Obama skirts Congress to appoint lobbying lawyer

President Obama's latest recess appointment is a corporate lawyer, hailing from a leading Democratic lobbying firm where he represented defense contractors and health care companies.

The nomination of James M. Cole, now deputy attorney general, never made it to the Senate floor thanks to questions about his time as a compliance monitor at AIG, and his views on fighting terrorism.

Cole embodies two typical Obama practices: The president often flouts his tough, anti-lobbyist talk, and he uses recess appointments so that his party's senators don't have to vote on nominees with tainted backgrounds.

Cole was never a registered lobbyist, but he was a partner for years at Bryan Cave LLP, a prominent lobbying firm with strong connections to the Democratic Party and a client list that included Walmart, Microsoft, Peabody Energy, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Ford Motor.

Bryan Cave's lobbyists and lawyers include veterans of the Obama campaign and former top Hill staffers, White House aides, and former lawmakers. The firm's political action committee gave 62 percent of its contributions to Democrats.

BryanCave.com says Cole's job included "representation of corporations and individuals before grand juries, in congressional hearings, in court proceedings, and before federal agencies." One might think that "representation of corporations ... in congressional hearings ... and before federal agencies" might count as lobbying, but Cole has never registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Cole represented weapons giant McDonnell Douglas, and his Web site says he has also represented "individuals and companies in the health care field concerning disputes concerning billing fraud and abuse and FDA regulatory issues." Drugmaker AstraZeneca is a Bryan Cave lobbying client.

Cole is also a generous Democratic donor, having given the maximum to Obama in 2008 and more than $17,000 to political action committees and candidates since 2000.

The fact that Obama's ethics rules "barring" lobbyists don't apply to Cole -- a Democratic donor and corporate lawyer working at a lobbying firm and representing corporations before Congress -- shows how toothless those rules are. As further evidence, look at Cole's colleagues at his new job.

The Justice Department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, and Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, are both former K Street lobbyists. Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Karl Thompson was a lobbyist for Hess and Occidental Petroleum when Obama plucked him from K Street's O'Melveny & Myers.

And the man they all work for -- Attorney General Eric Holder -- was a registered lobbyist at the storied Covington & Burling.

In other words, it's been clear for two years that Obama's "war on lobbyists" was hot air. Tapping "non-lobbyist lobbyist" Cole is just icing.

Two issues held up Cole's nomination. Many Republicans objected to Cole's views in a 2002 op-ed painting the fight against al Qaeda as a criminal prosecution more than a military one, and calling on then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to protect the rights of accused terrorists.

But a handful of Republican lawmakers said they were unhappy with Cole's answers about his stint at AIG. As part of a legal settlement with the U.S. government, AIG was required to hire an independent monitor who would keep an eye on the insurer's regulatory compliance, and report back to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department. From 2004 to 2006, that was Cole.

The Government Accountability Project, a self-described "whistleblower protection organization," has repeatedly criticized Cole for not answering more questions about his time at AIG -- specifically about his interactions with other AIG/K Street types, such as Kathleen Chagnon and Fannie Mae alumna Anastasia Kelly.

With all of this baggage, Republicans placed a "hold" on Cole's nomination after it cleared committee, spurring charges of "unacceptable delay" from Democrats and the Washington Post. But were it important enough, Majority Leader Harry Reid could have moved the nomination to the floor, invoked cloture, and confirmed him. The Republican "hold" didn't block a vote: It merely forced debate. Top Judiciary Committee Republican Jeff Sessions said Cole would be confirmed if Reid moved the nomination.

So why the recess appointment?

Cole's past as a lobbyist-in-all-but-name and the his AIG stint both made him an inconvenient character for Senate Democrats this past year, especially as they campaigned on phony populism and charges of GOP coziness with K Street, Wall Street, and corporate America.

Enter an Obama innovation in presidential power: While George W. Bush used recess appointments to install officials who couldn't clear a Democratic filibuster, Obama -- with the Cole appointment and that of Donald Berwick as Medicare chief -- uses recess appointments to avoid embarrassing floor debates and spare his party's senators from embarrassing votes.

