Jay Reding.com

Jack Kelly has a piece on the politically-motivated leak of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. The CIA has long been trying to act as an unelected branch of government, and the incomplete and misleading way in which only a few of its conclusions were leaked to the press is another example of a bureaucracy gone out of control. As Kelly writes:

Mr. Mazzetti indicated he hasn’t seen the NIE himself, but is reporting on what his sources have told him is in it. But people who leak classified information have agendas, and that agenda rarely is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Alas, that rarely is the agenda of New York Times reporters either, when they have a story they think will embarrass the Bush administration.

“The New York Times characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document,” said Peter Watkins, a White House spokesman.

“Several officials I’ve spoken with who worked on…the final assessment actually reached a different conclusion than what is being reported,” said “Mac Ranger,” a former Army intelligence officer.

Powerline also finds someone who has seen the complete NIE and how the media is distorting its conclusions. The media, once again, is trying to use their contacts in the national intelligence community to shift an election they know they have a strong chance of losing — this is no different than the al-Qaaqaa story which appeared right before the elections in 2004 only to disappear once again when the media no longer had any political interest in pursuing the story.

Furthermore, Robert Kagan writes in The Washington Post that the assertion that the war in Iraq has “increased terrorism” is unprovable:

As a poor substitute for actual figures, The Post notes that, according to the NIE, members of terrorist cells post messages on their Web sites depicting the Iraq war as “a Western attempt to conquer Islam.” No doubt they do. But to move from that observation to the conclusion that the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat requires answering a few additional questions: How many new terrorists are there? How many of the new terrorists became terrorists because they read the messages on the Web sites? And of those, how many were motivated by the Iraq war as opposed to, say, the war in Afghanistan, or the Danish cartoons, or the Israel-Palestine conflict, or their dislike for the Saudi royal family or Hosni Mubarak, or, more recently, the comments of the pope? Perhaps our intelligence agencies have discovered a way to examine, measure and then rank the motives that drive people to become terrorists, though I tend to doubt it. But any serious and useful assessment of the effect of the Iraq war would, at a minimum, try to isolate the effect of the war from everything else that is and has been going on to stir Muslim anger. Did the NIE attempt to make that calculation?

What is going on here is a rogue CIA trying to selectively release classified information in violation of federal law. Patrick Fitzgerald spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a futile attempt to prove a crime that likely never happened — why in the world isn’t the Justice Department being sent down to Langley with a boatload of subpoenas in an effort to clean house? DNI Negroponte needs to make it quite clear that any CIA employee caught leaking to a reporter will be summarily dismissed and subject to the full penalty of law. This kind of behavior is not only illegal and unethical, but leaks of classified information can get people killed.

Not only that, but The New York Times is once again demonstrating their abject partisan hypocrisy. When it was revealed that President Bush had allowed portions of a pre-war National Intelligence Estimate to be revealed to reporters by Scooter Libby, The New York Times wrote a harshly-worded editorial condemning such actions — but when anonymous sources hand them selective quotations from another NIE, they’re the first to run with it. This sort of blatant hypocrisy is sadly par for the course from the increasingly partisan mainstream media.

President Bush should make it clear that business as usual from the CIA is no longer tolerable. The CIA seems better at leaking secrets than keeping them, and they seem better at trying to overthrow elected governments at home than dangerous ones abroad. The President should ask the Director of National Intelligence to begin a comprehensive set of reform initiatives to ensure that the CIA does its job.

Furthermore, the President should order the declassification of all segments of the full NIE which do not contain information that would compromise national security. The American people are only getting the side of the story that the left wants them to get when the full story is vastly different. A release of the full NIE would show the full context of these statements and provide yet another demonstration of the dishonesty and duplicity of the mainstream media.

The New York Times notes the way in which oil prices have been collapsing in recent weeks, along with the prices of fuel at the pump.

It looks like much of the price of oil in the last few months has largely been due to speculators predicting the sort of conditions that led to high oil costs last year would continue. It isn’t that supplies are getting significantly tighter, but that the markets were getting skittish over the prospects of conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and a booming economy. Now that those conflicts are less serious than they were, the hurricane season has been largely a bust, and the economy is settling down, the price of oil is going back to where the equilibrium point really is.

