From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, September 15, 2006 3:39 P.M. EDT

Best of the Tube This Weekend
We'll be appearing this weekend, along with Kim Strassel and Rob Pollock, on Fox News Channel's "The Journal Editorial Report." Topics are terrorist interrogation, gasoline prices and Mohammad Khatami's curious views on when military action is justified. Plus guest host Stuart Varney interviews Victoria Toensing.

Tune in tomorrow at 11 p.m. EDT or Sunday at 6 a.m. For a complete list of airtimes in the contiguous U.S., click the link atop this item.

For McCain, It's Personal
President Bush's call for new legislation on the interrogation of terrorists is running into resistance from a few Republicans--or, as the New York Times puts it, from "some of the best-known warriors in the Republican Party," specifically "three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina."

Of course one should beware when a liberal newspaper praises someone's "impeccable credentials." You won't hear the Times, for example, characterizing the president or vice president as having "impeccable credentials on energy matters" because both have worked in the oil industry. Surely the military experience of McCain, Warner and Graham gives them a perspective that makes their views more informed in some ways--but it may also bias them, in this case in favor of the institutional interests of the military.

In this passage quoting a letter from retired general Colin Powell, the Financial Times gets to the nub of the problem without really realizing it:

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva conventions] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk," Mr Powell wrote in a letter to Mr McCain released yesterday.

"We are not saying the CIA cannot carry out a programme," Mr McCain said yesterday. "We are saying it cannot amend the Geneva conventions, which calls for the kind of treatment of prisoners that fall under Common Article 3."

The argument is that unless we interpret the Geneva Convention as providing maximal protections to terrorists, our enemies will mistreat U.S. soldiers in their captivity. Assume for the sake of argument that this is true. If the restrictions on interrogations that Powell and McCain advocate result in another 9/11, then they will have sacrificed the lives of women and children in order to protect soldiers. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Further, McCain's personal experiences--which lead people to be skittish about criticizing him on this subject--actually argue against his position. As a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain suffered actual, brutal torture--not just aggressive questioning of the sort that the Bush administration seeks to legalize. America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions did not protect McCain--even though he, unlike the al Qaeda detainees, was a legitimate prisoner of war; and Hanoi, unlike al Qaeda, had ratified the Geneva Conventions and thus was legally bound by them.

The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity: Nations agree that when they fight wars, they will do so in accordance with some civilized rules. Extending the conventions' protection to terrorists, who reject those rules, transforms Geneva into a suicide pact. John McCain is one of the Senate's true war heroes, but in this area his personal experience seems to be clouding, rather than clarifying, his views.

Not Obsequious, Just Excitable

"I don't have a major reputation for sucking up."--Time magazine blogger Andrew Sullivan, Sept. 12

"By chance I bumped into Senator John Warner last night at the fifth anniversary party for the Chris Matthews Show. I was able to go up and shake him warmly by the hand and thank him from the depth of my heart for protecting this country's honor."--Time magazine blogger Andrew Sullivan, Sept. 15

You're Intemperate, Just Like Hitler!
Pope Benedict XVI has stirred up a bit of a kerfuffle with a speech offering some historical criticisms of Islam, reports the Associated Press:

Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests. . . .

Notably, the strongest denunciations came from Turkey--a moderate democracy seeking European Union membership where Benedict is scheduled to visit in November as his first trip as pope to a Muslim country.

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion. . . .

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Another AP dispatch quotes a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, Tasnim Aslam: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." Aslam's view of Islam can be described, charitably, as passive-aggressive.

If Kapusuz and Aslam are so concerned about Islam's reputation, why don't they denounce those of their coreligionists who do evil and inhuman things in the name of their faith? Most likely because they are afraid of them. In the eyes of a jihadi, a moderate Muslim is something worse than an infidel: an apostate.

By contrast, attacking Benedict is cost-free. After all, how many suicide bombers does the pope have?

