maddogs hideaway

This  week, the administration that rode to a second term decrying a fictitious war on  women by the opposition, opened real fronts on the war on women, perpetuating  feminism's worst inconsistencies through its contradictory programs and in the  words and deeds of the avatar of these inconsistencies, Hillary Clinton, the  "Athena" of low information women voters. Only CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson by  her persistence and competence keeps me from burying my head in  shame.

As  the Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper noticed, there was a serious disconnect this week in the  administration's approach to women.

On  the one hand, the president's close aide, Valerie Jarrett  tweeted:

"If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's  protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against  Women Act."

At  almost the same moment, as Jarrett was tweeting her plea for legislative  embodiment of the notion of women's need for special protections, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced -- without any  consultation with Congress -- that he was removing the ban on women  in combat positions.

The  disconnect between the two positions seems irreconcilable except for James  Taranto's sage analysis:

One way of defining feminism is as the pursuit of the  mutually irreconcilable goals of sexual equality and sensitive treatment of  women. You'd think that contradiction would be a weakness, but it's actually  strength: Every advance for equality creates a demand for more measures to  promote sensitivity, and vice versa. Feminism's failures perpetuate feminism, at  the expense of other goals such as defending the country.

I don't  think this dichotomy does women any favor. It certainly does no favors for men  nor does it meet the demands of our society. It seems utterly impossible for men  to cross this minefield whole. On the one hand they are being urged to treat  women with special sensitivity because of their more delicate natures and  physical limitations. On the other hand, the administration wants men to share  foxholes on the front lines with them.

Taranto  quotes a reader, a Marine Corps veteran with extensive experience on the front  lines who among other things observes:

What kind of a man is it who can send women off to  kill and maim? What kind of society does that? What kind of men sharing a  fire-team foxhole with a woman and two other men don't treat the woman more  gently?

What kind of society bemoaning that men don't seem to  respect women can't see that part of the respect they demand is predicated on  the specialness of the other?

Perhaps it is possible in a firefight to distinguish  between how one treats women and men, but I doubt that I could do it. And if I  am trained to treat men and women the same throughout my career,  can this have no significant effect on how I treat women otherwise? 

The  disparate goals of a feminism that simultaneously and inconsistently demands  special consideration and complete equality at the expense of the national --  and, therefore women's interests -- was also manifest in the outrageous  performance of outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this  week.

Uniformly  praised by Senators and Congressmen of her own Democratic Party for her  performance in this task -- encomia that ignored the fact that the president  early had stripped her of significant authority and handed it over to those  closer to him like Susan Rice and that, in any event, foreign policy under her  watch has been a disaster -- Hillary played the feminist card to trump serious  inquiry into the Benghazi catastrophe, weeping, wailing, pounding the desk,  obfuscating, and outright lying.

I  listened to much of it on C-Span and was incredulous to read mainstream media  reports like this one in the Washington Post.

For Hillary, the testimony was a triumphant capstone  on her term as the chief U.S. diplomat. If Hillary had not dealt with the  Benghazi affair before she left office, she could have been viewed as a failure  and a weakling. Instead, she came blazing onto Capitol Hill in true Hillary  style, concluding the Libya drama on her terms and exiting the Washington stage  to regroup for her next adventure -- a new book, global speeches or a  presidential run.

Hillary's loyal base -- and it is ever growing among  millennial women -- likes the "Athena" Hillary, the wise warrior who slays  Republicans (especially men) with iciness and harshness. They want her to be  Madame President in four years. They long for her to be tough, emotionally,  intelligent and even funny. In her swan song, she gave them that Hillary to  remember

Online,  it was easier to find reports of her testimony which more closely resembled my  own views of it.

The  most commented-on part of her testimony came when she was pressed by Senator Ron  Johnson of Wisconsin to explain why she and the administration had lied and  pretended the murders of our ambassador and other U.S. personnel at Benghazi  were related to a silly video when they knew from the first that it was not. To  her eternal discredit she replied, 'What difference at this point does it  make?"

She  thus ended her time with this administration much as she began her national  career -- denying accountability for her misdeeds and those of the  Democratic president with whom she had served.

But  that was only part of the shame of this performance.

As  Reason's Nick Gillespie observed, by her deceitful, histrionic performance she evaded  any serious discussion of major administration failures that will remain  unaccounted for. He dissected three major evasive statements by Clinton. 