Obama promised to be a trailblazer. What he didn't mention was that he would blaze trails around public accountability.

(source:washingtonexaminer.com)

Palestinians need assertive leadership

The abscence of a cohesive and credible Palestinian leadership, while used in the past by Israel to justify refusal to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, can no longer be brushed aside as a specious argument

An assertive and cohesive Palestinian leadership is urgently needed. The shifting dynamics in the region, with profound implications for the regional balance of power, the strategic interest of the United States and the very future of the moribund peace process, require a visionary and daring Palestinian leadership something currently absent from the equation of power.

Consider the changing dynamics in the region. First, there is the deal the Israelis reportedly made with Hamas for an exchange of prisoners. This will surely enhance the prestige of Hamas and strengthen its standing with the Palestinians, at the expense of the Palestinian National Authority. It also validates Hamas' claim that only resistance to the occupation can force Israel to negotiate a settlement.

It also exposes flawed Israeli logic. As Israeli writer Gideon Levy perceptively put it: "Why is it permissible to talk to Hamas about the fate of one captive soldier … but forbidden to talk to them about the fate of two nations?"

Nonetheless, the absence of a cohesive and credible Palestinian leadership, while used in the past by Israel to justify refusal to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, can no longer be brushed aside as a specious argument.

The Palestinian leadership must develop and act on a realistic assessment of how developments in the region and shifting balance of power have forced the American president to rearrange his foreign policy priorities. And the Palestine conflict, notwithstanding Obama's goodwill, is not at the top of the list.

In a recent low-key visit to Washington, Benjamin Netanyahu urged Jewish American leaders to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration to adopt a more aggressive position regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Israel lobby and Congress are sparing no efforts to achieve that goal. US President Barack Obama had indicated, following an earlier visit by Netanyahu, that he was committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian challenge, but that by the end of the year he would reassess the effectiveness of that policy which presumably may be taking place now.

Making Iran a priority of his administration may have been necessary to allay Israeli fears and to get Netanyahu to agree to a freeze on colony construction which, according to the Israeli press, Netanyahu is getting ready to announce.

The American president is facing more daunting challenges. The deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan has forced him to increase American troop levels by some 30,000.

Close behind, if not equally publicly recognised as such, is the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. Noted American journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that American officials even suggested to Pakistani counterparts the possibility of transferring Pakistani nuclear switches outside the country to guard against the threat of separatists gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. An extremist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a nightmare scenario Obama cannot ignore.

Obama displayed flexibility in the face of Netanyahu's stubbornness on the issue of colony construction. The administration has gone from "demanding" a complete stop to "all settlement [colony] construction" to praising Netanyahu for his "unprecedented restraint" before backtracking and confirming in principle what the American preference is. The White House position now is that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should start "without preconditions".

But this apparent concession to the Israelis was coupled with a forceful rejection of the legitimacy of Israeli colonies.

In the face of this dynamic and rapidly changing balance of power, what is the position of the Palestinian leadership? It can be summed up in two words: more waiting. But waiting is not a strategy; it is a choice.

The injustice suffered by the Palestinians is undeniable. But the ability of their leadership to salvage what is left of their shattered society has been hampered by ineptitude and the substitution of a flawed choice for a strategy. A Palestinian leadership that is bold and visionary must emerge from the wreckage of old thinking. It must engage the enemy, exploit his weaknesses, cultivate friends, understand supporters and reflect a realistic and proactive understanding of the dynamics of power.

In particular, it must capitalise on Obama's goodwill before it is submerged by other priorities. Obama has gone further than many presidents before him in committing his administration to a peaceful settlement of the Palestine conflict. In declaring that peace in the Middle East is a strategic interest of the United States he has made the US a full fledged stake holder.

Because of the gross inequalities of the parties, only the sustained involvement of Washington can ensure that the final outcome of the negotiations reflect a measure of justice for the Palestinians and a viable state of their own.

Adel Safty is Distinguished Professor Adjunct at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His new book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky.

Source:gulfnews.com/