Another reckless recess appointment
The most open, transparent administration ever is ending the year by ramming through another controversial appointment under holiday cover.
Introducing recess DOJ appointee James Cole, now deputy attorney general overseeing national security:
President Obama used a recess appointment Wednesday to name James Cole as deputy attorney general.
…Cole’s nomination to the second-ranking post at the Department of Justice had been held up over objections from Republicans, who raised concerns over his tenure as an independent monitor of insurance giant AIG between 2005 and 2009. The federal government bailed out the company in 2008.
Republican senators also quibbled with a 2002 report that Cole wrote advocating civilian trials for terror suspects. Republicans have objected to trials in civilian courts for any of the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay as well as others accused of acts of terror…
GOP Rep. Peter King blasted the move in a press release sent out this morning:
Today, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman-elect and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, issued the following statement denouncing President Obama’s recess appointment of James Cole as Deputy Attorney General, a role in which he will lead the Department of Justice’s national security team:
“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.”
###
Note: On September 9, 2002 – the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks – Cole wrote in an op-ed in Legal Times:
“[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.”
Background primer on Cole and AIG at whistleblower.org here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
34 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
110 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Politics
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?Redstate
» Civility Fails For A Reason
I call a do over!
You are referring to the current Administration, aren’t you?
Michelle,
I have searched your archives around August 1, 2006 for a similar post lamenting the “ramming through” of “another controversial appointment.”
Strangely, though, I find nothing.
Admit it. You have no problem with recess appointments. You just have a problem with recess appointments you don’t like.
Oops, fat fingers. 2005, obviously.
It’s been going on for decades.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/29/national-security-means-tyranny/
The latest, out today, from Jack Hunter….
Yeah…and puppies. You have a problem with puppies – and nacho cheese flavored Doritos! Admit it.
Jeez Chap – switch from decaf today?
My only problem with nacho cheese Doritos is that they pale in comparison to cool ranch.
Haha… fair enough.
I knew it! I just knew you didn’t like puppies!
That’s why I like this from Ann Coulter:
Ann Coulter:In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.
The problem with this recess appointment is it’s simply another step in the wrong direction for a seriously flawed administration.
How about we have a recess appointment of a new POTUS? There are plenty of opportunities as the current occupant seems to take every opportunity for recesses from the Oval Office to play golf, vacation, fly his spouse to NY and Chicago for a night out, appear on Letterman, Leno, Oprah, the View, etc, etc.
Didn’t he put through 7 recess appointments? Wasn’t one of them the ambassador to Syria, a man who has close ties with Iran? I may have gotten that wrong. Anyone know?
And Chap…MM opposes this appointment, not just because she disagrees with it, but because this man is a dangerous addition to this administration and shows, once again, the complete disregard Obama has for this country.
Personally, I don’t think this country can survive two more years of a POTUS who is putting his corrupt, nasty regressive appointees through during recess because he knows they would be trashed in Congress and their corruption would be “outed”. His sneakiness makes me sick to my stomach.
I believe Michelle was referring to a “reckless” recess appointment, not to recess appointments in general.
I think it may be somewhere in the headline.
Why don’t you defend the appointment itself, Chap? He seems to represent the Democrat world view quite well.
isn’t it funny how they trot out McVeigh all the time?
Who’s still alive, McVeigh or al-Qahtani, Moussaoui?
It’s quite possible that she doesn’t like the practice of controversial recess appointments but doesn’t decide to dedicate a blog post about it unless the appointee is terrible.
‘No blog post’ doesn’t equal “no problem with….”
James Cole, a close personal friend of Eric Holder. How convenient. Now the two of them can join forces and call in the New Black Panthers to be our civilian military force. This just gets better and better.
Oh, she did dedicate an entire blog post to Bolton’s recess appointment, the entire point of which was to mock liberal reaction to it.
Doesn’t sound like she was too broken up over it.
You really don’t think she is attacking the fact that it was a recess appointment as well?