1. "I take responsiblity."

From a Fox News report of the Senate  hearing:

During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she  has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that  she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure." 

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility,  and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking  up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets  were returned.

Taking responsibility is the classic dodge in  Washington, where pols assume the mantle of leadership and then promptly do nothing to address the  situation for which they are in hot water. What does it mean to take  responsibility for the absolute breakdown of security at a consulate where your  ambassador gets murdered (along with three others[snip]

2. "1.43 million cables come to my office."  [snip]

She added that "1.43 million cables come to my  office. They're all addressed to me."

Come on, already. The question is plainly not whether  Clinton is reading every god<snip>ed communication addressed to her but whether  she's got the right people in charge of assessing risk and making sure resources  are apportioned accordingly. Tragically, the answer was no, especially given the  fact that State had cut security in Benghazi despite attacks prior to the deadly  9/11 one! [snip]

3. "What difference at this point does it  make?"

[snip] Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of  difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to  making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.

Elliott  Abrams, formerly an Assistant Secretary of State, confirmedGillespie's observations about Clinton's claim that  she couldn't read all the cables that came to the Department. In fact, he says  her comment is proof of her failed executive role:

There had been three and half years to set up a  system, to let the career officers of the Secretariat and the Operations Center  know what she wants, and to have her personal staff figure it out  too.

That is to say, if she did not see the Benghazi  cables in a timely fashion, if she did not see Chris Stephens's cables  describing the deterioration of security, and if she did not see his requests  for more security, this was a huge management failure on her part. It is a poor  excuse to say, "Gee, the Department gets lots of cables" -- and perhaps even  worse then to hide behind an Accountability Review Board that pins  responsibility on assistant secretaries and no higher.

Having worked as an assistant secretary of state and  a deputy national-security adviser, I can report that even in those posts one is  entirely swamped by cable traffic and needs a system to cope with it -- to be  sure that the really important ones get through. From all the available  evidence, Hillary Clinton failed to establish such a system for herself, and  that management failure is a far more important fact about her tenure than being  the third woman to hold the post or having flown more miles than Condoleezza  Rice.

Mark  Steyn could barely conceal his contempt for Hillary's performance:

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility,"  she said. In Washington, the bold declarative oft-stated acceptance of  responsibility is the classic substitute for responsibility: rhetorically  "taking responsibility," preferably "many times," absolves one from the need to  take actual responsibility even once. [snip]

But Secretary Clinton has just testified that, in the  government of the most powerful nation on Earth, there is no reliable means by  which a serving ambassador can report to the Cabinet minister responsible for  foreign policy. And nobody cares: What difference does it  make?

Nor was the late Christopher Stevens any old  ambassador but, rather, Secretary Clinton's close personal friend "Chris." It  was all "Chris" this, "Chris" that, when Secretary Clinton and President Obama  delivered their maudlin eulogies over the flag-draped coffin of their "friend."  Gosh, you'd think if they were on such intimate terms, "Chris" might have had  Hillary's email address, but apparently not. He was just one of 1.43 million  close personal friends cabling the State Department every hour of the day. 

Four Americans are dead, but not a single person  involved in the attack and the murders has been held to account. Hey, what  difference does it make? Lip-syncing the national anthem beats singing it.  Peddling a fictitious narrative over the coffin of your "friend" is more real  than being an incompetent boss to your most vulnerable employees. And mouthing  warmed-over clichés about vowing to "bring to justice" those responsible is way  easier than actually bringing anyone to justice.

In  all of this there is one woman who does represent the best of American women and  of her profession, CBS's Sharyl Attkisson who is being stonewalled by the  administration and hasn't reported on the Benghazi story since November 23.  She's been using every avenue available to her to pursue the Benghazi story and  has taken to Twitter to voice the inquiries her media colleagues and  Congressional investigators should be asking:

"@SharylAttkisson The Obama Admin has indicated it will not be answering Benghazi questions we've  been asking since Oct. I will list some of them."

She  followed up two minutes later with a question that took up two  tweets:

"@SharylAttkisson What time was Ambassador's Stevens' body recovered, what are the known details  surrounding his disappearance and death..."

".  ..including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by  whom?"

And  from that moment forward, she just kept hammering:

"Who  made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the  night of the Benghazi attacks?"

"We  understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive  ("NSPD-46"). Is that true? If not, please  explain..."

