Only some Americans are sick about this.

So, it will continue.

Not only under Bush. But also under the next president who does not immediately pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Why don't the Bush twins go on vacation in Iraq and show everyone the freedom we brought to Iraq.

I think one of the main reasons that there is so much woman-hatred in Iraq right now is the ineffectualness and even emasculation of the men by the occupation. Rage and self hate go hand in hand when any sense of self determination is thwarted. Religious rules promise order in chaos and give opportunity for the worst stunted egoists to blame all their failings on those who cannot fight back. The kind of brutality that the women killers cannot be totally laid at the feet of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ because it is not common in other Islamic societies with large fundamentalist populations that are dealing with modernity but without external conflict and external rule (Turkey, for example). And the surge doesn’t seem to have done much to help. From the ethnic distribution maps before and after the surge, it is apparent that ghettoizing has more to do with any decrease in violence, generally, but may well account for some of the increase in violence on women, as the ethnic apartheid gives the fundies more power in each enclave. Kucinich’s proposal to remove US troops and replace w/ mid-easterners of similar ethnicities to those that they would be policing is the best way to reduce this form of ethnic suicide.

"...decrease in violence, generally, but may well account for some of the increase in violence on women..."

waaait a minute. So there's been (according to the official story) a decrease in violence in general, but (as we can observe) an increase in violence against women?

Are they actually counting the increase in violence against women and counting a far greater decrease in violence against men, or do they just not count the violence against women when they count the violence "in general." ? ??

and who the hell are "they" that are doing the counting?

Condi?

The same lady that thinks its perfectly fine for Halliburton/KBR to drug/gang rape its young female employees and then lock them in a container for days on end without water or access to a telephone?

cf @ 7:

"...decrease in violence, generally, but may well account for some of the increase in violence on women..."

waaait a minute. So there's been (according to the official story) a decrease in violence in general, but (as we can observe) an increase in violence against women?

Are they actually counting the increase in violence against women and counting a far greater decrease in violence against men, or do they just not count the violence against women when they count the violence "in general." ? ??

There has been a large increase in violence in the southern part of Iraq, which is largely Shia (our supposed allies from the start) and are occurring with greater frequency in those completely under the control of the fundamentalists in and around Basra, these areas are not torn by Sunn-Shia strife and fighting as they are largely all Shia and the increases in violence here among women are on the rise. Violence from the so-called 'surge' may be down overall but women are being attacked and murdered frequently as the southern half of Iraq is falling into closer alignment with its spiritual brethren in Iran.

What on earth do you think 160,000 U.S. troops next door in Iraq does to radical Islam?

It makes it completely legitimate. It's almost as if our sole success in the region, outside of causing a humanitarian crisis and mass migration, is the creation of Islamic radicalism.

And then to here the Repugs shriek how we are all threatened, it makes one insane to ponder what we have created under fascist rule.

But ... but ... Saddam ...

Sawsan, another woman who works at a university, says the message from the radicals to women is simple: "They seem to be sending us a message to stay at home and keep your mouth shut."
advertisement

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Sawsan says, the situation was "the best." But now, she says, it's "the worst."

"We thought there would be freedom and democracy and women would have their rights. But all the things we were promised have not come true. There is only fear and horror."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/?imw=Y&iref=mps...

Again we hear that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing for Iraq, but unfortunately the provisional authority was unprepared for what might fill the void after that iron fist was eliminated.

This is so anti-Islam. It requires 4 reliable witnesses to convict someone of adultery, after a trial, and then Koranic law states that it is better to forgive. These people only have the feeble power that they have because the Bush regime lusts for blood. Forget oil and power, they are seeking pain and torture. They thrive on misery.

Someone please prove me wrong.

YBNurmal @ 15:

This is so anti-Islam. It requires 4 reliable witnesses to convict someone of adultery, after a trial, and then Koranic law states that it is better to forgive. These people only have the feeble power that they have because the Bush regime lusts for blood. Forget oil and power, they are seeking pain and torture. They thrive on misery.