Of course, had the government intervened and tried to artificially lower prices, who knows what would have happened. The reduction in fuel costs wasn’t do to government action, but the natural reactions of the market — had the government intervened it’s quite possible we’d be worried about shortages as ham-fisted public policy introduced dramatic shifts in the market. It’s another example of how sometimes the best public policy is no do nothing at all.

As Glenn Reynolds observes everyone’s talking about Bill Clinton again after his snit during a Chris Wallace interview for Fox News. Wallace had the audacity to actually ask a tough question, which apparently gave good old Bill a serious case of the vapors.

Former President Clinton recommended that everyone read former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies which supposedly shows how the Clinton Administration didn’t really drop the ball on terrorism, and especially al-Qaeda. The problem with that is that Clarke’s book directly contradicts Clinton’s attempts to argue that he was proactive on terrorism. Clarke paints Clinton has being interested in how things polled rather than what the results actually were and deferential to members of his Cabinet who argued against a strong response to al-Qaeda’s attacks against US interests.

If that weren’t enough, Clinton outright lied when he said that Richard Clarke was “fired” by the Bush Administration — Clarke states in his book that he resigned from the White House voluntarily. But Clinton has always played fast and loose with the facts, and there’s no reason why he’s likely to stop now.

Clinton’s sense of self-aggrandizement and incredibly thin skin are another manifestation of the character flaws he brought to his term in office — and the last thing this country needs now is a repeat of the sordid history of the Clinton Administration. Clinton had eight years to deal with the threat of al-Qaeda, and he scored a few wins and made several key mistakes. It’s not all that likely that anyone else would have done much differently under similar circumstances. What is certain is that the always-egocentric ex-President can’t stomach even a modicum of criticism — and when Wallace actually dared to throw more than a slow-pitch softball, Clinton threw a temper tantrum.

Once again, Clinton proves that behind the slick exterior, he has some of the thinnest skin in politics.

UPDATE: Powerline has some relevant quotations from Clarke’s book which contradict Clinton’s tirade.

Eric Scheie raises the important question about whether this war is about bin Laden or the larger question of radical Islam. One of my biggest criticisms of the John Kerry position on the war is that it’s based on the assumption that al-Qaeda is the only threat we need to be worried about. Just “going after bin Laden” will never be enough because bin Laden is a symptom of a larger problem. If bin Laden is in fact dead, or sometime in the future he ends up in hellfire courtesy of a Hellfire, the war isn’t going to be over. As the Anchoress quite astutely observes:

The ugly truth no one wants to admit, particularly within the left, is that this enemy is going to keep coming and coming at us…when we take one out, another will -for a while yet - be able to step up into his place. When we foil one ring, another will be just about ready to attack. While we’re cleaning out one rat’s nest, three more are being formed. That is why this is going to be a decades-long effort, no matter WHO gets into the WH in a few years, and no matter how much some would like to pretend that all of this is simply George W. Bush’s doing, because - you know - terrorism never existed before he got into office, or before he went to Iraq.

The Democrats know that they cannot win on national security right now. The Democratic Party has become so throughly permeated with the Blame America First crowd that to strongly come out against our enemies without risking their party splitting right down the seams. Hugh Hewitt has a very perceptive analysis of this situation as it regards to the left-wing blogosphere and The Daily Kos:

I’m sure Markos is appalled by the developments of this week. That’s not because he’s outraged by Chavez’s or Ahmadenijad’s comments; he considers making such analyses and reaching such conclusions either above or below his pay-grade. All he cares about is the politics of any situation and he surely knows that the events this week are bad news for the left.

Part of the reason he knows it’s bad politics is because the progressive blogosphere, which he putatively (but does not in actuality) lead, could not exercise any discipline when Chavez dangled red meat in front of it. Their knees jerked, and they wrote rubbish like how they preferred Chavez and Ahmadenijad to Bush. Any Americans paying attention would be appalled. More importantly, a lot of Americans who don’t really pay attention, i.e. the vast majority of the country, can’t help but notice that America’s enemies are insulting our nation on our soil. And they’re using the rhetoric of America’s left. In a crude equation, therefore, America’s left is the equivalent of America’s enemy.