"...  if so, why was the protocol not followed?"

"Is  the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please  explain."

"Who  is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from  US personnel in Libya?"

After  Attkisson's preliminary questions, she drove on, asking about the White House  cover-up and its narrative blaming the incident on a demonstration against an  anti-Islamic YouTube video:

"Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing  reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?"

"Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus' potential  problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?"

"What is your response to the President stating that  on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS  interview..."

"...on that date in which he answered that it was too  early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?"[snip]

"Forgot to mention that Sen. Graham has asked 4  transcripts of FBI interviews w/Benghazi survivors but at last word that hadn't  been provided".

UPDATE:  Right on cue, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy illustrates the incoherent demands of   Democratic women for combat role equality AND special treatment. On Friday,  McCarthy told  Piers Morgan that while she supports women in combat, they shouldn't be  required to use those nasty and evil assault rifles -- or, presumably, the even  nastier machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, and heavy artillery pieces. 

She  also mades it clear that she is clueless about what arms are  rifles:

"CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to  professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they'll tell you [an AR-15 is]  not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate."

Think about it.

Both fell with resulting head injuries.

We’re told both are fine now, but there’s a major difference in media  coverage of the incidents.

In the case of the show business person, we have lots of details. Barbara  Walters tripped and fell on the stairs at the Washington home of Peter  Westmacott, the British ambassador to the United States, during an inauguration  party.

Walters hit her head, got a cut, was taken to the hospital for treatment and  a full examination and was released after a few days.

In the case of the powerful American politician, we know almost nothing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we’re told, had a stomach flu, then was  dehydrated (how did they know?) and fainted (where?) and hit her head (on  what?).

We’re told she wasn’t hospitalized (why?), and doctors said she should work  at home.

Then we’re told she had a blood clot in her head (how did they find out at  home?), but it wasn’t serious. Apparently she was hospitalized, but she’s out  now, wearing glasses that show modifications to correct double vision.

Like it or not, this appears to be another administration cover-up. What are  they hiding about Clinton’s mysterious illness, then her fall and the  outcome?

Anyone raising such questions is insulted for even asking but if we’re given  details of an entertainment figure’s accident, why are we denied details about a  woman who holds enormous power in our government and whose injury could impact  international relations?

It’s especially suspicious since the “accident” allowed Clinton to delay even  further her facing questioning about the botched handling of an attack on our  Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans brutally killed.

Consider Hillary Clinton. Wife of a presidential liar, former duplicitous  first lady, former U.S. senator with no experience, failed presidential  contender, and now, about to be former secretary of state who has her ambitious  eyes cast on another presidential run that many believe she “deserves.”

And last week, when she finally appeared for congressional questioning about  the horrific debacle in Benghazi – her money quote was, “What difference, at  this point, does it make?”

The questions she faced generally were softballs, preceded by comments about  how wonderful she has been in her job and how thankful those elected officials  and the American people are for her hard work.

Count me out on that.

Do Americans really care she traveled more than a million miles? We paid for  all of them.

Do Americans know what benefits this country gained from her gadding about,  pretending to deal with serious issues of state that have supposedly made  Americans and our allies safer in a dangerous world?

Since the Obama administration has been in office and Clinton in her  prestigious job, the world has not become safer. In fact, it’s worse.

The Middle East is in flames, millions are under the thumb of violent Islam,  Christians are being pursued and killed for their religion, and the brazenness  of militant Islam and the followers of jihad have only increased.

We’ve been blindsided by what the administration touted as the Arab Spring,  supposedly a “birth” or “rebirth” of freedom.

What we have is an Islamic dictator in Egypt, turmoil in Libya, Syria about  to implode, increased threats from Iran, Mali on the edge of full-blown war,  murder and kidnapping in Algeria and the list goes on.

During the questioning, Clinton ran the gamut of predictable and rehearsed  reactions, including tears.

There was, of course, the expected “I know nothing” attitude.

She knows nothing about a lack of security at the Benghazi facility or  earlier requests for reinforcement of what security there was, or of requests  for assistance during the attack from the three men who were fighting to the  bitter end and ultimately were killed by the Islamic enemy.

Why were drones airborne to observe the area but no military response from  this country to assist the Americans at risk?

She doesn’t know.