That's Not the Only Thing That's Explosive
"Pope Comments Explosive in Mideast: Analysts"--headline, TurkishPress.com, Sept. 15

All Right, All Right, We'll Root for France
"Al-Qaida Joins Algerians Against France"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 14

What's Up, Doc? (Not Castro!)
"Cuban leader Fidel Castro is recovering but still too ill to chair a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement of developing nations," Reuters reports from Havana:

"His health is improving continuously and his convalescence is satisfactory . . . but the doctors have insisted that he continue resting, and thus he will not lead the Cuban delegation at the summit," Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque told the summit.

So we're supposed to believe that Castro is getting better and will soon be fit as a Fidel, but he can't show up to the summit because that would be against doctors' orders? Castro doesn't take orders from anybody; he's a one-man dictating machine! Could this be his way of giving us the Q-sign?

Shoulda Watched Football
Here's a letter to the editor of the Colorado Springs Independent, an "alternative" weekly paper (seventh letter):

After watching [President] Bush's speech Monday night, I felt like I'd been raped. I felt so filthy just watching the man that I wanted to shave off the top three layers of my skin and burn them.

The mind-boggling gall of this man, to go on TV and tell America to unite behind his "War on Terror," which is, at best, a serial failure, is a tremendous kick in the crotch to America in general and, in particular, all those who lost friends and loved ones in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania.

To have this brain-dead hack hawking his insane brand of politics on a day that should have been spent in quiet reflection and mourning is the most shameless peddling of fear I can imagine. Shame on you, George W. Bush, shame.

--Brent Koleno
Colorado Springs

Sounds like someone ought to consider switching to decaf.

'Sic,' the New Scare Quotes
Here's an odd passage from a Reuters dispatch:

But Anne Giudicelli, head of the Terrorisc (sic) security consultancy and who reviewed the whole tape, told Le Figaro the anti-France message had dominated the homepage of the Internet website used by the GSPC for the past few days.

Uh, what's with the "(sic)"? That usually indicates an error, but if you check the Web site for Terrorisc, you'll find that "Terrorisc est une structure de conseil opérationnelle sur les menaces de nature politique et sécuritaire." (Rough translation: "That's our name, you bozos!")

But we suppose for the newsmen [sic] at Reuters, one man's terrorisc is another's freedom fightksaljcd.

Life Imitates 'South Park'

"Blame Canada! Blame Canada! It seems that everything's gone wrong since Canada came along. Blame Canada! Blame Canada! They're not even a real country anyway."--"Blame Canada" lyrics, "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut," 1999

"Many politicians and police contend illegal guns flowing across the U.S.-Canada border are behind a recent spike in firearm violence."--Associated Press, Sept. 14, 2006

Life Imitates Super Mario Sunshine

"The giant puffy is seen only in Pinna Park and has a tower of widget puffies on his head. Simply spray off the puffy tower, then the giant puffy can be squished like any other puffy."--IGN Entertainment guide to Super Mario Sunshine video game

"Giant Puffy Planet Discovered 450 Light-Years From Earth"--headline, FoxNews.com, Sept. 15

Would You Like to Supersize That Study Sample?
"McDonald's Throws Weight Behind Obesity Research"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 13

It Beats a Kick in the Head, Too
"Bottled Water Beats Cancer in a Lab Study"--headline, BeverageDaily.com, Sept. 15

'I Never Shoulda Given the Keys to That Kid!'
"Parent Expects Bigger Chrysler Loss"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 15

You Call That Fair and Balanced?
"Community on Alert After Reported Fox Attacks"--headline, WXII-TV Web site (Winston-Salem, N.C.), Sept. 15

Without Appeal, He Won't Have Many Followers
"Japanese Cult Leader's Appeal Rejected"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 15

NASA's Answer to the Plank
"Astronauts Prepare for Final Spacewalk"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 15

Not if You Want Your Interlocutor to Hear You Scream
"Is Conversation Better in Space?"--headline, ABCNews.com, Sept. 14

Though Thought Didn't Hang On Very Long
" Neanderthals May Have Hung On Longer Than Thought"--headline, FoxNews.com, Sept. 14