If “controversial” is her standard for when recess appointments are or are not appropriate, then I would like to see her condemn them on both sides.
I am so freakin sick of this comparison. It is completely bogus. McVeigh was a militant, non-Christian nutjob who blew up the building because of a beef with the government. It had nothing to do with religion. How can this be continually flaunted as a comparison to the mooslum jihadists who are taught by their religion to kill anyone who is not mooslum, and have been mandated to do so by their pedophile messiah. There is NO COMPARISON! I don’t hear many people shutting down that stupid talk…why is that? Just another lie the left is getting away with.
***
HI CHAP–#3. Step away from the wine bottles! Always stop sipping after the third or fourth fifth of Sneaky Pete. It tends to cloud a person’s thinking!
***
Recess appointments have a valid place in our political system. Like putting in competent personnel like John Bolton as ambassador to the “United” Nations–when the Senate has a single senator obstructing due to paybacks or earmark dreams. And the appointment has a limit–unless Congress wants to validate it later.
***
It’s the dumb stuff that offends the Patrona–like putting in clueless lawyer clowns and / or crooks in jobs they are poorly suited for. How would you like to worked on by a politically correct engineer instead of a skilled surgeon in the specialty you require?
***
John Bibb
***
Like I said, you support recess appointments when you like the appointee and oppose them when you don’t. And Bolton was not being obstructed by a single senator. Cloture failed 54-38.
They aren’t necessarily clueless appointees nor crooks, per se, as their ideology, education and experiences are usually well suited for the jobs in ObaMao’s administration’s achieving its goals. Reckless appointments for the nation, but not for ObaMao’s objectives.
Chap, the reason Bolton didn’t pass in Congress was because the majority were moonbat regressives. And Bolton had the audacity to criticize (gasp) the U.N. Of course, the left wouldn’t want him to become a member of that prestigious body that is only there for the good of all mankind and does so many wonderful things in the world. Why, a man like Bolton would certainly corrupt the U.N. and make them look bad.
/sarc off
He did a bit more than criticize the U.N. He denied it’s legitimacy (and then tried to backtrack from that during confirmation).
In true lawyer misdirection mode, Chap continues to fail to defend this reckless appointment.
Yes, I disagreed with him in that case. He should NOT have backtracked!
I expect this from Obama, he is a Marxist; this is how they get things done. His recess appointments are people who would never pass public scrutiny (just as he wouldn’t have if the MSM had done their job).
The good thing is that next week the House starts to fight back. And from what I’ve heard, they have prepared a pretty aggressive agenda.
As to Cole’s appointment…I don’t know. The two biggest dings against him seem to be that he advised AIG for a few years and that he supports/supported civilian trials for Gitmo detainees.
As to the former, I guess I would have to know how big a role he had in the mess they got themselves into. And, as I understand, he has cited confidentiality concerns in refusing to answer certain questions about that. I suppose that is a legitimate gripe and is sufficient reason to hold up his confirmation.
As to the latter, I don’t think that is enough to hold up the confirmation. I think that there are legitimate theoretical reasons to prefer civilian trials over military ones, even though it is looking increasingly bad from a practical standpoint.
There is no misdirection. MM is criticizing both the nomination and the recess appointment.
From Michelle’s link to whistleblower.org
Sounds like the usual Dem suspects. We forgive your crimes – you give us money – and a powerful job…
Terrible lawyer, chapoutier. You obviously didn’t understand my proper use of the pronoun “it.”
I’ll remove the pronoun for you and restate.
“It’s quite possible that she doesn’t like the practice of controversial recess appointments but doesn’t decide to dedicate a blog post about
itthe practice of controversial recess appointments unless the appointee is terrible.‘No blog post’ [about the practice of controversial recess appointments] doesn’t equal “no problem with….”
It’s quite clear that she wasn’t mocking liberal reaction to the practice. Her one sentence blog post linked to a story mocking liberal reaction to Bolton!!!!