Someone please prove me wrong.

so the shiites are doing this?

we have already seen that many in the middle east corrupt islamic law for their own purposes

this isnt anti islamic, its the middle east that the chimp has left us with

oh and today turkey overturned its bans on headscarfs in public areas

seems that secular turkey is now becoming more religiously conservative

far out

P.D. @ 12:

Depressing, upsetting, and totally against what Americans stand for. Is this the democracy we wanted? Millions displaced, millions dead and a humanitarian disaster? There should be impeachment hearings immediatly. This is so important. As an American I am ashamed of this president.

you misjudge the rest of america. they are out shopping for widescreens.

Well, what do we do now? This clip suggests the violence against women got worse with a draw down in British troops. So, it will different how if the U.S. withdraws? What I think some American do not realize is, whatever the lies that were told, however much the invasion was opposed, how ever evil and wrong Bush and the neocons were/are, none of that matters to a question raised by this clip: How can the invaders leave and let this sort of thing happen even more often to innocent women?

From the video: "For all its horrors, the Saddam era gave Iraqi Women broad rights under a secular constitution. Now women ... feel they have less freedom than ever."

But we're making progress, or so the Republicans and their mouthpieces at Faux News like to say. If this is progress in Iraq, I wonder what it'll be like in after the 100 years of US occupation that McCain is campaigning on?

You ask: "Is this what John McCain means when he says ‘By golly’ we’re ‘winning’ in Iraq?"

Well, he did say that Christer fundies were "agents of intolerance." But that was then, and now is now. It amazes me that the neocons were so eager to support Rumney (as a last resort, when they saw that he was their only hope) and condemn McCain when, in fact, there's about as much difference between them as between vomit and puke. Both are panderers who'll say anything to get a vote. McCain enjoyed provoking Rumney at debates by trotting out his history of flip and flop, but McCain has been guilty of the same seeing and sawing.

Where Iraq comes into the equation, vis-a-vis the Basra police file, is that the two cultures (the U.S. and Iraq) illustrate the same intolerances. Is there really that much difference between religious fanaticism that relegates the role of women to the status of "helpmate" to males and denies them choice in determination of what they can do with their own bodies (on the one hand), and one that forces them to hide behind heavy clothing in 114-degree summer heat and remain at home instead of going to school or teaching (on the other)? Both smack of misogyny and un-democratic double standards.

It could be said that McCain is at least pro-choice and that the Rev. Boobsons in the GOP base continue to reject him for such socially liberal positions, but this hardly makes up for his gung-ho attitude about staying in Iraq for a century to come. Remember when Arbusto angered the entire Islamic world early in his disastrous tenure by referring to the "War on Terror" as a "crusade"? Well, given the religious fanaticism that grips both nations, Iraq and the U.S., the word makes perfect sense. Maybe Arbusto is more cunning than we thought and the "crusade" quip was a Freudian slip.
You don't see countries like Sweden and the Netherlands joining "coalitions of the willing." Could it be that they're just a bit less theocratic and more aware of the slippery slope of religious fundamentalism?

McCain's Iraq nonsense is grounded in the fact that this is the only common coin between the divided factions of his party; even Rumney and Gomer Shuckabee agree with him on this issue. But he's sadly mistaken if he thinks he can swing the religious right by trotting out a militarist platform while ignoring their other concerns. He's going to lose in November, but he'll lose big time if he's foolish enough to annoint a religious bigot like Shuckabee as his running mate. Although the polls suggest otherwise, they're pre-convention, pre-veep polls, and it's very likely that either Obama or Hillary can pull off a victory, however marginal. That is, unless, between now and then, they shoot themselves in the foot.

