Decider Watch

Muravchik makes the neocon case for total presidential power:

Only strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities can forestall these terrible scenarios. This would not require a "declaration of war," an antiquated concept that has not been employed since World War II and rarely before. We would send no troops, conquer no land. Rather, we would act in pre-emptive self-defense.

At stake are supreme issues of national safety. The president alone, as Alexander Hamilton said, is positioned to operate with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Of course, Congress can block presidential action, but in this case, most members will be satisfied to stand clear and let the president do what must be done.

I love the idea that the extremely clear Constitutional insistence that only Congress has the right to declare war is now "antiquated." Since when did the Founders believe that one co-equal branch of government should "stand clear" on a matter as fundamental as launching a war with unknowable consequences, possibly unleashing a wave of Islamist terror against the West, and shoring up one of the viler regimes in the Middle East? And why does such a war against the territory of another sovereign country require, at this point, "secrecy and dispatch"? Isn’t it obvious that there are plans for attacking Iran? And after the last several years of diplomacy, sanctions and war, how can anyone talk with a straight face of "dispatch"?

Green Christianism

Huckabee makes the case:

"For one thing, I’m one of the few people who’s actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we’ve been the last people speaking out on conservation."

I’m not sure you need to invoke the Almighty in arguing for environmental responsibility. But this is a classic case where Christian faith can make one personally more sensitive to an issue, while secular arguments can be relied on to appeal to fellow-citizens. If only we could achieve this balance more often.

Blogging Islamism

A fascinating – and encouraging – new development in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: the old guard is being challenged by younger Islamists, empowered by their own blogs:

In September 2007, the Society of Muslim Brothers, Egypt’s largest organized political force, released a draft political party platform to a select group of around 50 Egyptian intellectuals. The response was scathing. …As the debate unfolded, however, a novel feature of the Brothers’ “true face” began to emerge: sustained criticism of the platform posted by young Muslim Brothers on their personal blogs.   “Is this the platform of a political party or a religious organization?” queried one youthful blogger, ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Mahmoud.

The posts, in turn, generated another sharp debate, not only about the platform, but also about what it means to be a member of the Brothers and the limits of public dissent.

These online discussions are a manifestation of a new trend among young Muslim Brothers and a dynamic new force inside the organization.   As of the spring of 2007, there were an estimated 150 bloggers in the organization—an impressive number given that less than a year before there had been virtually none. At home in cyberspace, blogging Brothers have more in common with other young Egyptian activists, whether leftist or nationalist, than they do with their less wired peers. Their jibes at the draft platform, along with those of secular commentators, were undoubtedly one reason why the draft party platform was withdrawn for revision in late October (though leaders have said the offending clauses in the platform will not be altered).

Hat tip: The Arabist.