That is a crude equivocation, but it also has the benefit of being true. When Hugo Chavez starts holding up a book by left-wing icon Noam Chomsky, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the connection. When Osama bin Laden’s last video statement sounds like Fahrenheit 9/11 the idea that there’s an ideological connection between the left and America’s enemies becomes rather hard to retort. When you have the radical fringe of the Democratic Party openly emphasizing with America’s enemies as many did last week, the idea that the left and America’s enemies share common cause no longer becomes a slur, but a legitimate point of argument.

I don’t personally think that the Democratic Party is the equivalent to al-Qaeda, and I think it’s stupid and disrespectful to make that argument. At the same time, they don’t have to be. What is true is that the Democratic Party would not prosecute this war in the way it needs to be prosecuted. They don’t have a sufficient awareness of the threat, and it’s fair to say that they would prefer to get bin Laden and change the subject as quickly as possible.

It was common to say that America “woke up” after 9/11. Sadly, that isn’t true for a large segment of our population. We’re still not seeing the larger war here, the clash of civilizations that is now being thrust upon us. There is a civil war within the heart of Islam, and the entire world is caught in the crossfire. Al-Qaeda is currently the noisiest faction, but Hizballah, Hamas, and a whole slew of minor jihadi groups have already attacked American interests and will do so again. Their demands are that either the United States completely and totally submit to the will of Islam or be destroyed — we can’t negotiate our way out of this situation, and so long as these groups are allowed to exist and find purchase any “peace” will only be a delay of the time when the United States sees the kind of terrorism that has ripped through countries like Israel and Iraq.

Sadly, I think that many in this nation are too self-obsessed to notice the danger until it is too late. We’re in the panem et circenses stage in our country where the piddling interests of playing partisan political football are of far more interest then in actually winning the war. It has become quite clear that many on the left, perhaps a majority, feel that defeating George W. Bush is more important than winning the war, and are perfectly willing to set the war effort back in order to achieve their political goals. That is certainly true of the Kossacks who now wield a huge influence over Democratic Party politics.

The next terrorist attack will be even more devastating than the brutality of September 11, 2001. Biological and chemical weapons are ideally suited to terrorism, and it is only a matter of time before a terrorist uses such a weapon to devastate an American city. Especially in the case of bioterrorism, where one vial of weaponized smallpox could decimate the American population, the results would be nothing short of apocalyptic. It is far better that we take the chance that democratization of the Middle East may fail than it is to wait for the day when our backs are pushed to the wall. The left wants Iraq to fail, despite the fact that it would hand al-Qaeda the greatest victory they’ve ever had.

Thankfully, the President may have many faults, but at least he and many in our government do see and understand the threat. The Democrats may be purging the Scoop Jackson/Harry S. Truman/JFK wing of their party, but those who have been left behind have found an uneasy alliance with the GOP. The withdrawal-now ideology has found little purchase outside the radical fringe of the Democratic Party. It is fortunate for us all that American politics tends to seek the center and punishes radicalism.

The only question is whether our polity will come to an understanding as to what our goals are in this war before we have no choice but to confront a radical Islam that has metastized throughout the world and threatens our society in a way we can’t even yet imagine. When terrorists are routinely targeting school buses and shopping malls, we’ll have no choice but to confront the enemy that threatens us — however, we should never allow things to get that bad before we take action.

Rumors are swirling over a leaked French intelligence report indicating that Osama bin Laden died of typhoid fever on August 23. The information apparently comes from a Saudi source or a source close to the Saudis.

It’s not confirmed, and there isn’t any evidence yet from jihadi sources that would confirm such a claim. However, such silence is not necessarily indicative in itself. We know that bin Laden is in a very secluded area and only communicates with the outside world via courier. A major medical emergency would present an incredibly large risk of detection — it’s not like bin Laden can just waltz into Quetta General Hospital for treatment. If bin Laden came down with typhoid, it’s quite likely such an infection would be fatal.

