by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, December 16, 2005 12:20 P.M. EST

'Unilateral Disarmament'
President Bush has apparently capitulated on the "torture" issue, agreeing to accept, with only slight modifications, Sen. John McCain's amendment that would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of terrorists in U.S. custody. CNN quotes McCain: "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."

This is fatuous. In September 1999 Norman Podhoretz wrote in The Wall Street Journal about an Israeli Supreme Court decision "to ban certain forms of interrogating suspected terrorists (like forceful shaking)":

It was only a matter of time before that court, being part of the same intellectual and political culture pervading the Israeli left as a whole (some have likened it to the Warren court), would enforce its point of view on the security services. . . . The Supreme Court's decision can be interpreted as a form of unilateral disarmament by Israel in the face of a still intransigent enemy.

More than six years later, one would be hard-pressed to produce evidence that the Israeli Supreme Court decision has helped the Jewish state win "hearts and minds." The Arab world still treats Israel as a pariah; Iran's ruler openly calls for its destruction; and the U.N. actively demonizes it, with at least the complicity of much of the free world. Inasmuch as Israel's position in international politics has improved, it is only because, since Sept. 11, the U.S. has become fully engaged in its own war against Islamist terrorists.

Podhoretz's phrase--"a form of unilateral disarmament . . . in the face of a still intransigent enemy"--is an apt description of the McCain amendment, which will certainly not prompt any reciprocal moves by terrorists to abjure tactics like beheading civilians or flying planes into buildings.

The McCain amendment, along with U.S. Supreme Court decisions in favor of terrorists' rights and the threatened Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act's renewal, represents, in part, an overcompensation for the excesses of previous wars. In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld genuine outrages against civil liberties during wartime, such as restrictions on free speech during World War I (Schenck v. U.S.) and the internment of innocent Japanese-Americans during World War II (Korematsu v. U.S.)

But nothing remotely like these abuses has occurred during our current conflict. It seems that politicians and judges, like generals, have a tendency to fight the last war. One can only hope their efforts will not prove too damaging to American intelligence-gathering and terror-prevention efforts.

But They Support the Troops!
This article from today's Washington Post reads like something from the Onion, proving that the Democratic Party is a joke:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad [sic].

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. . . .

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day [Rep. John] Murtha offered his plan [for immediate surrender], "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

Didn't the Democrats use to complain that President Bush didn't have a plan? Now--three years, two months and six days after Congress voted to declare war--they're promising that they'll get around to coming up with a position real soon now. Pelosi also takes some time to celebrate her party's domestic achievements:

Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

Spoken like a true patriot!

Are Idiots Actually Useful?
Reader Daniel Blanchard offers this comment:

Since 2002 I have been engaged in many a discussion about Iraq and the war, both leading up to and the aftermath of our nation's decision to free 25 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. Initially there was a lot of flack from the "Arab street" about the U.S.'s intentions in Iraq. There was a lot of the normal "war for oil" rhetoric and such. What's bizarre as of late is that, as the U.S. antiwar movement has gotten all worked up like angry, vibrating little Chihuahuas about what we have going on over there, the "Arab street" has gotten very quiet on the subject. In fact I have seen several interviews with Iraqis and other Arabs who are downright complimentary to the U.S. operations in Iraq. Then the other day we saw that over 70% or Iraqis actually feel their lives are better now than three years ago.

My thought is this: If the Angry Left hadn't been so vocal and so vociferous, would the Iraqis and other Arabs have been as trusting of our actions? Certainly their media show them the Cindy Sheehans, and the John Kerrys, and the rest of that contemptuous bunch. Does the left's anger add credence to President's Bush's word and actions? Is it possible that the "Arab street" recognized the Bush is paying a political price to do the right thing, and thus, on board with it? Or even if they aren't on board, would there be more outcry over there, if it weren't so loud over here?

We don't pretend to know the answer, but it's certainly an interesting question.

Mark His Words
Here is an optimistic take on the Arab world--from Mark Twain, writing in "The Innocents Abroad" (1869) about a visit to Syria:

If ever an oppressed race existed, it is this one we see fettered around us under the inhuman tyranny of the Ottoman Empire. . . . These people are naturally good-hearted and intelligent, and with education and liberty, would be a happy and contented race. They often appeal to the stranger to know if the great world will not some day come to their relief and save them. The Sultan has been lavishing money like water in England and Paris, but his subjects are suffering for it now.

