Last week, Sean Hannity on his show on "Fox 'News' Channel" (I put the "News" in quotes just because most of what the channel does seems to be is commentary and opinion), but was saying and implying that when Benedict-16 quoted Emperor Manual 2 that he knew entirely what he was doing. The Holy Father apperently didn't think that he would be misquoted by the mullahs. (I've commented on this before if you want to get an earlier post.)
The riots happened because the mullahs misquoted Benedict and the riots happened because it seems that Muslims enjoy rioting. I fail to see how either is the Pope's fault. Benedict was commenting on an intellectual conversation that occured in history. Its pointless to say that most Muslims and that most mullahs are neither historian nor intellectuals.
None-the-less, I'm very pleased with how the Pope's visit went to Turkey. Perhaps now there will be more Muslims who try to think before generating an emotional reaction; somehow I really doubt it.
Never-the-less, I think that Benedict is probably the best successor to John-Paul the Great. It isn't possible to have a "good" successor to JPtG or any other "Great" pope. That he is a "nerd" and not more socially affinite is choosing the least of many potential evils.
I just object with Sean Hannity saying that "it was the Pope's fault" - saying that he knew better and that he should have known better.