Jay Reding.com

Newt Gingrich writes on the potentially bleak future of the Republican majority in Congress – while I don’t (yet) see a Democratic landslide in the making (the Democrats are as disorganized and ineffective as the GOP is at the moment), it isn’t impossible and GOP policymakers have every reason to be very worried about our party’s prospects in November.

Gingrich gives a fairly respectable five-point plan:

Today, in order to win the future, there are five challenges that America must meet:

1. Confronting a world in which America’s enemies, including the irreconcilable wing of Islam and rogue dictatorships, could acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons;

2. Defending God in the public square;

3. Protecting America’s unique civilization;

4. Competing in the global economy in an era of the economic rise of China and India, which will require transformations in litigation, education, taxation, regulation, and environmental, energy and health policies for America to continue to be the most successful economy in the world;

5. Promoting active, healthy aging so more people can live longer, which will require dramatic transformation in pensions, Social Security and health care.

I like Gingrich’s idea of “winning the future.” What the GOP needs to do is first, acknowledge that people are worried. Gas prices are up. Terrorism is still a threat. The situation in Iraq looks bleak to those who get their news from the MSM spin machine, and even the optimists have cause for alarm. Even though the economy really is solid, and people feel their own economic circumstances are fine, there’s still a widespread (and again, media fed) perception that the economy is on a downward slope. The ongoing transition from an economy based on heavy manufacturing to an economy based on 21st Century technologies is a difficult one – and has been for the past 30 years.

What the GOP has to do is say, we know what the problems are. Here are the solutions. Here’s how we can unleash the creativity of the American people to bring this country more fully into the 21st Century. Here’s how we can provide vouchers to allow workers in obsolescing industries to retrain for the future. Here’s how we can reform education to make American students able to have the skills that Indian students do. Here’s how we can reform patent law to foster rather than hamper real innovation. Here’s how we can keep taxes low and spending down to make government more responsive to the people rather than a fat, bloated monstrosity.

The GOP could do this is they had the vision that they did in 1994 – a vision of changing the culture in Washington. However, today’s GOP has become part of the corrupt Washington culture. That has to change.

The Democrats have no vision other than their constant complaints. If the Republicans can respond with real policies and say what they would do, this election could see an even stronger GOP majority. However, if all we have is the GOP defending the status quo and the Democrats attacking it, this election will not be kind to the Republican majority. Vision wins elections, and right now neither party has anything that looks even remotely like a real vision. We can turn this around, the question is whether the culture of waste and arrogance in Washington has so poisoned the GOP that they no longer have the vision required to truly lead.

Just when I think the Republican Congress can’t get any dumber, they do something like this – demanding that the President investigate (nonexistent) “price gouging” by oil companies. It appears as though the Republicans, who should know better, don’t have a clue about the basics of the oil industry.

Oil is at nearly $75/barrel. Our capacity to refine that oil into usable gasoline hasn’t expanded in years, and different states require different formulations of gasoline that further tightens an already iffy supply. This should be basic Economics 101 stuff – the smaller the supply of something, the higher the price. Add to that the rampant speculation going on into oil futures, and you’re going to see gasoline heading northwards of $3/gallon for a lot of people.

Artificially lowering the price of gasoline means that people use more – which leads to shortages and even worse problems than people who feel the need to overcompensate for something with their massive gas-guzzling land whale having to take it in the rear at the pump. Such an effort would lead to the kind of gas lines that we saw in the 1970s. The second Congresscritters think they can control the market is the second that the problem gets infinitely worse. High prices are a signal that supplies are low, and trying to lower prices only reduces supply that much faster – which can soon lead to critical shortages.

This investigation is economically idiotic, but it’s politically stupid as well. There is little to nothing Congress can do about oil prices. The only thing Congress can do in this case is preen in front of the cameras and create a nice kangaroo court for some hapless oil executive. That sort of televised circle jerk will be forgotten soon after, and when the prices continue to go up people will see right through Congress’ cheap pandering.

If Congress wants to really reduce gas prices they could mandate a single formulation of gasoline, expand our refining capacity, and start pushing for increased exploration of domestic oil. All of those things would have the environmental lobby screaming bloody murder, which is why no one in Congress has the guts to do it. Apparently for Congress, it’s much easier to pander to a problem than to solve it.

