In his syndicated column today,
Robert Novak once again went for Howard Dean's throat.
And, once again, Howard Dean is about six months ahead of the pack. This time, he's speaking out about women's rights in Iraq.
From Novak's article -
In answer to host Bob Schieffer's first question on "Face the Nation," he replied that "it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right." A few moments later, he said: "If it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there."
The sad, bad truth is what Dean says here. There were, in fact, many professional and working women, who enjoyed public positions in their respective fields in business, the arts, medicine, science, and education, in Hussein's Iraq.
It looks like the new constitution in Iraq may do away with many of the rights women held as theirs.
Is this irony, an unforeseen consequence to freedom, or simply a by-product of the re-emergence of fundamentalism as the driving force behind the government we are helping to put in place in Iraq?
Novak goes on to pose this question, which I think shows the depth of the moral vacuum that Novak resides within.
Is it good politics to contend that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein than even a flawed Islamic republic?
Does it make sense politically to tell Americans that more than 1,800 troops have died to make life worse for half of Iraq's population?
It may not make political sense, but if, in fact, Iraqi women will be worse off with this constitution, then Americans have the right and obligation to know that our troops have died to affect this terrible change.
It may not be good politics, but it if this is the truth, we deserve to know it.