Frank’s Case Book

On January 20, 1981, just after Ronald Reagan delivered his first inaugural address, Iran formally released the 444 hostages it had seized from the American embassy and had been holding for about 14 months. It is hard to fathom the entire reasoning behind the gesture by the Iranians. Perhaps it was the prospect of having $8 billion in frozen assets released or being offered immunity from international civil litigation, or perhaps the propaganda value of the hostages had been fully exploited and no longer worth the diplomatic difficulties it was causing. It is also possible that the election of a new American President, Ronald Reagan, altered the Iranian calculus. Reagan was reputed to be far more willing to employ force to free the hostages. In any case, they were unlikely to get any better deal from the new president the past one. It is at least plausible to suggest that the election of President Reagan sent the Iranians the message that the United States did not want to sit passively by. Perhaps another rescue attempt would be better planned, executed, and include substantially more force.

Nonetheless, it is dangerous to always assume that what your enemy considers an unfavorable development is necessarily a favorable one for you and visa versa. One’s enemies very well could be mistaken in their assessment. However, we should be concerned about the message received (though not intentionally sent) to Islamic extremists by the Democrats gaining control of both houses of Congress in the recent midterm elections. Are the radical Islamists likely to be concerned that there is a new party in power more capable of conducting the War on Terror or are they persuaded that the recent election results confirm their long held belief in the weakness of the West?

At the very least, the conclusion our enemies provide in public should give Democrats and the rest of us as well cause for concern. The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has judged that “The American people have put their feet on the right path by … realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel. So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.” Yet is hard to imagine how much reasoned dialogue can be exchanged with a leader who also states. “We will not rest from our jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House.”

Some on the Left have argued that Al Qaeda sought a Republican victory because it is in Al Qaeda’s best interest for the US to remain in Iraq. The argument is a concession that the reaction of our enemies to our election results remains a legitimate subject for argument. We can believe that both political parties have the same goal of success in opposing prescriptions for success. However, the argument that Al Qaeda would not benefit from a US withdrawal is inconsistent with recent history the past suggests that American withdrawals from the Mideast have emboldened rather than pacified radical Islamists.

When President Ronald Reagan pulled troops from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks, when President Bill Clinton pulled troops from Somalia after American serviceman were killed in the “Black Hawk Down” episode, when President Clinton had only a feeble response to the bombing of US embassies and a deadly attack on the USS Cole, Islamic extremist concluded that the US was a paper tiger, so casualty adverse that it would not stand up to any assault. This judgment as to American resolve allowed our enemies to believe they could strike us on September 11 with impunity.

Let us hope that our enemies do not interpret the recent election results as a similar lack of resolve.

Halloween has never been known as a time for thoughtful activity, but activities at a couple of big-name university campuses this year were occasions for interesting contrasts.

At Johns Hopkins University, the Sigma Chi fraternity sent out an e-mail invitation to a “Halloween in the Hood” Party. At the very least, the invitation was puerile and tasteless and at worst it was a repugnant example of lingering racism on campus. The e-mail referred to dominantly African-American Baltimore as an “HIV pit” There were further requests to wear “bling-bling,” vernacular for expensive and perhaps ostentatious jewelry associated with the hip-hop community. WBAL radio reported there was a least one person at the fraternity party dressed as a slave.

The university community responded quickly, suspending fraternity activities. Though the university should be careful not to step on First Amendment rights no matter ignoble the speech, condemnation of the e-mail and the party is necessary and appropriate. The student responsible has since apologized and claimed the initiation was “satirical” and not intentionally offensive Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask how a student who claims he is not a racist and is obviously intelligent enough to attend a prestigious university could be so insensitive as to not realize the hurtful effect his e-mail could have.

At the other end of the spectrum is the University of Pennsylvania, the President of the University, Amy Gutmann, hosted a Halloween Party at her home. At the party, a student came dressed a suicide bomber. While Gutmann certainly cannot be held responsible for every poor judgment made by a university student, she had no problem standing for a smiling pose with the student. One could make the reasonable assumption that she would not have posed with someone dressed in a Klan robes, in a Nazi uniform, or a white student dressed in blackface — at least one hopes not. The logical conclusion is that suicide bombers, who blow themselves up to kill deliberately as many civilians as possible, have not yet become politically unacceptable on at least one major university campus. Could not Dr. Gutmann see how divisive her actions could be? Gutmann is not an inexperienced student, she is supposed to represent the adult supervision on campus

Perhaps even more disappointing is that the University of Pennsylvania has not united as in the case of Johns Hopkins to condemn such offensive behavior. The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student paper at the University of Pennsylvania, ran an op-ed suggesting that those upset by the student in suicide bomber costume posing with the University president just did not have a sense of humor. It is reasonable to ask how the student who wrote the piece and the student who dressed as a suicide bomber (both obviously intelligent enough to attend a prestigious university) and the president of a major university could all be so insensitive as to not realize the hurtful effect of trivializing the suicide bomber.

Later Dr. Gutmann explained that the “costume is clearly offensive and I was offended by it. As soon as I realized what his costume was, I refused to take more pictures with him as he requested.” Next time we hope that Dr. Gutmann will be a little more sensitive and escort similarly clad students from her home.