Designer Andy Rutledge takes apart the usability issues of the White House’s website and shows how it can be done better. His final product is quite nice and clean. — Now if only someone could do the same for the White House’s political operations…

The firing of CIA offer Mary McCarthy for leaking to the Washington Post shows that the Administration is finally getting serious about reforming the CIA’s sponge-like treatment of national security information. There’s no doubt that the information McCarthy leaked severely compromised national security, embarrassed our allies, and harmed our ability to fight this war:

A majority of CIA officers would probably “find the action taken [against McCarthy] correct,” said a former senior intelligence official who said he had discussed the matter with former colleagues in the past day. “A small number might support her, but the ethic of the business is not to” leak, and instead to express one’s dissenting views through internal grievance channels.

To some analysts, the firing is also a sign of unprecedented pressures on officials not to have contacts with the media outside of authorized channels where they convey approved messages. Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, said that “the administration’s general attitude is that leaks are a threat to national security and have to be not just jawboned but seriously investigated as crimes.”…

CIA officials, without confirming the information in the article, have said the disclosure harmed the agency’s relations with unspecified foreign intelligence services. “The consequences of this leak were more serious than other leaks,” said a former intelligence official in touch with senior agency officials. “That’s what inspired this [firing].” Others pointed out that the information in question was known by so few people that the number of suspected leakers was fairly small, enabling investigators to work swiftly.

It’s telling that some on the left are defending McCarthy as a whistleblower – there is a clear double standard when it comes to leaks. The left has gone so far as to accuse the Bush Administration of treason for the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA official – despite the fact that the defense team of Scooter Libby has not been given any documentation that confirms prosecutor Fitzgerald’s claims that Plame’s identity was classified. In the case of McCarthy, there’s no doubt as to the classified nature of the material leaked and its harm on US national security in a time of war. McCarthy not only deserves to be fired, but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There are few grey areas in this case.

It’s high time that someone got serious about plugging the leaks at the CIA. The CIA has been acting as a rogue operation for far too long – engaging in active efforts to sabotage rather than support the policies of our elected leaders of this country. For the left, would it really be any better if a CIA that was controlled by Republican political operatives tried to sabotage the policies of a Democratic president? That isn’t the role of our intelligence services, and it never should be. The CIA does not make policy. It’s job is to provide policymakers with the best possible intelligence – which is something that the CIA seems to have one hell of a problem doing at the moment.

DCI Goss needs to continue to clean house and reform our nation’s intelligence services to end the policy of widespread leaking of classified information. The firing of McCarthy and her likely prosecution for violating national security is a good start towards ensuring that the CIA spends less time fighting the Administration and more time fighting terrorists.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more on the efforts to actually make our covert intelligence covert. It’s amazing how many people are shocked that the CIA would have a “culture of secrecy” – which seems to indicate how little people understand the role in intelligence in formulating policy.

Legendary test pilot Scott Crossfield was killed in a plane crash today. Crossfield was the first man to fly at Mach 2 and also flew the X-15 spaceplane in the 1960s. He was 84.

CNN reports that there may be a breakthrough in the current stalemate in forming an Iraqi government as current Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has softened his stance on keeping his current position.

Al-Jaafari was a weak leader, and it’s important that the central government gain legitimacy in the eyes of the people. A candidate who can reach out across sectarian lines and reform the corruption that is Iraq’s single biggest long-term problem will be crucial to the future of the Iraqi nation. Prime Minister Jaafari was simply not the man for the job.

The situation in Iraq isn’t really a military problem anymore – although if widespread fighting breaks out it could be. Iraq’s problems are mainly in the political sphere – a weak central government, widespread corruption, and a police force that’s heavily infiltrated by sectarian groups serving their own agendas. What Iraq needs is an Iraqi Rudy Giuliani – a tough-minded leader who won’t bow to pressure and will do what it takes to clean up the streets of Baghdad and enforce law and order.

Meanwhile, the anarchy on the streets of Baghdad continues to claim the lives in innocents, which is why it is so absolutely crucial that the Iraqi government be able to enforce a sense of law and order. The constant political bickering is normal in a healthy democracy – and vastly preferable to solving issues with bullets – but has only hurt the legitimacy of the democratic process in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Hopefully a stronger leader will be able to undo some of the damage.