Of course, everything is speculation until some kind of confirmation comes forth — and bin Laden has been “dead” on more than one occasion, and like a bad zombie movie bad guy always rises from the “grave” again. Then again, this information has a much stronger provinance than anything we’ve seen yet. One thing is for sure, when the monster dies, Hell is going to have the VIP suite ready and waiting…

This afternoon I had the privilege of attending the formal investiture ceremony of the 33rd District Court Judge for the District of Minnesota, Patrick J. Schiltz. In attendance at this event was none other than Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Scalia was kind enough to take questions from students prior to the event, which was quite an amazing experience. Even those who disagree with Justice Scalia must respect that he is one of the finest legal minds in American jurisprudence today, and that was apparent from his answers. What many don’t know about Justice Scalia is that he’s one of the most engaging and witty speakers I’ve ever heard. Despite having an impressive understanding of the issues, he came across as someone with a set of deeply-held convictions about the law, and he felt no need to gussy up his jurisprudence in any way. With Justice Scalia, what you see is what you get. He believes in the originalist theory of constitutional interpretation, and that’s how he’ll decide.

Scalia gets a rap for being an ideologue, and while that’s true, he’s not ideological in the conventional sense. He isn’t a conservative ideologue in the sense of modern American political conservatism. If anyone has any doubts of that, read his opinions on the flag-burning ban legislation and also his brilliant dissenting opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (an opinion that argued for extensive restrictions on Executive power to detain US citizens which was joined by Court “liberal” John Paul Stevens). He is ideological about his belief in originalism, but that jurisprudence does not make him either some organ of the Bush Administration or a conservative judicial activists. Justice Scalia even said that his belief in originalism even prevented him from doing “all those crazy conservative things” that he might otherwise like to do.

It’s a rare event to be able to get close to a sitting member of the highest court in the country, especially when one is a mere 1L. Not only did I get to see Justice Scalia, but also watch as the state of Minnesota gains an experienced and wise new member of the federal bench. Congratulations to newly-invested Judge Schiltz, and thanks to Justice Scalia for honoring us with his presence.

UPDATE: Powerline has a note about the event as well.

Tom Maguire takes a look at the New York Times‘ piece on the Democrats 2006 chances and finds it more than a little lacking. The Democrats’ hope of capturing the House seem to be slipping day by day as the Republican base comes back home and the Democrats still can’t elucidate a message other than “we hate Bush” and “really, we’re not that crazy.”

Maguire does a great job of analyzing the political forecasts, which show that the pro-Democratic tide of recent weeks appears to have receded. Both TradeSports and the Iowa Electronic Markets are predicting a GOP hold on both houses. Polls have shown the President’s approval ratings hitting above the 40% mark. Gas prices are falling. Interestingly enough, support for the war in Iraq appears to have increased. Trends can change in the next few weeks before Election Day, but the idea that the Democrats will take control of the House has gone from assuredly to only possibly.

Maguire has a good analysis of why this is:

Following their 2002 debacle the Democrats were criticized for trying to beat something with nothing. I’ll reiterate - here we go again. To win this election the Democrats need to run against George Bush and run away from their base; it’s hard to do both.

Indeed it is hard to do both, and the Democrats are running into the problem that they have to bring forth some kind of policy proposal as a counter to the Republican agenda, but they can’t really do so because if they did what they want to do they’d alienate too much of the electorate to win. The Democrats have essentially become a party that can’t appeal beyond their own base. While the Republicans have done quite a lot to manage to alienate their base and everyone else as well, that only means that the GOP will squeak by rather than wipe the floor with the Democrats.

The Democrats never got a message together other than “we really hate Bush.” They’ve made every possible effort to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, especially when they deep-sixed one of their own to replace him with a vapid empty suit to be filled with the hot air of liberal bloggers. They continue to be utterly tone deaf on issues of national security, their economic plan is more of the same, and there’s no leadership or coherent message at the top of the party.

Then again, given the way in which the Democrats are willfully blind on crucial matters of national security, perhaps we should be thankful that their chances are on the decline. Were this the vacation from history we got in the 1990s the childish partisanship coming out of Washington would be an amusement. At a time in which we find ourselves at the precipice of disaster and a devastating clash of civilizations, it is intolerable to have the childish and the self-obsessed in power.