When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Problem: Server said ‘You are pinging trackbacks too quickly. Please try again later.’
JustADude
16 years ago
All the left side can say about this trip is look she put on a head gear piece just like Pelosi did and don’t take into account it was a gesture in a private home due to a gift from ladies supporting the breast cancer issue and was never worn in public.
A whole trip for many reasons condensed into a wrongfully cherry picked spun moment that never put it into context.
I agree, but sadly it wasn’t just the left who is spinning this and neglecting the bigger picture. Little Green Footballs and Hot Air are also exploiting the First Lady’s attire. They clearly don’t understand counterinsurgency.. tihs is a form of winning hearts and minds.
JustaDude: Even before I posted this piece I had a sourpuss leftwing defeatist moonbat commenting on Laura’s wearing of the scarf.
I’m sure he’ll be back now that I posted the piece but what the photos show so very clearly (and I encourage anyone who is interested to follow the links and look at all of them) is that Mrs. Bush isn’t pandering to Muslims. There she is with the King of Saudi Arabia, Emir of Kuwait, King of Jordan and all these Islamic women wearing western clothes and looking quite nice if I do say so.
What do they expect her to do? Demand to be taken to Mecca? Please!
To my sourpuss moonbat who tried to say this is just like Pelosi I pointed out that the First Lady was visiting our ALLIES, nor our ENEMIES and also, she is NOT a Constitutional officer of the United States government.
But she sure as heck behaves a lot better than Pelosi.
Too bad we can’t make her Ambassador to the U.N. after her husband leaves office.
JustADude
16 years ago
Mike
Also as shown in the photos above Ms Bush also took the time to visit the troops while she was in the area.
Wow, for all the excellent commentary and analysis on this site, I have to say that I am flabbergasted by the, in my opinion, complete ignorance of the reality on this issue.
I completely agree with Caroline Glick’s assessment here. This is not about “COIN”. This is about legitimizing all the oppression and subjugation of women that happens in Islam, and in Saudi Arabia specifically – which is symbolized by the abaya.
What good is being aware of breast cancer, if you have no rights under Islam? First Lady Laura Bush legitimized the oppression of women and you are saying she was graceful and polite?
Maybe she should go visit the Westboro Baptist Church and pose with them too and be polite when they give her a sign that says “God Hates Fags”. Then she can say that she was just being polite and that is their “culture”.
To my sourpuss moonbat who tried to say this is just like Pelosi I pointed out that the First Lady was visiting our ALLIES, nor our ENEMIES and also, she is NOT a Constitutional officer of the United States government.
Mike – I know you are not this ignorant. Saudi Arabia is an “ally”, not an ally. They are probably the leading country of spreading terrorism and ‘radical’ Islam, especially through funding of Islamist groups such as C.A.I.R. and M.A.S. and M.S.A. They fund our schools to spread their ‘radical’ Islam and propagandize our children. They fund our media to propagandize our ignorant public. They are actively working to spread Islam in our country and weaken it.
They are NOT an ally. They are an “ally” of convience. And the “convenience” goes both ways. We buy a lot of their oil and they also use us to protect them from their Middle East enemies. We stay friends with them and legitimize their oppressive and barbaric culture and government, because they control much of the world’s oil supply.
But they are in no way an ally. No, they are not sending terrorists into Iraq to kill our soldiers. BUT, they ARE funding the spread of ‘radical’ Islam in America and other places throughout The West. That spread of ‘radical’ Islamic propaganda is just as big a part of the ‘war on terror’ as is terrorists killing.
From the Glick piece: “there is a dire need in the kingdom to raise public awareness of breast cancer and its treatments. Due to social taboos, some 70 percent of breast cancer cases in Saudi Arabia are not reported until the late stages of the disease. It is possible that the local media attention that Mrs. Bush’s visit aroused may work to save the lives of women whose husbands will now permit them to be screened for the disease and receive proper medical treatment for it in its early stages.”
What else should the First Lady have done? Rip the burka off the woman next to her at the cancer treatment center?
I’d rather have Laura Bush going over to the Middle East talking to our friends (or perhaps in your eyes not outright declared enemies) than Nancy Pelosi going over and talking to the Syrians.
If you need a reality check, look again at ALL the photos (more links are in the post for each country). As a symbol of freedom and hope you can’t do better than Laura Bush sitting in Western attire talking to the King of Saudi Arabia face to face.
