I'm still somewhat at a loss to discover why we're not invading Saudi Arabia, if our mission in the Middle East is to spread democracy and freedom. In the Kingdom, even
suggesting studying the idea of allowing women to drive can endanger your life. The fact the 9/11 hijackers and Osama are (were) (nearly) all Saudis seems to have been neglected even in the 9/11 commission report. But any Iraqi even vaguely rumoured to be part of a WMD program was held as an example of international terrorism, while the fact that women in Iraq under the Hussein regime actually
had a lot more status and rights than virtually any other arab society, and now their situation is
demonstrably worse and threatening to get very bad, indeed, under the new Iraqi government.
We're not exactly setting a shining example, either, by attempts in Congress to limit women's roles in the military, specifically in Iraq.
This all leads to the rhetorical question: how can it be said unambiguously that Iraqis are better off without Sadaam when ut seems this is not the case for at least half the population? No one suggests Hussein was an enlightened leader; but if we're in the mid-east rto promote freedom and democracy, then perhaps self-government is a subsidiary goal after universal human rights are guaranteed. But of course as long as ou President walks literally hand in hand with the Prince of a Kingdom that won't even let women drive, much less vote, it's all hypocrisy of the hollowest, ninth-circle sort.