It is also possible (and just so there is no confusion, by “possible” I mean “entirely likely”) she is clearly partisan and, per my original thesis, only has a problem with president’s “ramming through…controversial appointments” when it suits her politics.
chapoutier,
She was critical of the substance of the appointment’s ideological views, which is quite clear if you read the entire piece, not that it was a recess appointment.
It was the runny nosed, soiled diapered left that was making the issue of the recess appointment of Bolton, who was Bush’s best appointment of his administration, by the way.
Please leave informed comments on this post and save narratives and fabrications for the pimple faced puberty Marxists at the Daily Kos.
Not true at all. Did you even read the link she posted to? At least 3 had to do with the way in which Bolton was appointed, including the “winner.”
By that logic any liberal that makes fun of some of the conservative sputtering about Cole is clearly partisan with respect to the practice of controversial recess appointments. This doesn’t make any sense.
Your conclusion is bad.
Wrong. You must have skipped her opening salvo.
We can stop worrying about Islam and sharia destroying the U.S. from the inside, now…we have our own Destructor in the White House with the same goal.
This kind of crap has to stop! We have to get back to Constitutional basics, or we are doomed to fail.
No. By my correct logic, any liberal that makes fun of conservatives sputtering about the practice of recess appointments when it comes to Cole AND criticizing the practice of recess appointments when it comes to Bolton are clearly partisan.
Your reading is bad.
chapoutier
Yes, puberty boy, I did. She was calling attention to the Barry the Punk running the most “transparent administration ever” which was one of his systemic lies Barry the Punk reverberated continually to get elected.
There is nothing in her piece, REPEAT NOTHING, making an issue with the recess appoint. NOTHING.
The article is exclusively and without any exception giving a thorough synopsis of the ideologue’s views and included Rep. King’s statement.
Again, puberty boy, not a single word whatsoever complaining about the recess appointment, itself.
Ok, puberty boy? Now go get some rest pubs.
I concur – my reading was bad.
You’ve made a fair point here.
Wow. The cognitive dissonance needed to allow you to say that is truly stunning.
Worrying about one element of national destruction doesn’t mean we can’t worry about another form of it at the same time. Both of these, as well as other destructive elements, will continue to warrant our attention and action.
Nothing whatsoever puberty boy.
I don’t like bad Obama/Democrat recess appointees and I didn’t like bad Bush/GOP recess appointees.
READ: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/04/the-kos-malkin-national-review-convergence/
So?
Chap…the answer to your entire argument is…Michelle Malkin is a strong, CONSERVATIVE woman who does not even PRETEND to be non-partisan. So, don’t criticize her for being partisan. She is unapoligetically Conservative, and as such, will blog about the corruption of the regressives. That is what she does. She is incredibly transparent about that. So, what exactly is your beef? That she is critical of Obama and his corrupt appointments? Good grief.
Of course you don’t like “bad” appointments, whether they are recess or otherwise.
My question is whether or not you are consistent in your treatment and characterization of the practice with “controversial” nominees. Was Bolton “rammed through” under “cover of summer vacation”?
This is leftwing lawyerspeak for “the lunatic idea sounded really good to us reality disconnected leftists/Democrats, but all of the meanies out there won’t cooperate to Do The Right Thing and the pr works against us in this case right now because the voters are so stupid.”
***
HI REVOLUTION–#33. Yes–John Bolton was a very good choice. But I thought that the very talented Condi Rice appointment as Secretary of State was President Bush’s best pick. An expert on Russia who speaks their language–as well as 4 other tongues. A good track record as an administrator at Stanford. A talented musician with a love of country and football.
***
Compare Condi with Comrade Obama’s political payback of corrupt and unskilled Hillary Clinton as SOS. A clueless clown by comparison. And Hillary will primary The Messiah in the runup to the 2012 election as His bad policies continue to trash our economy. He just can’t stop shooting Himself–and the rest of us taxpayers–in the foot.
***
John Bibb
***
#36 chap said:
But why are you skipping Michelle’s pre-opening salvo (warning shot?)
Malkin:
I’ll even respond with an explanation between “ramming through another controversial appointment under holiday cover” v. “ramming through another reckless, controversial appointment under holiday cover” if you’d like.
I don’t think we are defining “partisan” the same way.
In any case, I thank MM for her response and for continuing to allow me to have a voice on her forum.
She is imminently more fair about allowing dissenting voices than many blogs on the left (or many on the right for that matter).
Oh NO! That link has a reference to Debbie Schlussel – now you’ve done it!
Totally true.
Is this the part where she comes and claims she said all the same things MM did, only 3 days earlier?
You keep kicking the football Michelle, the parsers will keep moving the goalposts!
Not an entirely unfair characterization.
So, Chap, how do you define partisan? I think of it as stongly believing in an ideology and making no excuses for fighting the opposition, no matter what political party they belong to. Partial to one ideology over another and not afraid to defend it. I am partisan. So are you. I realize there are other definitions of that word.
(I am an unapologetic Radical, Bible-clinging, iron skillet-toting, racist right-wing extremist.)
No, this must pre-date that…
I could have sworn that Hotel Harry Reid had committed to Mitch McConnell to keep the Senate technically in session over the holidays, just like they did the last few years George Bush was President, so there couldn’t be any recess appointments
I think I would define that as principled. I would say partisanship is excessive devotion to one’s allegiances to the point of placing it above reality solely for the sake of preserving the allegiance.
Characterizing one side’s activity one way and ignoring the same behavior on the other? Partisan.
Being fiercely pro-life? Principled.
Voting in lockstep to filibuster every single piece of legislation the other side tries to bring regardless of the merits? Partisan.
Keeping the Senate “techincally” in session so that the President cannot make recess appointments? Partisan. (h/t MacEamonn)
Believing gays should be able to serve openly in the military? Principled.
Hey is it getting hot in here or is it just me?
George Costanza: I’ve driven women to lesbianism before but never to a mental institution.
Well, taking a principled stand on the issues could very well also be partisan, as 99% of the issues Obama and his socialist administration want to ram down our throats are corrupt, unconstitutional, and against everything this country stands for. That. is. Reality. For you to claim allegiance to that crap means you are partisan. I can’t call you principled because I see nothing principled about socialism/marxism.
Chap says:
How about openly serving on the battlefield?
If we had a gov that was true to the Constitution, there would be no need for these tactics. Both parties are the party of no when it goes against their agendas. Neither of their agendas are good for the country. Anything short of the total restoration of the Constitution, is not in the country’s best interest.
Thinking outside the box; the destruction of the U.S. will come much sooner with detrimental policy decisions like Obama’s.
The anti-colonialist Obama’s strategy is short term, while Sharia, the plan of the Islamic Brotherhood, is long term (they knew it wouldn’t happen overnight.)
We, American’s who want a strong State, will not take our eyes off any potential threat. Obama is counting on the media to distract us with external threats to democracy, while ignoring the one’s carried out, sub rosa, under our noses by the government WE elected. We must focus on the most present danger, while not ignoring the next one down the line.
Never let down your guard! There will always be weasels (e.g. liberals and statists) looking for easy access to the hen house.
Look, maybe I am mistaken, but I believe the ability for a President to make “recess” appointments, was done so that executive decisions could be made in an EMERGENCY
I’m partial to “Blazing Buffalo Ranch” Doritos, myself!! “Fiery Habanero” is my all time favorite, but there must be too many wussies out there (to quote Mr Rendell) for Doritos to keep making them….
(CONTINUING) situations. This authority has, like other appendages to our laws, has IMHO, been misused…no, abused by both parties. Ultimately, it is We, The People who decide what is legit, and what isn’t.
Currently, these recess apointments are taking us rapidly down the road to authoritarianism…NOT GOOD!
Every appointment in this administration IS an emergency. It has to act quickly to get the one chosen in place to avoid any questions or scrutiny beforehand.
Just use a good spicy salsa and you are all set. My son-in-law who is part Mexican, has an old family recipe that is amazing!! We request it every time he comes to a family gathering. He won’t give out the recipe, but it would be a big seller. It doesn’t contain habaneros, but is truly HOT!! (Yes, that is the same son-in-law who voted for Obama and Al Franken, but now has decided he made a mistake and is becoming a Republican. He is not yet a Conservative, but I believe he will be, in time.)
Doritos? Isn’t that those triangular pieces of polystyrene painted with orange monosodium glutamate?
Your only exhibit for this behavior has been John Bolton. I wasn’t aware that John Bolton was appointed under holiday cover outside the glare of any kind of publicity. In fact I’m pretty sure he was made quite the household name at the time.
And as for “controversial” (the media’s favorite word whenever they come across something or someone they don’t like), I’d be fascinated to see a poll showing whose views are more unpopular – Bolton’s or Cole’s.
I wasn’t aware Cole was appointed outside of the glare of any kind of publicity. Just saw a story on MSNBC making the point this was a controversial nomination. I can only imagine what Fox is saying. And this “holiday cover” thing is absurd. Per the Constitution, it is done when Congress is not in session. That coincides right now with the holiday. And I am sure just as many (or few) people are paying attention during the middle of summer as are paying attention now.
Wasn’t my word.
Unprincipled.
chap:
John Bolton on FOX right now:
1. Obama’s newly appointed Asst. AG believes that our War on Terror is neither a “war,” nor should it be treated as anything above the level of child rape or drug peddling.
2. Obama’s newly appointed Ambassador to Syria strikes down the reasons why the previous Ambassador was originally pulled:
a) Syria was complicit in the assassination of the former PM of Lebanon.
b) Syria is complicit in the funding and support of Hezbollah (an organization that executed a personal, family friend of mine – Colonel Rich Higgens.)
c) Syria is complicit with Iran – the one remaining middle east nation that will arguably cost us the most American lives and treasure moving forward.
Question – What is Barack Obama up to, and is Michele Malkin that far off from calling these recess appointments “reckless?”
What is Barack Obama up to? No good.
Is Michele Malkin that far off from calling these recess appointments “reckless?” Yes. Sinister is the word, not reckless.
I might have to agree with you there chap. Cool Ranch way better.
On recess appointments, I have no problem with presidents making recess appointments. But I have problems with BAD recess appointments.
James Cole…. BAD recess appointment. His history suggests his positions counter that which is good for America.
John Bolton…. GOOD recess appointment. His history suggests his positions are in line with what is good for America.
It’s like driving. Nothing wrong with it. Driving like a maniac? BAD.
I’m with Ed Morrissey on this one:
Incompetent? I think not. Selecting radical nominees advances this administration’s agenda, whether the decision is ObaMao’s alone or by direction and recommendation of his adivisors. If CONgress fails to curtail the administration’s actions in this regard, this administration may have in place who and what it needs to make the CONgress irrelevant and create or take advantage of a crisis for suspending or eliminating elections in 2012.
AIG screwed our business to the tune of seven figures and there is current litigation. I dont know if Cole had any oversight on the problem, but its possible.
Looks like a bad appointment to me.
All due respect, Ed Morrissey is an idiot on this one.
18 seat majority is not enough when the other side has, in lockstep, determined to be as obstructionist as possible. Not to mention the fact that it only takes one Senator (or two working in tandem if longer than 5 days) to put secret holds on nominations.
Ah, I see, full speed ahead as long as your yo-yos are in power. Cloture works for ending filibusters and secret holds. All the intense struggles are unnecessary. For example, Obama could have passed “Kiddie Care” and moved a notch closer to the ultimate goal, but he wanted it all — done by his great hand — and so now he’ll pay the price. Next!
Interesting that that even includes Senators like Snowe and Collins, two normally very Dem-friendly Republicans. It’s not like every Republican memeber of the Senate is a right-wing ideologue, far from it. And how many Democrats themselves have been speaking up for Cole? Compare that the very vociferous support Bolton received from Republicans, and it becomes clear that the analogy between the two nominations doesn’t hold up.