I get myself in some hot water with fellow conservatives with whom I usually agree by refusing to see all of Islam as an enemy. Go see the film “The Kingdom” and you realize just how much the Saudis are at risk from extremist as we are, if not more so.
If we were to toss the Saudis overboard because they haven’t done enough to fight terrorism then we could kiss goodbye the entire Kingdom, and our economic and strategic relationship.
Millions would die in the ensuing conflict just as they would in Iraq. There are probably some out there who say we shouldn’t save Iraq either because many Muslim women there still wear a burka and are treated as property.
If you’re prepared to go that far, better make sure you get the oil flowing in ANWR FIRST! Not after Saudi Arabia degenerates into chaos.
If we are at war with terrorists who claim to be Muslims, you’d better believe this is about COIN. It’s a global war on terror and how we relate to Muslims is very significant.
Does it affirm Communism when top world leaders, including Pres. Bush, meet for the annual economic summit in Vietnam in traditional Vietnamese dress?
In terms of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are to Christianity what Osama bin Laden is to Islam, you’ve completely missed the point. You’re painting ALL Muslims, especially the women with breast cancer, with the same stroke as the Taliban.
This is why I’m talking couinterinsurgency. The principles apply far beyond the battlefield.
Mike – I did say that the reason we are friends of convenience with the Saudis is because they need us for protection. We need them for oil. But we have no moral high ground to say anything about any culture anywhere in the world, because we legitimize Islamic oppression. Period. That is what First Lady Laura Bush did.
Breast cancer is the least of the worries for women in the Middle East. Being treated like covered meat with no rights would probably be higher on the list.
I’m sorry. I completely disagree with your take on this. And I say that with a lot of respect for your work here at Flopping Aces. I am actually more upset with the fact that to defend her actions, the First Lady pushed the “it’s their culture, they choose to do that” line. Women have no choice under Islam in Saudi Arabia.
As a commenter at LGF stated:
Any time a woman of renown dons hijab, abaya, chador, etc. – she is promoting the message of the enemy. “See? It’s not so bad.” This undermines the counter-jihad movement in that it whitewashes the subjugation of women in islam. How are muslim women going to find the courage to remove hijab if the image they see is Western women embracing it?
We have women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others working hard, under threat of assassination, to try to reform Islam. And here we have the most symbolically powerfully woman in the world telling the world that “there is no subjugation of women in Islam”.
I’m sorry, that is a disaster for the reformation movement in Islam. “Sorry, wifey, you’re gonna wear that burka and like it, because even the First Lady of the United States says it is not oppressive.”
And stop comparing this to Nancy Pelosi. Just take this incident for what it is. The First Lady of the United States of America, the leader of The West, legitimizing Islamic oppression.
All she had to do was kindly accept the gift and not wear it. And even after that, she did not have to go on national TV and whitewash the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.
On the issue of my last comment, I believe the First Lady just made the efforts of people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci much, much more difficult. Her statement supporting oppressive Islamic dress makes the two women look like ‘radicals’ now.
I don’t see how that helps us in reforming Islam. Not at all.
Also, Amy, we’re not talking about Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam. We’re talking about Saudi Arabia’s. The First Lady legitimized Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam (which is described in the Caroline Glick piece) – which is also being funded to spread here in America and throughout the West by the Saudis. What the First Lady did, in my opinion, is set us back immensely in the fight to stop the spread of Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam here in America.
“How are muslim women going to find the courage to remove hijab if the image they see is Western women embracing it?”
Michael: The reason I ran this photo spread is because it shows just the opposite.
You could not have a clearer contrast than to sit Mrs. Bush next to these covered women or Arab leaders.
Again, I don’t know what you want her to do? Rip the shroud off these women?
I get myself into hot water with fellow conservatives, some of whom think that All Islam is evil and that we really are in a war with the 1/4 of the world’s population.
I simply refuse to see it that way and I hope you do too.
Micahel, breast cancer is the least of the worries for women in the Middle East… unless you’re a woman in the Middle East. About 70% of cases diagnosed are in the last stages. This is why Laura Bush is promoting prevention.
And how many Muslims do you know? My husband is an OIF vet and we still keep in touch with friends he made in Iraq. I’m NOT defending Islam, but you’re wrong about all Muslim women. Like in Iraq, Saudi women have the choice to wear a headress, a burka or none at all.
