Krauthammer: U.S. apology is embarrassing and groveling...

By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller

On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took strong umbrage with the White House’s decision to apologize at a Virginia mosque for a reportedly accidental burning of Islamic holy documents.

“That was embarrassing, what we saw,” Krauthammer said. “We have gone from apology here to abject self-debasement and groveling. And groveling to whom? To the mob. We should have had a single apology coming from the commander on the ground and that’s it. Not from the secretary of defense. Not from the president, of all people.”

Krauthammer reminded viewers of the 2010 incident involving Terry Jones, a Florida pastor who was promoting “Burn a Koran Day” and the administration’s reaction to that.

“Remember when the president had to pick up the phone when there was a crazy pastor in Florida who wanted a Koran burning and he had to be talked out of it,” Krauthammer said. “Is the president in charge of the offenses against a certain religious tradition in the world? This is a world in which nobody asked the Islamic conference, the grouping of the 56 Islamic countries, to issue an apology when Christians are attacked and churches are burned in Egypt or in Pakistan. And have we heard a word from any Islamic leader anywhere about the radical Muslims in Nigeria who are not only burning the churches but are burning women and children who are Christian in the churches. When I hear that, I’ll expect my president to start issuing apologies.”

According to The Washington Post columnist, this response makes the United States look weak and despite looking weak, those on the other side rarely reciprocate.

“In fact I’m not sure the argument that … you have to do it to protect our soldiers, is correct,” he continued. “The fact that after the president apologized and after we have been on our knees groveling there was an increase in the violence. I mean, it isn’t as if it has any effect whatsoever. It whets the appetite. People love to see America on its knees. And second, on the idea that there are leaders, Muslim leaders in the world who apologize, there are 56 nations in the Islamic conference. Has one apologized for the attacks on the Copts in Egypt? Has the leader in Egypt himself apologized? No. Sorry.”

Krauthammer’s “Special Report” co-panelist Kirsten Powers shot back at him, suggesting that the United States should set the example.

“I just have a hard time following this idea that we should be demanding apologies from other people but we shouldn’t apologize,” Powers said. “Is this what people tell their children? Only apologize if somebody else apologizes? We have our standards based on what we believe in. We are the United States. We are better than those people.”

But despite that plea from Powers, Krauthammer explained that it is not the case in this country when other religions are attacked.

“The reason we’re apologizing is not because of politeness or showing respect,” Krauthammer replied. “A single apology would have done that. It’s the fear of violence. People don’t object if Mormons are mocked on Broadway, if Christian crucifixes are put in bottles of urine and displayed in a museum because the violence isn’t a factor. People are afraid. You do a cartoon of Muhammad and you get beheaded or shot. It’s a matter of fear. It’s not respect. One apology is correct. It shouldn’t have been done. Absolutely all of this stuff is cravens.”

Note from Mike Walker...

Bruce,

Mostly concur. Overseas, there is seldom a situation where an apology alone is a good decision.

When an apology is appropriate it should always be coupled with a counterpoint or counter statement.

In this case, we regret the accidental burning of the Korans, it should not have happened. We also regret the extreme violence used by some to damage the peace. This too should not have happened and is to be equally condemned.

Mike

John Hinderacker, Powerline

BUDGET? WHO NEEDS A BUDGET?

Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress have set a new standard of irresponsibility: for the third year in a row, Harry Reid announced that he would not allow a vote on a FY 2013 budget to come to the floor of the Senate. “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told a conference call with reporters.

This year? How about last year, or the year before? The Obama administration has become a budget-free zone, in flagrant violation of federal law, which prescribes a process for developing a federal budget which the Democrats have simply flouted. Has our nation ever seen such fecklessness? $15 trillion in debt, the credit of the United States being downgraded, hundreds of thousands leaving the labor force, and the Democrats don’t think our government should have a budget? Or a plan to dig our way out of a $15 trillion hole? How out of touch can the Democrats be?

Senator Jeff Sessions responded to Reid’s thumbing his nose at federal law:

It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people. Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership. Majority Leader Reid is denying the American people the opportunity to become engaged in the debate about the nation’s fiscal future and the difficult choices we face. He obviously continues in his belief that it would be politically foolish for his members to go on record in support of any long-term vision. But by refusing to lay out a budget plan for public examination—a fact no one can deny—the Democrat Senate has forfeited the high privilege to lead this chamber. If Sen. Reid and his members stand by this announcement, it means that the American people will go through yet another year of crisis without Senate Democrats unveiling and standing behind a financial plan for our future.

Budget Control Act spending caps, crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires. They are not in any way or any sense a Senate Democrat budget plan. There is no argument that can be made that these caps are a long-term vision for this country—not on taxes, not on entitlements, not on spending, not on debt. Presumably, this obvious fact is why Chairman Conrad has said he will mark up a budget in our Committee. However, this process will be eviscerated if Sen. Reid refuses to allow a budget resolution to come to the floor.

I will continue to insist that the public process be carried out and that Senate Democrats bring an actual budget resolution to the Senate floor.

Paul Ryan said:

Earlier today, Senate Democrats confirmed that they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Senate Majority Leader Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis. By refusing to confront the storm clouds ahead, Senate Democrats are committing our nation to a future of debt, doubt and decline.

The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it is incapable of leading and incapable of governing. Why would anyone vote for a Democrat for any office?