, when we first followed Atrios' link to the transcript of Reuel Marc Gerecht's comments on MTP yesterday, our initial reaction was to question the size of Mr. Gerecht's male member. But after a moment or two, we realized that the organ whose size we should question is his soul. Mr. Gerecht, commenting on the possibility (increasingly near certain) that Iraq's constitution will enshrine sharia (islamic religious law) in a way that will effectively deny women equality before the law, basically didn't give the anal orifice of a single rodent if half the population of Iraq is politically oppressed under the new constitution
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.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's not 1900 and the new constitution will take away legal, political and social rights Iraqi women enjoyed under Saddam. How? The Suburban Guerilla led us to Echidne of the Snakes, who explains: under Saddam, adult women didn't need to get the permission of their husband or father to take a job, for example.
Our very own American ambassador to Iraq helped broker this abortion of a constitution. There was a day when any American, much less an ambassador representing the United States of America would not condemn (much less foster) a political constitution that explicitly oppressed half the citizenry of a country. Well, if you ever doubted, now you know: Zalmay Khalilzad is no Joe Wilson. The air waves have not resounded with the horrified cries of Republicans like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe or Kay Baily Hutchinson decrying the moral decay and political ineptitude of il Ducetto's minions who allowed this travesty to develop. La Ducetta, that great proponent on increasing the political rights of Muslim women is silent.
Why? Because they're just not that into you, girls. Democracy, as Mr. Gerecht understands it, is really a boys' game. PC conventions (and a constitutional amendment) quaintly require them to pretend that they believe womens' lives and dignity are fully equal to those of men - but they really don't. They'll let us in their democracy tree house - but we better not ask to re-arrange the furniture.
And are you really surprised, ladies? They tell you they don't think you have the right to make decisions about your own body. David Brooks doesn't want you to have your own checking account. It is utterly to be expected that Mr. Gerecht is unconcerned with the fact that over 1800 Americans (and countless - literally - Iraqis) have died so that the Republicans could sell half the population of Iraq down the river for the possibility of a photo-op at which Ambassador Khalilzad would brazenly and falsely claim that another deadline had been met and that il Ducetto had successfully promoted "democracy" abroad.
There was a time when only white men could vote in the American "democracy" and when slavery was legal. We wonder how hard il Ducetto would have fought to prevent Iraqis from creating a comparable "democracy." Ladies, girls just aren't worth the effort. Face it girls, those Republicans are just not that into you.