I think we can all agree that Saddam was an ass. He was a brutal dictator. There really is no argument against those facts. The problem is that many only saw the brutal dictator, but don't see the person that kept the region relatively stable. If people got out of line when Saddam was there, he would kill them. If religious sects started problems, he would kill them. If Al-Qaeda started problems, he would kill them. Obviously, killing people is not the best way to solve problems, but the mere threat of him killing you in the middle of a soccer stadium was enough to deter potential problems. Since he has been out of power, that country has been completely out of control. Everyone knows he kept people in line, but nobody can say it because it will be construed as being in favor of a brutal dictator.

"The Deadly Plight of Women in Post-Saddam Iraq"
Yep, and the plight of women in Saddam's Iraq was great. I mean, come on, it was like a utopia. They weren't beat, raped, or treated like animals at all before. Women were flocking there.

Please.

Blame the islamic extremists that are causing the problems in the Middle East. Women, and other Iraqis, at least have a hope of freedom. Something that would have been impossible before.

Saddam needed to go and the USA were the ones to do it. We've always had a sense of global responsibility. The same thing happened in World War I and the Vietnam War. Remember, freedom is never free. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It is only when free man are willing to fight for others that Liberty will trump despots in this world, and we are the very best to do so.

And if you'd stray away from agenda driven "news" outlets (I put the quotation marks because the main media outlets report news, not truth), you would find that the war is going better than the media is reporting. But you'll never hear a good story about it. After all, that doesn't fit into their view of things so there's no reason to.

The Bush Doctrine Shuffle............one step forward.........two steps back :-(

john in california @ 5:

I think one of the main reasons that there is so much woman-hatred in Iraq right now is the ineffectualness and even emasculation of the men by the occupation. Rage and self hate go hand in hand when any sense of self determination is thwarted. Religious rules promise order in chaos and give opportunity for the worst stunted egoists to blame all their failings on those who cannot fight back. The kind of brutality that the women killers cannot be totally laid at the feet of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ because it is not common in other Islamic societies with large fundamentalist populations that are dealing with modernity but without external conflict and external rule (Turkey, for example). And the surge doesn’t seem to have done much to help. From the ethnic distribution maps before and after the surge, it is apparent that ghettoizing has more to do with any decrease in violence, generally, but may well account for some of the increase in violence on women, as the ethnic apartheid gives the fundies more power in each enclave. Kucinich’s proposal to remove US troops and replace w/ mid-easterners of similar ethnicities to those that they would be policing is the best way to reduce this form of ethnic suicide.

Thank you so much for this comment. It's so easy to get caught up in labels like "Iraqi" and "Muslim" and "Islamofascist" (ugh... I feel dirty just typing that made-up word) that we forget to consider that what we are dealing with are humans. There are positive aspects of human nature and there are negative aspects, and I think you hit the nail right on the head that extremism like this widespread violence against women tends to be, on some primal level, a natural human reaction -- the sublimation of the fear and anger caused by the environment we (or at least, our administration) have imposed on the citizens of Iraq. Don't mistake that for a justification, it's only an explanation. It's too easy in the US to simply turn away and say, "That could never happen here!" but I worry. In many ways, the Christian fundamentalism in the US that is on the rise is the sublimation of the fear and anger that most of us feel toward a government that has been corrupted by greedy, self-interested people. And I genuinely fear some future day when some European or African or Middle-Eastern will turn on their TV to a news report about the US and say, "How can those people do that to each other?!"

odanny @ 34:

G2 @ 29:

"The Deadly Plight of Women in Post-Saddam Iraq"
Yep, and the plight of women in Saddam's Iraq was great. I mean, come on, it was like a utopia. They weren't beat, raped, or treated like animals at all before. Women were flocking there.

Please.

Blame the islamic extremists that are causing the problems in the Middle East. Women, and other Iraqis, at least have a hope of freedom. Something that would have been impossible before.

Saddam needed to go and the USA were the ones to do it. We've always had a sense of global responsibility. The same thing happened in World War I and the Vietnam War. Remember, freedom is never free. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It is only when free man are willing to fight for others that Liberty will trump despots in this world, and we are the very best to do so.