Observes blogger David Foster: "Today the 'great world,' or at least part of it, has come to the relief of the Iraqis; and it's no accident that the helper is a part of the world still capable of using words like 'tyranny' and 'liberty.' "

Sounds Like We're Winning
"Drugs Called No. 1 Threat in Afghanistan"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 15

Comedy Is Not Pretty
Here's an odd report from The Hotline's blog about an appearance by John Kerry* at "a holiday party for alumni of his WH '04 bid":

About 100 campaign vets gathered at Finn McCool's bar in D.C. to hear him. In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

Kerry Comm. Dir. David Wade, in an email, said his boss was joking. . . .

Wade: "Is it really a story that, with a smile on his face and to ensuing laughter, at a Christmas party for his hardest working troops who are still working to win in 2006, a Democrat joked about why these diehard Democrats needed to keep dreaming of a Democratic Congress? Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Don Rumsfeld and as funny as Dick Cheney is gruff. Only the truly humorless would say bah humbug to the rarest of partisan red meat." Wade said Kerry often asks this question: "How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?" More Wade: "Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees . . ."

It doesn't sound as though Kerry is joking when he "asks this question," but who knows? In any case, he probably shouldn't tell jokes. He's about as funny as David Corn.

* The haughty Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

Quitters Never Win, but Losers Don't Always Quit
Yesterday we noted that the Boston Globe had published an editorial demanding Mitt Romney's immediate resignation as governor of Massachusetts. What prompted this was Romney's announcement that he won't seek re-election next year, coupled with the expectation that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. We asked readers to track down the Globe's editorials urging Gov. Michael Dukakis to resign in 1987 or '88, and John Kerry** to step down in 2003 or '04.

Much to our surprise, no one was able to find such an editorial about either Dukakis or Kerry. In July 2004, however, the Globe did publish an op-ed piece that said, "John Kerry should resign his Senate seat while he campaigns--much like Bob Dole did in 1996--because of his poor Senate attendance record." The author: Mitt Romney.

A month earlier, the paper had published a column by Adrian Walker, who was outraged by Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy's call for Kerry (the senator, not Healy herself) to quit:

The lieutenant governor's declaration that he should step down would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic--and so revealing of the ways this administration operates.

When our image-conscious governor wants mud thrown--to slap around Ted Kennedy, say, or to call on Kerry to step aside so he can get on with naming a replacement--he calls on his surrogates. And when such a call comes from his unthreatening second-in-command, so much the better. The former venture capitalist with long-rumored Beltway ambitions is averse to getting his hands dirty publicly, a character trait that has been clear since early in his campaign for governor.

Now, in fairness we should note that Romney is not really vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy for calling on Kerry to quit and then not doing so himself. Unlike Kerry in the summer of 2004, Romney has not declared himself a presidential candidate, and he has announced his intention to leave his current office at the end of his term, in January 2007--which is a year and a half earlier in the 2008 presidential cycle than were Healy's and Romney's calls for Kerry to scram from the Senate.

Also related is a March 2004 editorial in which the Globe urged the Massachusetts Legislature to reject a bill to strip the governor of his power to appoint a replacement for a senator who left office for, say, the White House. This measure (we seem to recall it passed, but are too lazy to look it up) the Globe called "undeniably partisan"--an undeniably principled stand for a paper that leans far Demward.

** By way of explanation for the omission in the preceding footnote, reader Bob Morrison writes, "Puh-lease, lose the 'French-looking.' Isn't it bad enough you lost New Hampshire[***] for us last time? Do you want to lose Louisiana, too?" We decided to comply--but just this once.

*** The Granite State has a high concentration of French Canadians.

Cheers for Morgan Freeman
Every now and then, a celebrity says something intelligent. Here's a report from the Associated Press:

Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."

"You're going to relegate my history to a month?" the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air Sunday. . . . "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history." . . .

Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."

The actor says he believes the labels "black" and "white" are an obstacle to beating racism.

"I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man," Freeman says.

Morgan Freeman is a man.

