"Foolish" - That's how the WashPost describes Nancy Pelosi's "pratfall" in the Middle East. Also, Mona Charen thinks that Pelosi's wearing of a headscarf (hajib?) is a setback for feminism: "She had no business conducting her own foreign policy of course, but if she did have to go, she should have done so holding her uncovered head high as the representative of liberated, western womanhood."
As arguably the most powerful woman on Earth - third in line for the U.S. Presidency - did Nancy Pelosi bother to raise the issue of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, where women aren't allowed to drive? Or was it just easier to undermine U.S. and Israeli foreign policy? You chicks must be beaming with pride now.
Update - Well, color me contradicted: "Pelosi asks Saudis about lack of women in politics"
1 comment:
The Washington Post has been running a string of editorials whose prime goal seems to be the retroactive rehabilitation of their Iraq editorials of the past several years. In many cases, the Post's 2006-07 editorials contradict the reportage being done by their own writers.
Separating the edit board from the reporting staff isn't unusual. But the WaPo's edit board comes off as particularly divorced from those facts and trends which rebuke their previous positions.
They're very much hunkered down into the "mistakes were made, but whatever their causes may have been, we must rise above them" camp. Re-reading the Post's 2003 and 2004 editorials lets you know why.
Post a Comment