'Is That a Tenacious Neanderthal, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?'
"Tenacious Neanderthals Held Out in Pockets"--headline, LiveScience.com, Sept. 13

Thanks for the Tip!--CIV
"Health Tip: Prevent Yeast Infections"--headline, HealthDay.com, Sept. 15

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "So Far, No Rabid Bats at Humble High"--headline, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 15

  • "Yonkers Man Hit in the Face With a Bottle"--headline, Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Sept. 15

  • "Winslet Finds It Strange Being Away From Her Kids"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 15

  • "No Leaks After Illinois Train Derailment"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 15

  • "School Board Undecided"--headline, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 15

  • "Politicians Cast Opponents as Villains"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 14

Science Marches On
"Drinking alcohol can fatten your pay check, according to a Reason Foundation study published in the Journal of Labor Research," reports Bloomberg. (Disclosure: This columnist was an intern for Reason magazine, published by the Reason foundation, in 1987-88. We didn't drink much in those days, and sure enough, we were an unpaid intern.) The story continues:

Men who visit a bar at least once a month to drink socially bring home 7 percent more pay than abstainers, and women drinkers earn 14 percent more than non-drinkers, according to the study by economists Bethany Peters and Edward Stringham.

"Social drinking builds social capital," Stringham, a professor at San Jose State University, said in a press release. "Social drinkers are out networking, building relationships, and adding contacts to their BlackBerries that result in bigger paychecks."

Well, maybe. But couldn't it just be that people who can afford fancy $10 martinis are better paid to begin with, whereas their poorly compensated colleagues imbibe rotgut at home?

Besides, we know that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and income. So how do we reconcile the Reason foundation's findings with these, reported by Australia's News.com.au?

New research by Scottish scientists suggests that smart people are less likely to repeatedly experience the excruciating headache, nausea, dry mouth and sensitivity to light and sound that can follow a heavy night out.

"The main finding of this study was that higher IQ scores at 11 years of age were associated with a reduced risk of alcohol induced hangovers in middle age," said Dr David Batty of the University of Edinburgh. . . .

The researchers suspect people with high IQ scores suffer fewer hangovers because they respond better to advice not to binge drink.

Speaking of intelligence, check out this report in London's Daily Mail:

It is research that is guaranteed to delight men--and infuriate the women in their lives. A controversial new study has claimed that men really are more intelligent than women.

We debunked this study already, but what caught our attention about the Mail piece is the bizarre assumption that the finding, if it were true, would "delight men." We can think of few things that would worry us more than learning women aren't smarter than men. After all, we've never been smart enough to figure women out. If women aren't smart enough to figure women out, what hope is there for anyone?

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Williamson, Samuel Walker, Brian O'Rourke, Robert Paci, Michael Zukerman, Rochi Ebner, Michael Segal, Joshua Bowman, David Lisitza, Jason Shanker, Avi Cutler, Sam Wakim, Michael Lane, Tobin Anthony, Caryn Good, Scott Hill, Ron Hinton, William Pries, Kenneth Munro, John Nernoff, Mark Van Der Molen, Sheldon Nadal, Cindy Glines, Glenn Taubman, Duke Lancaster, Dave Tinkle, Andrew Robinson, Ron Ackert, Robert Firriolo, Jeff Dobbs, Kevin Mullaney, Greg Hartman, Joe Browne, Joseph Tully, Jim Wise, John Neal, Dan O'Shea, Tom Connor, Ruth Papazian, Robert Swanson, Keith Cummings, William Katz, John DeVita, David Hyman, Mark Schulze, Dennis Murphy and Kevin Kaufman. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

  • Victoria Toensing: What did Patrick Fitzgerald know, and when did he know it?
  • Daniel Henninger: Movies do a better job covering the war than the news media do.
  • Peggy Noonan: The election is all about Bush, and that's not necessarily good for the Dems.
  • The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of terrorist interrogations and gasoline prices.

And on the Taste page:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE