More Controversial Recess Appointment by Obama

Especially Eric Holder's "friend", James Cole as Deputy Attorney General.

Obama once again shows his disdain for the openness, transparency and the need to have such appointees appropriately vetted. And his disdain for the voters who expressly rebuked these and other tactics of this administration in November's election.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/so_much_for_bipartisanship_--.html

While all Presidents in recent history have used recess appointments for various reasons, there is much to dislike about Obama's specific appointments, along with the reason's he waited until the very end of the year and after the election to make them in the dark of night.

So much for bipartisanship -- a slew of recess appointments

By Jennifer Rubin

On Wednesday, Obama shed any pretense of bipartisanship in making six recess appointments. As were his previous recess appointments, this batch included two individuals whose records are so controversial that they could not obtain confirmation even with 59 Democratic senators. Also included was Stephen Ford, nominated as ambassador to Syria and stymied as a forceful rebuttal to Obama's failed Syrian engagement policy. Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute voiced objection to bypassing the Senate, arguing that: "there were credible reasons why the Senate refused to confirm the several nominees Obama has just now given recess appointments, reasons that warranted full and proper Senate confirmation hearings." He contends that "the striking feature here is that once again, as in the lame duck session, this Congress and the president managed to put off these important matters until after the November elections, which will result in this case in officers serving without the benefit of the legitimacy that comes from Senate confirmation." A senior adviser to a key Republican senator was more succinct: "It is an outrage."

The most egregious appointment is undoubtedly James Cole, installed as the deputy attorney general. There were good reasons why he could not secure Senate confirmation. The Web site Main Justice explained that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has strenuously objected to Cole's controversial stance on the War on Terror, which Cole expressed in a 2002 op-ed. Cole wrote:

"[T]he attorney general is not a member of the military fighting a war -- he is a prosecutor fighting crime. For all the rhetoric about war, the Sept. 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population, much like the terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade Center. The criminals responsible for these horrible acts were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal justice system, without the need for special procedures that altered traditional due process rights.

Our country has faced many forms of devastating crime, including the scourge of the drug trade, the reign of organized crime, and countless acts of rape, child abuse, and murder. The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things."

Sessions and other Republicans also objected to Cole's work on behalf of AIG. Moreover, he represented a Saudi prince against 9-11 families as this report from the Examiner explains:

Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud when insurance carriers and September 11 survivors sued him and others for financing terrorists. Treasury Department documents provided evidence of extensive financial support for Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family and Prince Naif ran the Al Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity that diverted funds to Al-Qaeda before and after September 11, 2001.

There is little wonder that Senate Democrats were indifferent to Republican efforts to block this nomination. House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.) issued a statement deploring the recess appointment, declaring:

"I strongly oppose the recess appointment of James Cole to lead the national security team at the Department of Justice. The appointment indicates that the Obama Administration continues to try to implement its dangerous policies of treating Islamic terrorism as a criminal matter.

"After the American people, and the Democratic Congress, unequivocally rejected President Obama's plans to close Guantanamo and transfer admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed to the United States for trial in federal civilian court, I find it absolutely shocking that President Obama would appoint someone who has diminished the 9/11 terrorist attacks by comparing them to the drug trade and who believes that a civilian courtroom is the appropriate venue for 9/11 trials.

"This may be one of the worst appointments by President Obama during his presidency. The Justice Department needs a strong Deputy Attorney General who understands that our country remains at war with Islamic terrorists who continually plot deadly attacks against Americans, not a left-wing ideologue who places terrorists in the same categories as drug peddlers."

Similarly, Debra Burlingame, co-founder of Keep America Safe and the sister of a pilot slaughtered on 9-11, tells me via email, "Cole filed a brief on behalf of Prince Naif in which he derided the basis of the families' lawsuit as pure fantasy. One hopes that was Cole, the advocate, rather than representative of his personal point of view." She bluntly observes that "his remarks, less than one year after 9/11) comparing Wahabbi-inspired terrorism to the drug trade or lone nut McVeigh are, to me, disqualifying. He's dreadful."

A human rights activist well-versed in the Middle East tells me, "I've met Prince Naif. He's a tremendous human rights abuser, having trampled the rights of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia." His view is that "anyone who does represent such a guy should have no expectation of government service, particularly in a job involving counter-terrorism issues."

As for the recess appointment of Francis J. Ricciardone Jr. as ambassador to Turkey, multiple objections were raised at the time he was nominated stemming from his tenure as ambassador to Cairo.Josh Rogin reported in Foreign Policy:

The Bush administration exerted special efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Egypt, a longtime recipient of billions in military and economic aid, and a close U.S. partner on regional security matters. . . . Then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered a ringing 2005 address on democracy at the American University in Cairo, calling on Mubarak to embrace political reform.

Those efforts came crashing down months later, amid the widespread fraud and violence of Egypt's parliamentary elections. The opposition Muslim Brotherhood performed surprisingly well in the early rounds, prompting a harsh government crackdown that continues to this day. When Hamas shocked the world by winning the Palestinian elections the following January, the Bush administration appeared to lose its appetite for promoting Arab democracy altogether.

Former top National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams blames Ricciardone.

"Especially in 2005 and 2006, Secretary Rice and the Bush administration significantly increased American pressure for greater respect for human rights and progress toward democracy in Egypt. This of course meant pushing the Mubarak regime, arguing with it in private, and sometimes criticizing it in public. In all of this we in Washington found Ambassador Ricciardone to be without enthusiasm or energy," Abrams told The Cable.

Senator Sam Brownback (R.-Kansas) was a particularly vocal critic of the nomination.

Finally, although Ford is a respected diplomat, his recess appointment as ambassador to Syria drew a swift rebuke from the new House Foreign Affairs chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Her statement read in part:

"I am deeply disappointed that the President decided to make such a major concession to the Syrian regime. Using this Congressional recess to make an appointment that has far-reaching policy implications despite Congressional objections and concerns is regrettable. . . .Making underserved concessions to Syria tells the regime in Damascus that it can continue to pursue its dangerous agenda and not face any consequences from the U.S. That is the wrong message to be sending to a regime which continues to harm and threaten U.S. interests and those of such critical allies as Israel."

What, if anything, can be done by the imperious recess appointments of such controversial nominees? Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation emails me, "The real threat (which Robert C. Byrd famously did once) is for the entire GOP caucus" to refuse to consent to any further nominees unless Obama agrees to refrain from issuing more recess appointments. Gaziano says that Republicans "could refuse to confirm another judge, diplomat, etc. until they extract their promise." There is also the power of oversight (to grill appointees on how they intend to perform their jobs) and of the bully pulpit (to publicize the records of these nominees). But the lesson for the GOP here may be to refrain from offering too many open hands to an administration only too eager to slap them and demonstrate disdain for a co-equal branch of government.