Enough Already

Anne Applebaum takes a look at the reactions to the speech Pope Benedict XVI made in Germany. She's fed up with the apologies. More important, she's fed up with the silence.

Unfortunately, these subtle distinctions are lost on the fanatics who torch embassies and churches. And they may also be preventing all of us from finding a useful response to the waves of anti-Western anger and violence that periodically engulf parts of the Muslim world. Clearly, a handful of apologies and some random public debate — should the pope have said X, should the Danish prime minister have done Y — are ineffective and irrelevant: None of the radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing — and start uniting.

By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech — surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts — and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News — Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary — "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" — but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them — simultaneously?

Read the whole thing. She's spot on here. Nothing the Pope said has remotely approached the level of hate that is spewed daily from the Islamist "clerics". The West needs to stop apologizing to thuggish people like this. We really do need to stand united against this behavior and denounce it. The West must not only refuse to apologize for these supposed insults, but must demand the same standards of behavior from the Muslim world as we expect civilized nations to hold to. Giving them a pass on meeting those expectations is cultural chauvinism masquerading as tolerance.

Still More French Perfidy

Who in their right mind actually considers France an ally? French president Jacques Chirac gave an interview to the media yesterday that indicates he is opposed to sanctions against Iran, repudiating the earlier French backing of a tough stance.

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 18 — In a potential break with the Bush administration, French President Jacques Chirac said Monday that he is "never in favor of sanctions" and suggested that the United States and other nations could begin talks with Iran on its nuclear program before Iran formally suspends its nuclear activities.

Chirac's remarks came as President Bush prepared to address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, part of an intensifying U.S. drive to secure international sanctions against Iran. The French president, in a 45-minute interview on European radio, appeared to upend that diplomatic drive and signaled a widening breach on Iran between the United States and European partners, reminiscent of the debate over the Iraq invasion four years ago

Perhaps mindful of those tensions, some U.S. officials both publicly and privately played down Chirac's comments, insisting there was little daylight between the U.S. and French positions. But others said that the remarks took them by surprise and that they would seek an explanation from the French at meetings on Tuesday.

In his speech, Bush plans to take a far less aggressive approach to Iran than he did four years ago in arguing for action against Iraq, U.S. officials said, casting the debate over Iran as part of a noble effort to bring democracy to the Middle East. The officials said that Iran will not be the major focus of the speech and that Bush also plans to announce he will name a special envoy to spearhead efforts to end the violence in Sudan's Darfur region.

Chirac's comments represented another potential hurdle for Bush, who is coming to the United Nations this week seeking considerable assistance from the world community, including peacekeeping troops for Lebanon, financial aid for the reconstruction of Iraq and political support for his efforts to shut down Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, however, U.S. leverage has been weakened by the ongoing war in Iraq, and diplomats are skeptical that the lofty theme of Bush's speech Tuesday — bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East — will be of much practical significance in swaying countries to Bush's side.

Absolutely the only thing the French can be relied upon for is their ability to perform a volte face on every single issue. Oh, and to backstab. They do that really well, too.

UPDATE: Le Worm. I believe that should be le Ver. Although le Poulet is also fitting.

UPDATE: Bob at Confederate Yankee has cheese eating French troops! Babelfish says "fromage mangeant des singes de reddition". Dunno how correct that is.

What Is Wrong With Journalists Today?

The Washington Post reports on the debate between Senator George Allen and challenger Jim Webb. One of the reporters questioning the candidates asked what is probably the single stupidest question from this election cycle at least: Gee, Senator Allen, are you a Jew?

First came Sen. George Allen's Macaca Moment. Then we learned of challenger Jim Webb's thoughts on the "horny" women of the Naval Academy.

Now, just when you thought Virginia's U.S. Senate race couldn't get any weirder, the Jews of Tunis are making a cameo.

At a debate in Tysons Corner yesterday between Republican Allen and Democrat Webb, WUSA-TV's Peggy Fox asked Allen, the tobacco-chewing, cowboy-boot-wearing son of a pro football coach, if his Tunisian-born mother has Jewish blood.

"It has been reported," said Fox, that "your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?"

Allen recoiled as if he had been struck. His supporters in the audience booed and hissed. "To be getting into what religion my mother is, I don't think is relevant," Allen said, furiously. "Why is that relevant — my religion, Jim's religion or the religious beliefs of anyone out there?"

"Honesty, that's all," questioner Fox answered, looking a bit frightened.

"Oh, that's just all? That's just all," the senator mocked, pressing his attack. He directed Fox to "ask questions about issues that really matter to people here in Virginia" and refrain from "making aspersions."

"Let's move on," proposed the moderator, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

What in the hell is wrong with journalists today? Dana Milbank, the reporter then goes on to explore whether Allen is Jewish. Why is this an issue? Read the whole thing. Allen is rightfully angry about this.

UPDATE: Dean Barnett thinks this has already seriously damaged Webb. He missed an enormous opportunity here.

A Prediction That Came True

Unfortunately. Brendan Miniter writes in the Opinion Journal about the prediction he made about John McCain.