I’m not sure what the alternative would be. The First Lady could have gone head uncovered, as she did most of her visit, but THIS FACT only points to prove what she was saying; that Muslim women have more choice than you give htem credit for. Otherwise, Laura would have been run out of town. Instead, she was welcomed. This is NOT the Taliban. Showing solidarity with women in the situation they are in helps them to overcome whatever obstacles they may face.
The First Lady did NOT “support oppressive Islamic dress”! She supported women’s rights and early prevention of cancer. Is Bill Clinton a pagan because he visited Africa preaching AIDS prevention and dressed in tribal clothes, or Bush Sr. and Clinton in their traditional dress when visiting tsunami savaged Indonesia? I think not. They were showing solidarity on a human level.
Mike – First, I agree. We are not at war with Muslims.
However, we have to decide if we stand for human rights or not. If we say that Islam, as practiced by Saudia Arabia, which grants women NO rights, as outlined by Caroline Glick in the article, and punishes them with public stoning if they so much as leave the house without wearing their Islamic garb, is legitimate, then I really don’t know what we stand for anymore.
Michael, concerning, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci… they are not ruining COIN efforts. The whole point of COIN is that you enable those within the country, religion or movement to make the reforms. We should encourage those reforms. We give the people what they need to make the reforms, and we won’t be doing that by alienating conservative Muslims.
Amy – How did we enable Muslim women in Saudi Arabia to reform that government? The First Lady just stated on national television that they are not oppressed or subjugated in Saudi Arabia. I do not see how that is helping to enable reforms. Quite the opposite.
Michael, if women in Saudi Arabia are met with condescension every time a foreign dignitary visits, rest assured those visits with stop. If they are met with hospitality and respect, the host nation has a greater chance of reform because with exposure (via presidential visits, etc.) will come accountability.
The first lady didn’t say there was no oppression in their country. She said the women say this as giving her, the First Lady, as a gift. I invite you to listen to the First Lady in her own defense.
Amy – Women who are beaten by their husbands say that they just fell down the stairs or ran into the door when asked abou their bruises too. Of course the women told the First Lady they didn’t feel subjugated or oppressed.
And who said anything about treating the women in Saudi Arabia with condescension? I simply ask that my First Lady does not legitimize oppression by wearing the symbol of such oppression. That is OUR culture.
Or actually, if this is true, apparently we even get rid of our culture of celebrating the equality of women in America when the Saudis come to America:
Remember when GWB agreed to remove all women from the control tower and the tarmac in Waco when the Saudis flew in. Normally we don’t do that in Texas.
Interesting. Apparently we have respect for their misogynistic culture, but we have no respect for the women of our own culture when the misogynists come to America. That’s brilliant.
I’m sorry, Amy and Mike. I respectfully, but adamantly disagree with you both on this.
“And she’s done more for women in Islamic countries than any other Western leader.”
What?
All any Islamic man has to do is show his woman the picture of First Lady Laura Bush in the abaya with the following words:
“These women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That’s their culture. That’s their tradition. That’s a religious choice of theirs.â€Â
If this is the culture, tradition and religious choice of Islam, then that means that a Muslim man who forces his wife to wear the burka and beats or stones her for not abiding by that demand should be allowed here in America.
This is what First Lady Laura Bush just legitimized, in my eyes. Pictures mean things. Words mean things. She should know full well that Saudi Arabian women do not have the choice to wear these things. It is a requirement.
Are we to shun her as a Papist because she wore that black veil? Does this mean she endorses the Catholic Church treating women on an unequal plane with men?
I don’t think so. And I would hope you do not also.
I don’t usually recommend watching Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, but Greta is featuring exclusive video and interviews with Mrs. Bush from the trip. Tuesday Greta will cover the Saudi portion of the trip.
I’m sorry, that is a disaster for the reformation movement in Islam. “Sorry, wifey, you’re gonna wear that burka and like it, because even the First Lady of the United States says it is not oppressive.”
Michael, I think that’s a stretch of imagination. Although it probably does provide for propaganda fodder for the left; the ones who like to show photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and President Bush with Saudi royals (forget that all U.S. Presidents have shaken hands with Saudis).
It is dishonest to claim that Laura Bush is essentially saying, “there is no subjugation of women in Islam”.
