It's the women, stupid
I wonder who's got it right, Bush? (via Atrios)

Q Does the administration's goal -- I'll ask you about the Iraqi constitution. You said you're confident that it will honor the rights of women.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q If it's rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be, is that still -- is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?

THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution.

Or Reuel Marc Gerecht, former CIA Middle East specialist, defending the Iraq constitution draft on Meet The Press (my emphasis):

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.

I wonder why Gerecht didn't just talk to Condi? Or maybe she hasn't heard that going backwards on women's rights is one of the noble causes kids are dying for? When exactly did we agree to that? As much as we all knew it was happening when this crappy war went down, I can't believe we just went to war and killed tens of thousands so that we could get rid of a despot and install a repressive theocratic regime amid Taliban-style chaos. I'm no Saddam apologist, but which one do you think poses a graver threat to American security? Once this constitution goes live, I hope the question Americans are asking is, "we went to war for this?" Obviously, I hope Bush and Condi are right...but given their track record...