Unless They're Also 49ers Fans
"It has been a good year for Heidegger fans."--Times (London), "Christmas Books" roundup, Dec. 2

They Should Look Somewhere Else

"Vikings Looking for a Little Respect"--headline, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), Dec. 15

"More than three months ago, a lawyer's vivid public accounting of Minnesota Vikings players engaged in lurid sex acts with women in front of intimidated and offended employees of two charter boats hit like a tidal wave. . . . On Thursday, . . . authorities filed misdemeanor charges against quarterback Daunte Culpepper and three other players alleging lewd or indecent conduct."--Star Tribune, Dec. 16

Other Than That, He Was a Great Guy
"Heather Brennan thought her fiancé, Travis Nickel, was a perfect match--until she learned he fed her rats, was engaged to another woman and had a child from a prior relationship, she alleges in a federal lawsuit."--Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre Pa.), Dec. 16

If You Can Read This, Don't Thank a Professor
"Literacy Falls for Graduates From College, Study Finds"--headline, New York Times, Dec. 16

A 200% Death Rate?
"It is known that the risk of death in adults with diabetes is approximately twofold that of the general population."--Reuters, Dec. 9

John Gibson Wins One
"Solicitor to Be Named After Christmas"--headline, Island Packet (Hilton Head, S.C.), Dec. 14

Bottom Story of the Day
"Gosh! Winter Lips Shouldn't Hurt: If your lips hurt real bad, it's probably not too serious."--headline and lead sentence, Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 15

Computer Viruses
The Los Angeles Times reports on what sounds to us like a dangerously dumb idea:

In an age when many search for sex on the Internet, Los Angeles County health officials on Wednesday unveiled a controversial tool to fight the spread of HIV and other diseases: a website that helps send anonymous e-mail warning people that they might be infected.

Through the website, [URL omitted because we don't want to encourage this stuff], users can send a free, unsigned electronic postcard with a standard message or a personal note, thus avoiding an awkward conversation that many people would rather not have. The idea is to help people be more forthcoming with sexual partners so those at risk of sexually transmitted diseases get tested and practice safer sex.

Remember this urban legend?

A guy's friends throw him a 21st birthday party. They get him drunk and then a hotel room and a prostitute for his present. In the morning when this guy wakes up the prostitute is gone. When he goes to the bathroom, written on the mirror with lipstick is:

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AIDS!

According to Snopes.com, it dates back to 1986, the height of the heterosexual AIDS panic. Thanks to the efforts of L.A. County (and San Francisco, which has a similar site), anyone can send an official-looking e-mail to an enemy or other victim welcoming him to the wonderful world of AIDS--and anyone who gets such a message and isn't chaste is likely to experience at least a pang of fear.

The Times notes that Deb Levine, who runs the outfit that created the sites for L.A. and Frisco, "said far less than 1% of e-mails have been reported as pranks." But this is far from reassuring. Not all prank victims will realize it is a prank; of those who do, not all will report it; and in any case this was all before the sites got world-wide publicity through the Times and the Drudge Report.

Then again, maybe this is just a way of reinforcing the notion that "we all have AIDS."

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Linda Kidwell, John Williamson, Andrew Robinson, Brad Pade, Dan O'Shea, Barak Moore, James Currin, Ed Lasky, Glenn Taubman, Michael Nunnelley, Eric Protzman, Ron Wright, Evan Slatis, M. Gilbertson, Ethel Fenig, Charlie Gaylord, Steve Prestegard, Steve Clarke, Brian O'Rourke, Tom Dziubek, Julie Beck, Mark Collis, Bill King, Kevin Littleton, Ruth Papazian, David Stern, James Rydzel, John Dubas and Michael Segal. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Iraqis send Jack Murtha and Howard Dean a message.
• Daniel Henninger: How about a cease-fire in the Christmas war?

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: Will a Saudi's gift to Harvard really promote understanding?
• Tony & Tacky: This Christmas, we don't demand an Encore.
• Kyle Wingfield: College football is America's most capitalistic sport.
• Kay Hymowitz: A new generation of city mothers hope to buck the trend and avoid the suburbs.
• Naomi Riley: Jews consider proselytizing to fight assimilation.