But we have no moral high ground to say anything about any culture anywhere in the world, because we legitimize Islamic oppression. Period. That is what First Lady Laura Bush did.
She did not “legitimize” Islamic oppression. She exercised diplomacy.
I don’t mean this in an insulting manner, but you are exercising the same puritanical moral arrogance and sanctimony that Jimmy Carter practiced during his Presidency, when he alienated and pressured other governments- strong allies, to live up to our standards of human rights practice. He did this to the Shah of Iran; and for that, he enabled an even worse regime to replace a “bad” dictator.
The ones who want to overthrow the Saudi royal family are the Sunni Islam wahhabi who want a rejection of modernity and western influence. If they gained power by overthrowing the House of Saud monarchy, you can kiss goodbye even an “alliance of convenience”, as well as any reformation of ever standing a chance to take place in Saudi Arabia, as fundamentalist Sunni Islam institutes absolute Sharia, leading to even more oppression.
Amy – Women who are beaten by their husbands say that they just fell down the stairs or ran into the door when asked abou their bruises too. Of course the women told the First Lady they didn’t feel subjugated or oppressed.
And who said anything about treating the women in Saudi Arabia with condescension?
I think, in a manner, your first paragraph does exactly what your second paragraph asks.
I know Muslims in this country who value the religious freedom our country affords them. And they are deeply pro-American. They mix western wear with covering their heads. It’s by choice. Their choice. No one is “forcing” them to do this. And it is utmost arrogance for us to tell them they need to “stop it”, because they are legitimizing symbols of oppression against women.
I think many conservatives have been so-filled with anti-PC anti-Islam “propaganda” and rhetoric, we stand to alienate many good Muslims, by thinking we know Islam better than they know and practice Islam.
I simply ask that my First Lady does not legitimize oppression by wearing the symbol of such oppression. That is OUR culture.
I don’t think Amy, Mike, nor myself need to be preached to about the hijab, burkha, abaya, khimÄÂr, and oppression of women in the Middle East. We know all this. The problem here, is that religion and culture are deeply intertwined. What is considered by us as a “symbol of oppression”, is also part and parcel to culture. And it is only oppressive when it is forced, and not worn out of choice.
What you see as Laura Bush “endorsing” and “legitimizing” the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, others might see as simply a show of respect for foreign customs when on foreign soil. I have mixed feelings on this, btw. But I just want you to try and look outside of this “box” of yours.
What would you have of her? Openly speak out against the wearing of the hijab? America has a reputation for arrogance, you know.
dave
16 years ago
mike i can see how going somewhere, sitting down, and talking to someone could mean you agree with that person. after all you going to your computer, sitting down, and talking to AMY makes you a conservitive!! get a life
I keep trying to trackback to this post but am having problems. I’ll try again later.
In the meantime, I agree with the assessment that Laura Bush is a great representative for the West to present itself to Islamic culture.
Try it now Amy, it appears MT was throttling trackbacks to prevent spam. Tried a fix.
It keeps saying:
Problem: Server said ‘You are pinging trackbacks too quickly. Please try again later.’
All the left side can say about this trip is look she put on a head gear piece just like Pelosi did and don’t take into account it was a gesture in a private home due to a gift from ladies supporting the breast cancer issue and was never worn in public.
A whole trip for many reasons condensed into a wrongfully cherry picked spun moment that never put it into context.
Pure gotcha agenda with no shame at all.
I agree, but sadly it wasn’t just the left who is spinning this and neglecting the bigger picture. Little Green Footballs and Hot Air are also exploiting the First Lady’s attire. They clearly don’t understand counterinsurgency.. tihs is a form of winning hearts and minds.
JustaDude: Even before I posted this piece I had a sourpuss leftwing defeatist moonbat commenting on Laura’s wearing of the scarf.
I’m sure he’ll be back now that I posted the piece but what the photos show so very clearly (and I encourage anyone who is interested to follow the links and look at all of them) is that Mrs. Bush isn’t pandering to Muslims. There she is with the King of Saudi Arabia, Emir of Kuwait, King of Jordan and all these Islamic women wearing western clothes and looking quite nice if I do say so.
What do they expect her to do? Demand to be taken to Mecca? Please!
To my sourpuss moonbat who tried to say this is just like Pelosi I pointed out that the First Lady was visiting our ALLIES, nor our ENEMIES and also, she is NOT a Constitutional officer of the United States government.