Unlike the prophets of doom, I don’t think Iraq is destined for unending tribal warfare. The reality of Iraq is that the lines between Sunni and Shi’ite aren’t nearly as strong as they’re made to be. Many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shi’ite members. The silent majority of Iraqis – the ones who don’t parade in the streets in front of Western cameras – are just rightly sick and tired of constant war and terrorism. Given them a leader with the courage to face down the criminals and terrorists and who will work towards uniting the various factions and the situation in Iraq could turn around faster than anyone imagined. An Iraqi Atatürk or a Giuliani can provide the strong leadership necessary to Iraq’s future without compromising its democratic values.

At the same time, finding that person is going to be the hard part…

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has several Iraqi reactions to the situation. It appears as though the consensus is that the political process has dragged on too long and it’s time for a settlement – which is hardly surprising.

Glenn Reynolds, in the course of giving Reason’s Jesse Walker a good spanking, wanders into an interesting discussion of whether the Congressional Authorizations of Force against al-Qaeda and Iraq were really declarations of war or not. Many seem to think because the words “declaration” and “war” don’t appear in the text, those documents don’t fulfill the same legal purposes as a formal declaration of war. Reynolds notes how facile this argument really is:

A reader emails that the Iraq and Al Qaeda declarations were “informal” rather than “formal” declarations of war. This distinction, which has to do with the (fictional) notion that we don’t go to war since the U.N. Charter was adopted, isn’t really relevant for U.S. constitutional law. If you have an identified enemy, a casus belli, and an authorization for the President to go after them with the military, you’ve got a declaration of war. The Hamdan opinion responds to the claim of no formal declaration in essentially these terms. (And, lest I be accused of changing my views on this topic, I remember having this very discussion with John Hart Ely back when we were both visiting professors at U.Va, over ten years ago. As I recall, he agreed.)

Since people seem interested, click “read more” for an excerpt from an article by Ely with which I was, and am, in substantial agreement. It’s “KUWAIT, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE COURTS: TWO CHEERS FOR JUDGE GREENE,” 8 Constitutional Commentary 1, 1991. But here’s the gist:

Judge Harold Greene’s decision in Dellums et al. v. Bush was plainly right in its central proposition, that (except in the event of a “sudden attack” upon the United States) the Constitution places unambiguously in Congress the authority to decide whether the nation goes to war. (Once war is congressionally authorized–note that there has never been a requirement that such authorization actually be labeled a “declaration of war,” only that it be clear–authority to manage it then passes to the President in his role as “Commander in Chief.”)

Indeed, there’s no doubt that the September 18, 2001 authorization for military force, and the subsequent authorization of military force in Iraq are both quite clear in their intent – to allow the President to fully use his powers as Commander in Chief to hunt down al-Qaeda and disarm Saddam Hussein. The language of both resolutions makes it clear that what Congress was doing was tantamount to a declaration of war. Indeed, what point would there have been to formally declare war against al-Qaeda, a non-state actor? The term “authorization of military force” is exactly what it says, and it has the same legal standing as a formal declaration of war.

Walker’s implicit argument – which Reynolds rightly calls out as snark over substance – is that he (and presumably others) who argued that the military shouldn’t be used on the whim of a President are somehow hypocrites if they supported the war in Iraq. Given that Congress did authorize the use of force against Iraq, that argument is utterly groundless. The idea that we “rushed” to war when there were months of deliberation in advance is the sort of shoddy argumentation that’s thrown out by people who favor talking points over rational thought. At the very least the run-up to the war in Iraq began with President Bush’s speech to the UN General Assembly on September 11, 2002. Realistically, the war in Iraq had been going on at a low-level since the invasion of Kuwait. UN Resolution 687 didn’t really end the war, it just created a temporary cease-fire. US forces never left the Gulf, and we never stopped attacking Iraqi military targets.

Sadly, Reynolds is also right that this kind of cheap shot is the sort of sloppy logic that we’ve all come to expect from the anti-war side. There’s a big difference between making an argument and just making things up – and the anti-war side seems to do more of the latter than the former.

UPDATE: Jesse Walker argues that I mischaracterized his argument (which was originally posted here). I think that there’s definitely a subtle and implicit accusation of hypocrisy here, although I concede I probably should have made it clear that was what I think was implied by the argument, not what Walker directly said.

UPDATE: I’ll let Walker have the final word on this one.