WASHINGTON–At the start of the congressional debate over military tribunals for terrorists, I offered House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter a prediction: Sen. John McCain would be the biggest obstacle to enacting rules to effectively prosecute al Qaeda operatives.

It was near the end of an hourlong interview, at the end of a hot August day. But Mr. Hunter was obviously piqued by the assertion that his friend and a man who was tortured at the hands of North Vietnamese captors would do anything to make it harder to win the war on terror. Sitting up, Mr. Hunter answered the assertion: "Well, I don't agree with that."

As we sat in his spacious office with its view of the Capitol dome, the chairman had been making the case for a hardnosed approach to national security and, somewhat surprisingly, giving a frank and at times critical assessment of the war on terror and the state of the U.S. military. In the past, Mr. Hunter has clashed with the Bush administration over defense spending and intelligence reorganization. As a combat veteran of Vietnam and father of a U.S. Marine lieutenant who fought in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, Mr. Hunter understands both the anxiety of staying the course and also the danger involved in losing a war by undercutting the troops fighting it.

He was quick to point out his belief that the reason al Qaeda hasn't struck again on U.S. soil is that the response to 9/11 involved a lot more than bombing terrorist training camps: "We didn't just sit back in fortress America." By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq and pursuing a global war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, he said, "we've kept them off balance."

He also noted that it's impossible to know how many would-be terrorists (or those who would harbor them) have been deterred by the administration's aggressive foreign policies. Yet he fears the U.S. risks losing its momentum if it doesn't soon move to counter the changing face of al Qaeda as well as rogue regimes. In the budget-driven politics of Washington, that means spending a large pile of money on programs that some members of Congress have worked long and hard to kill, such as missile defense. It also means spending billions to "reset" equipment chewed up in Iraq and–in Mr. Hunter's view–$100 billion in the coming years to modernize the force with new military technology.

These days, it's not a lack of funds that overhangs political debates inside the Beltway. It's a lack of resolve among some members to support tough-minded war policies. That's evident now in the debate over terrorist tribunals.

To keep up war momentum, the U.S. now needs to put terrorists on trial. And to do that Mr. Hunter supports enacting rules, requested by the president, that would allow military tribunals to try and convict terrorists using hearsay evidence and to use classified information, even if it is withheld from the defendant. The goal, in Mr. Hunter's view, is to provide a "modicum of fairness," while also taking into account battlefield realities. Soldiers aren't police officers. In the midst of a firefight, they can't be expected to collect forensic evidence for a criminal trial.

Treating terrorists under the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which specifically excluded covering people like that, is not at all a good move. It is quite obvious that the Geneva Conventions desperately need to be updated. They were never intended to be a suicide pact, however. Military tribunals should have the right to keep secret intelligence secret from people who would use that intelligence to kill Americans. That is common sense.

Treating terrorists as criminals with full legal rights under American law is what brought us 9/11 in the first place. McCain and his buddies are apparently unable to learn from the recent past.

No, It’s Not Manageable

The Washington Post is speculating as to whether John McCain's "principled stand" will hurt his 2008 presidential ambitions. One strategist says the issue is manageable for McCain right now, but may not be if no deal is reached before Congress adjourns.

For months, McCain has been wooing Bush's donors, hiring his former advisers and standing by him in the Iraq debate. But the fragile rapprochement between two men who were once bitter rivals for the presidency is facing a sharp new test over McCain's rejection of Bush's pleas to let the administration interpret the Geneva Conventions as it sees fit.

The impasse, which has preoccupied Congress this month, is likely to be settled within a few days but could remain hanging when lawmakers adjourn in a few days. Either way, it is likely to carry a long echo — especially if the senator from Arizona forces Bush to back down.

Substantively, the legislative battle will shape what limits the administration will face on its anti-terrorism policies in the final two years of Bush's term. Politically, McCain's willingness once again to confront Bush raises questions about how he will position himself toward the Republican Party's conservative base, which he has aggressively cultivated over the past year as he pursues the presidency.

In a reprise of criticism showered on McCain during his 2000 campaign, some prominent conservatives are branding him a disloyal Republican and an unreliable conservative because of his assertiveness on the detainee issue.

The senator's actions "are blocking our ability to gain from terrorist captives the vital information we need," said a front-page editorial Saturday in the Union Leader of Manchester, N.H., the largest newspaper in the state with the first presidential primary. Conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh said Friday that opposition to Bush's approach "is going to go down as the event that will result in us getting hit again, and if we do, and if McCain, et al. , prevail, I can tell you where fingers are going to be pointed."

Well, I'd say the issue is not manageable for McCain. Now that the Guardian has leaked the actual techniques the administration wants to use, McCain is in serious trouble. While he could preen and posture about how principled he was until now, the list of techniques shows him for what he is. A preening hack willing to put Americans at risk to try to gain votes. While I am not seeing the reports about the Guardian's revelations yet on the news wires, the media will not be able to keep a lid on this.

And American will be furious with McCain when the details get out.

McCain's political ambitions just reached the end. He will never be president. If America sustains another attack, McCain will not be able to hang on to his seat in the Senate, either.