But she sure as heck behaves a lot better than Pelosi.
Too bad we can’t make her Ambassador to the U.N. after her husband leaves office.
Mike
Also as shown in the photos above Ms Bush also took the time to visit the troops while she was in the area.
Wow, for all the excellent commentary and analysis on this site, I have to say that I am flabbergasted by the, in my opinion, complete ignorance of the reality on this issue.
I completely agree with Caroline Glick’s assessment here. This is not about “COIN”. This is about legitimizing all the oppression and subjugation of women that happens in Islam, and in Saudi Arabia specifically – which is symbolized by the abaya.
What good is being aware of breast cancer, if you have no rights under Islam? First Lady Laura Bush legitimized the oppression of women and you are saying she was graceful and polite?
Maybe she should go visit the Westboro Baptist Church and pose with them too and be polite when they give her a sign that says “God Hates Fags”. Then she can say that she was just being polite and that is their “culture”.
Please read the Caroline Glick piece.
Mike – I know you are not this ignorant. Saudi Arabia is an “ally”, not an ally. They are probably the leading country of spreading terrorism and ‘radical’ Islam, especially through funding of Islamist groups such as C.A.I.R. and M.A.S. and M.S.A. They fund our schools to spread their ‘radical’ Islam and propagandize our children. They fund our media to propagandize our ignorant public. They are actively working to spread Islam in our country and weaken it.
They are NOT an ally. They are an “ally” of convience. And the “convenience” goes both ways. We buy a lot of their oil and they also use us to protect them from their Middle East enemies. We stay friends with them and legitimize their oppressive and barbaric culture and government, because they control much of the world’s oil supply.
But they are in no way an ally. No, they are not sending terrorists into Iraq to kill our soldiers. BUT, they ARE funding the spread of ‘radical’ Islam in America and other places throughout The West. That spread of ‘radical’ Islamic propaganda is just as big a part of the ‘war on terror’ as is terrorists killing.
Michael:
From the Glick piece: “there is a dire need in the kingdom to raise public awareness of breast cancer and its treatments. Due to social taboos, some 70 percent of breast cancer cases in Saudi Arabia are not reported until the late stages of the disease. It is possible that the local media attention that Mrs. Bush’s visit aroused may work to save the lives of women whose husbands will now permit them to be screened for the disease and receive proper medical treatment for it in its early stages.”
What else should the First Lady have done? Rip the burka off the woman next to her at the cancer treatment center?
I’d rather have Laura Bush going over to the Middle East talking to our friends (or perhaps in your eyes not outright declared enemies) than Nancy Pelosi going over and talking to the Syrians.
If you need a reality check, look again at ALL the photos (more links are in the post for each country). As a symbol of freedom and hope you can’t do better than Laura Bush sitting in Western attire talking to the King of Saudi Arabia face to face.
I get myself in some hot water with fellow conservatives with whom I usually agree by refusing to see all of Islam as an enemy. Go see the film “The Kingdom” and you realize just how much the Saudis are at risk from extremist as we are, if not more so.
If we were to toss the Saudis overboard because they haven’t done enough to fight terrorism then we could kiss goodbye the entire Kingdom, and our economic and strategic relationship.
Millions would die in the ensuing conflict just as they would in Iraq. There are probably some out there who say we shouldn’t save Iraq either because many Muslim women there still wear a burka and are treated as property.
If you’re prepared to go that far, better make sure you get the oil flowing in ANWR FIRST! Not after Saudi Arabia degenerates into chaos.
If we are at war with terrorists who claim to be Muslims, you’d better believe this is about COIN. It’s a global war on terror and how we relate to Muslims is very significant.
Does it affirm Communism when top world leaders, including Pres. Bush, meet for the annual economic summit in Vietnam in traditional Vietnamese dress?
In terms of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are to Christianity what Osama bin Laden is to Islam, you’ve completely missed the point. You’re painting ALL Muslims, especially the women with breast cancer, with the same stroke as the Taliban.
This is why I’m talking couinterinsurgency. The principles apply far beyond the battlefield.
Mike – I did say that the reason we are friends of convenience with the Saudis is because they need us for protection. We need them for oil. But we have no moral high ground to say anything about any culture anywhere in the world, because we legitimize Islamic oppression. Period. That is what First Lady Laura Bush did.
Breast cancer is the least of the worries for women in the Middle East. Being treated like covered meat with no rights would probably be higher on the list.