And if you'd stray away from agenda driven "news" outlets (I put the quotation marks because the main media outlets report news, not truth), you would find that the war is going better than the media is reporting. But you'll never hear a good story about it. After all, that doesn't fit into their view of things so there's no reason to.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

My "Dumbass Detector" just went off.

amazing,simply amazing.After all the evidence that has been brought forward over the last 5 years,there's still people out there who think Iraq was a good idea.Why do I get the feelin that this person doesn't have any one in this conflict. ...........................................................................................(of interests?)

Iraq is now every bit the democracy that Saudi Arabia is. Bush's favorite country. This is what any good theocracy is all about, hatred and control officially sponsored by God. Iran just executed a man for drinking alcohol, which I'm sure brings a smile to the religious right here. And, Nebraska still can't decide if the electric chair is cruel punishment. God id pleased.

"They'll stone ya when your wearing our jahad
They'll stone ya if you say you are Mossad
They'll stone ya when your tryin' to go home
Or to Mecca if you're walkin' out alone

But Dick and Dubyaz say "just leave them alone"
So everybody must get stoned.."

(My apologies to Bob Dylan)

Something that seems to be largely overlooked, is that women in Iraq didn't face this issue before the USA invaded. Saddam Hussein ran a secular society in which women were free to wear their hair and make-up as they pleased. We've bombed and occupied this country into such a mess that lawlessness and violence are the norm.

Please, though, don't call it a failure of foreign policy. Iraq is in a condition which is optimal and desirable to the war-loving neocons. If they are not opposed, this mayhem will continue and spread. It makes their bosses in the IMF, Halliburton, Blackwater, and the rest very rich.

Something that seems to be overlooked:

Under the rule of Saddam Hussein, he or his sons or for that matter others in his regime could pluck any woman off the street and do whatever they wanted with her - and they often did - and anyone who complained disappeared also.

Yes, the Iraqis have shown zero talent for building and maintaining a stable democracy. There were those who called the problems created largely by outside agitators a "civil war" and, since it took one of those in the U.S. to finally sort things out, why is it that the fact it may also take a similar event in Iraq to do the same used as a stick to bash the Bush administration. Maybe if the Iraqis decide they want to settle things with guns instead of talks we're going to have to accept it.

All those who use events such as these as justification for their calls we have to pull out of Iraq now are idiots - if we do things will get much, much worse - and of course they'll just blame that on GW Bush too. Bush has made many mistakes - I get tired of people blaming him for the things he did right or wasn't involved in. Pick something he actually did to bash him about.

Greg @ 43:

Something that seems to be overlooked:

Under the rule of Saddam Hussein, he or his sons or for that matter others in his regime could pluck any woman off the street and do whatever they wanted with her - and they often did - and anyone who complained disappeared also.

Yes, the Iraqis have shown zero talent for building and maintaining a stable democracy. There were those who called the problems created largely by outside agitators a "civil war" and, since it took one of those in the U.S. to finally sort things out, why is it that the fact it may also take a similar event in Iraq to do the same used as a stick to bash the Bush administration. Maybe if the Iraqis decide they want to settle things with guns instead of talks we're going to have to accept it.

All those who use events such as these as justification for their calls we have to pull out of Iraq now are idiots - if we do things will get much, much worse - and of course they'll just blame that on GW Bush too. Bush has made many mistakes - I get tired of people blaming him for the things he did right or wasn't involved in. Pick something he actually did to bash him about.

I don't think I'm an idiot Greg, but I suppose you are allowed your opinion.

IMO, George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of our country. I have a degree in US history, taught it too, and, hands down, he beats even Ronnie Reagan. That's not bashing Greg - that's speaking the truth.

Greg you're an idiot, as is anyone who gets their 'facts' from the Drudge Report. Many atrocities occurred under Hussein, but the news about woman-napping and WMDs are only from Cheney's imagination.