It is no coincidence that Rosie O’Donnell is not afraid to conflate “radical” Christians with Islamic terrorists on television. It is no accident that that Madonna is willing to mount a crucifix to entertain us. The calculation of consequences is not difficult. Some Christians will be offended, but all they will do is complain. Other people will praise O’Donnell’s and Madonna’s faux courage, while the controversy will increase their marketability.

Pope Benedict XVI learned that the calculation changes when one even indirectly criticizes Islam. On September 12, he delivered a papal address at the University of Regensburg on the relationship between faith and reason. The essence of the talk was the observation that Christianity and the Greek tradition of logic had reached a synthesis. Faith and reason are not exclusive, but complimentary.

One consequence of this accommodation is the recognition — not always, but generally, respected by Christians — that faith can only be spread by moral witness and persuasion built on reason. Pope Benedict argued that reason and openness are the only foundation upon which there can be honest dialogue between faiths.

In passing, the Pope cited a fourteenth century Byzantine Emperor who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find thing only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Pope did not argue that this was the essence of Islam or that it was his view of Islam. Indeed, he cited the part of the Koran, (Surah 2) “There is no compulsion in religion.”

Even if upset about the negative portrayal of Islam by someone dead over six-hundred years, Muslims faithful to a more modern interpretation of Islam, one that had reached an understanding between faith and religion, would have understood the intellectual and exploratory nature of the Pope’s remarks. Even after the Pope expressed regret about the misinterpretation of his remarks, a large number of Muslims appeared eager to remain offended and threaten the Pope. There is more than a little irony in the observation that when Islam is indirectly criticized for unreasonably resorting to violence, some Islamist threatened the Pope, burn churches, and slay a nun.

As Charles Krauthammer argued, “the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout ‘God is great’ as they slit the throats of infidels — such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 — and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.

There is an important if not quantifiable portion of modern Islam, maybe just the loudest and most conspicuous, which is not only intolerant, but does not even have a fully developed theology or understanding of religious toleration. What remains is the theology of the religious bully. The distinction between that part of Islam that has embraced religious tolerance and that part that has not is relatively easy to recognize. The element that embraces tolerance does not react violently when criticized and refrains from suggesting that Christians are swine and Jews are apes.

Conventional wisdom holds that those on the Left are not people of faith. However, recent evidence suggests that some hold a deep and abiding faith resting securely on a foundation of anti-Bush animosity and sustained by a zeal to suspend sensible skepticism.

In 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a NY Times op-ed piece accusing the President of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In particular, he said that the president’s statement that, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” was false. How did Wilson know? According to Wilson, he was sent to Niger to investigate Vice-President Cheney’s concerns about Iraqi attempts to make a uranium purchase and found no such evidence.

Evidence since then unequivocally demonstrates that Wilson was prevaricating from the beginning. Independent assessments have determined that Bush was not lying but relaying his best intelligence. Moreover, Wilson was not directly sent at the behest of the Vice-President. The choice of Wilson was a pedestrian case of nepotism. Despite venomous denials by Wilson, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that he was sent on his trip to Niger based on his wife’s recommendation. Further, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that Wilson’s oral trip report actually buttressed the assumption that Iraq was seeking nuclear material.

While the White House was rebutting Wilson’s now demonstrably false claims, reporter Robert Novak wrote that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Wilson and the Left erupted in a joyful noise claiming that the White House was illegally leaking the name of a covert agent to punish Wilson’s wife as a way to get at Wilson. David Corn of the Left-wing Nation proclaimed the incident “A White House Smear” designed “to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?” The more mainstream Time Magazine asked if the White House rebuttals of Wilson’s claims constituted a “A War on Wilson?”

For legal purposes, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, so the release of her name was not a crime. While the Left had argued that the release of Plame’s name were orchestrated by the Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, Newsweek reports what has been rumored from some time: Richard Armitage leaked Plame’s name. Armitage has now publicly admitted his role. Armitage was Colin Powell’s number two man at the Department of State who is not a political operative and not particularly supportive of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy. Armitage was apparently a gossip who spoke a little too cavalierly, if truthfully.

Even the Washington Post has finally realized “that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.”

The entire episode also reflects poorly on Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counselor appointed to determine who leaked the information. He knew the identity of the leaker the near outset of the investigation. He should have summarily ended the now rather pathetic affair.

One does not expect much from the Nation so their attack on the administration can be dismissed as partisan wishful thinking. It is more shameful that the mainstream press credulously, even eagerly, swallowed the Wilson story without the encompassing skepticism they usually muster. The truth is they wanted the Bush Administration and Karl Rove, in particular, to be caught in a scandal. Scandals, especially Republican ones, are so fun. The entire Plame story played so seamlessly into the narrative that Karl Rove is an evil political genius, and Joseph Wilson is the sort of suave operator so popular at Washington parties that the charges just had to be true.

The only thing that remains is the civil suit that Wilsons’ are bringing against members of the Bush Administration. It will be amusing to hear how the Wilson’s were harmed by the release of Plame’s name. We should all be so fortunate to be forced to accept a $2.5 million book advance in lieu of a government job.