I’m sorry. I completely disagree with your take on this. And I say that with a lot of respect for your work here at Flopping Aces. I am actually more upset with the fact that to defend her actions, the First Lady pushed the “it’s their culture, they choose to do that” line. Women have no choice under Islam in Saudi Arabia.
As a commenter at LGF stated:
Amy – So what do you think of reformers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci?
Are they ruining our COIN efforts?
On the issue of my last comment, I believe the First Lady just made the efforts of people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci much, much more difficult. Her statement supporting oppressive Islamic dress makes the two women look like ‘radicals’ now.
I don’t see how that helps us in reforming Islam. Not at all.
Also, Amy, we’re not talking about Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam. We’re talking about Saudi Arabia’s. The First Lady legitimized Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam (which is described in the Caroline Glick piece) – which is also being funded to spread here in America and throughout the West by the Saudis. What the First Lady did, in my opinion, is set us back immensely in the fight to stop the spread of Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam here in America.
“How are muslim women going to find the courage to remove hijab if the image they see is Western women embracing it?”
Michael: The reason I ran this photo spread is because it shows just the opposite.
You could not have a clearer contrast than to sit Mrs. Bush next to these covered women or Arab leaders.
Again, I don’t know what you want her to do? Rip the shroud off these women?
I get myself into hot water with fellow conservatives, some of whom think that All Islam is evil and that we really are in a war with the 1/4 of the world’s population.
I simply refuse to see it that way and I hope you do too.
Micahel, breast cancer is the least of the worries for women in the Middle East… unless you’re a woman in the Middle East. About 70% of cases diagnosed are in the last stages. This is why Laura Bush is promoting prevention.
And how many Muslims do you know? My husband is an OIF vet and we still keep in touch with friends he made in Iraq. I’m NOT defending Islam, but you’re wrong about all Muslim women. Like in Iraq, Saudi women have the choice to wear a headress, a burka or none at all.
I’m not sure what the alternative would be. The First Lady could have gone head uncovered, as she did most of her visit, but THIS FACT only points to prove what she was saying; that Muslim women have more choice than you give htem credit for. Otherwise, Laura would have been run out of town. Instead, she was welcomed. This is NOT the Taliban. Showing solidarity with women in the situation they are in helps them to overcome whatever obstacles they may face.
The First Lady did NOT “support oppressive Islamic dress”! She supported women’s rights and early prevention of cancer. Is Bill Clinton a pagan because he visited Africa preaching AIDS prevention and dressed in tribal clothes, or Bush Sr. and Clinton in their traditional dress when visiting tsunami savaged Indonesia? I think not. They were showing solidarity on a human level.
Mike – First, I agree. We are not at war with Muslims.
However, we have to decide if we stand for human rights or not. If we say that Islam, as practiced by Saudia Arabia, which grants women NO rights, as outlined by Caroline Glick in the article, and punishes them with public stoning if they so much as leave the house without wearing their Islamic garb, is legitimate, then I really don’t know what we stand for anymore.
Michael, concerning, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci… they are not ruining COIN efforts. The whole point of COIN is that you enable those within the country, religion or movement to make the reforms. We should encourage those reforms. We give the people what they need to make the reforms, and we won’t be doing that by alienating conservative Muslims.
Amy – How did we enable Muslim women in Saudi Arabia to reform that government? The First Lady just stated on national television that they are not oppressed or subjugated in Saudi Arabia. I do not see how that is helping to enable reforms. Quite the opposite.
Michael, if women in Saudi Arabia are met with condescension every time a foreign dignitary visits, rest assured those visits with stop. If they are met with hospitality and respect, the host nation has a greater chance of reform because with exposure (via presidential visits, etc.) will come accountability.
The first lady didn’t say there was no oppression in their country. She said the women say this as giving her, the First Lady, as a gift. I invite you to listen to the First Lady in her own defense.
Amy – Women who are beaten by their husbands say that they just fell down the stairs or ran into the door when asked abou their bruises too. Of course the women told the First Lady they didn’t feel subjugated or oppressed.
And who said anything about treating the women in Saudi Arabia with condescension? I simply ask that my First Lady does not legitimize oppression by wearing the symbol of such oppression. That is OUR culture.
Or actually, if this is true, apparently we even get rid of our culture of celebrating the equality of women in America when the Saudis come to America:
Interesting. Apparently we have respect for their misogynistic culture, but we have no respect for the women of our own culture when the misogynists come to America. That’s brilliant.
I’m sorry, Amy and Mike. I respectfully, but adamantly disagree with you both on this.
Michael:
Again, go back and look at the links for the complete sets of photos from each country visited.
Mrs. Bush made an extraordinary effort to reach out to women in politics in these countries.
Surely, if the status of women in these countries is a concern of yours you should be pleased that Mrs. Bush did so much to elevate the issues.
Unfortunately, she doesn’t have a magic wand that can make centuries of oppression disappear overnight.
But she’s making the effort. And she’s done more for women in Islamic countries than any other Western leader.
What?
All any Islamic man has to do is show his woman the picture of First Lady Laura Bush in the abaya with the following words:
If this is the culture, tradition and religious choice of Islam, then that means that a Muslim man who forces his wife to wear the burka and beats or stones her for not abiding by that demand should be allowed here in America.
This is what First Lady Laura Bush just legitimized, in my eyes. Pictures mean things. Words mean things. She should know full well that Saudi Arabian women do not have the choice to wear these things. It is a requirement.
Michael: You’re overreacting.
It’s impossible to erase or ignore all the good work in the First Lady’s historic trip by focusing solely and exclusively on ONE photograph.
Here’s the First Lady meeting the Pope:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/images/20060209-2_p012006sc-0449-3-515h.jpg
Are we to shun her as a Papist because she wore that black veil? Does this mean she endorses the Catholic Church treating women on an unequal plane with men?
I don’t think so. And I would hope you do not also.
I don’t usually recommend watching Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, but Greta is featuring exclusive video and interviews with Mrs. Bush from the trip. Tuesday Greta will cover the Saudi portion of the trip.
Michael, I think that’s a stretch of imagination. Although it probably does provide for propaganda fodder for the left; the ones who like to show photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and President Bush with Saudi royals (forget that all U.S. Presidents have shaken hands with Saudis).
It is dishonest to claim that Laura Bush is essentially saying, “there is no subjugation of women in Islam”.
She did not “legitimize” Islamic oppression. She exercised diplomacy.
I don’t mean this in an insulting manner, but you are exercising the same puritanical moral arrogance and sanctimony that Jimmy Carter practiced during his Presidency, when he alienated and pressured other governments- strong allies, to live up to our standards of human rights practice. He did this to the Shah of Iran; and for that, he enabled an even worse regime to replace a “bad” dictator.
The ones who want to overthrow the Saudi royal family are the Sunni Islam wahhabi who want a rejection of modernity and western influence. If they gained power by overthrowing the House of Saud monarchy, you can kiss goodbye even an “alliance of convenience”, as well as any reformation of ever standing a chance to take place in Saudi Arabia, as fundamentalist Sunni Islam institutes absolute Sharia, leading to even more oppression.
I think, in a manner, your first paragraph does exactly what your second paragraph asks.
I know Muslims in this country who value the religious freedom our country affords them. And they are deeply pro-American. They mix western wear with covering their heads. It’s by choice. Their choice. No one is “forcing” them to do this. And it is utmost arrogance for us to tell them they need to “stop it”, because they are legitimizing symbols of oppression against women.
I think many conservatives have been so-filled with anti-PC anti-Islam “propaganda” and rhetoric, we stand to alienate many good Muslims, by thinking we know Islam better than they know and practice Islam.
I don’t think Amy, Mike, nor myself need to be preached to about the hijab, burkha, abaya, khimÄÂr, and oppression of women in the Middle East. We know all this. The problem here, is that religion and culture are deeply intertwined. What is considered by us as a “symbol of oppression”, is also part and parcel to culture. And it is only oppressive when it is forced, and not worn out of choice.
What you see as Laura Bush “endorsing” and “legitimizing” the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, others might see as simply a show of respect for foreign customs when on foreign soil. I have mixed feelings on this, btw. But I just want you to try and look outside of this “box” of yours.
What would you have of her? Openly speak out against the wearing of the hijab? America has a reputation for arrogance, you know.
mike i can see how going somewhere, sitting down, and talking to someone could mean you agree with that person. after all you going to your computer, sitting down, and talking to AMY makes you a conservitive!! get a life
Dave: I have no idea what you are talking about… and I wonder if you have a clue?