She knows nothing about any “obscure film” that supposedly offended Muslims  and caused that Middle East unrest, even though she herself referenced it to the  media and to the families of the dead men. The White House did the same as did  other official spokespeople.

In fact, that’s what the American people were told for weeks after the  attack, but it was a lie.

Why did the administration and its lackeys lie to Congress and to us?

Clinton knows nothing.

Why is she lying?

She says she knows nothing about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s theatrical  appearances on a weekend of network news programs spouting a well-rehearsed  mantra of what happened because of “that film” and the mob attack on our  facility. Both lies.

Clinton was questioned about the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens,  former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods and Air Force veteran Sean Smith at  the hands of the militant Islamists.

She erupted in fury, stating that concerns about “why” it happened mean  nothing.

By the way, the killing of an ambassador is tantamount to a declaration  of war. Why doesn’t anyone care?

And why didn’t the media notice that she expressed concern about the  “spreading jihadist threat”?

Whoa!

I thought her boss, Obama, said there’s no such threat, there’s no further  danger from al-Qaida and there’s no such thing as terrorism.

Maybe Clinton was on one of her many trips somewhere when that meeting was  held and she didn’t get the memo – just the way she never got the urgent cables  from diplomats in Libya about the increasingly dangerous situation brewing and  the need for more security.

Ah yes, but Obama says Osama bin Laden is dead, al-Qaida has been decimated  and we’re at the end of the time of wars and heading into an era of peace.

How stupid does he think we are?

But then, he just got re-elected, so he knows.

Too bad, we don’t.

    By Stephen  Dinan

-

The Washington  Times

Friday, January 25, 2013

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal   appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial  recess appointments from  last year, ruling he abused his powers and  acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr.  Obama. The judges  ruled that the appointments he made to the National  Labor Relations  Board are illegal, and hence the five-person  board did not have a quorum  to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the  judges  arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t  apply to  “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has  left town for a few days or weeks.  They said Mr. Obama erred when he  said he  could claim the power to determine when he could make  appointments.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments  power  would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the  judges said in  their opinion.

The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has  adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means  only  at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court  scrutiny, it would dramatically  constrain presidents in the future.

And the court ruled that the only  vacancies that the president can use  his powers on are ones that arise when the  Senate is in one of those  end-of-session breaks.  That would all but eliminate the list of  positions the president could fill  with his recess powers.

White House dissent

White House press secretary Jay  Carney called the ruling “novel and  unprecedented,” and said it contradicts  150 years of practice by  presidents of both parties.

“We respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings,” he said.

But Noel Francisco, a lawyer at Jones  Day who argued the case for the  company that challenged the NLRB appointments, said the court had  returned  to the Constitution’s intent, which was to make the recess  appointment an  emergency power for use only when Congress was  not  available.

“Issues like this — it’s not about protecting the Congress from the  president and the president from  Congress,” Mr.  Francisco said. “The  Constitution draws these lines ultimately to limit the  government to  protect the people.”

In their ruling the judges said their duty is not to speed up the  workings  of government, but to hold to constitutional principles.

“If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of  the  original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to  change what  the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote.

The judges said the recess power was created for a time when Congress  met only a few months out of the year, and was designed for the  president to  fill vacancies during the long periods when Congress was  not meeting. In modern times, when Congress is almost always capable of  meeting, the  recess powers should be more circumscribed.

In the short term, the ruling invalidates one NLRB decision. But over  the longer term it could invalidate a year’s worth of  decisions by the  independent agency, could undercut Mr.  Obama’s new consumer watchdog  agency set up in the 2010 Wall Street reform  law, and could even call  into question decisions made by some judges who were  given recess  appointments.

Defining recess

The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and will likely  on the  definition of what the Constitution means when it says “recess.”

Last January Mr. Obama named union lawyer  Richard Griffin and Labor  Department official Sharon Block, both Democrats, and  a Republican, NLRB  lawyer  Terence Flynn, to the labor  board using his recess powers. He  also named Richard Cordray to head the  new Consumer Financial Protection  Bureau, using those same powers.

Noel Canning, a bottling company, sued the NLRB,  arguing that a rule  issued by the new  board was illegal since the recess appointments were  unconstitutional. Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch  McConnell, joined in the suit.

The appeals court panel, which sits in Washington, D.C., was skeptical  of Mr. Obama’s case during oral argument in early  December, with Chief  Judge David B. Sentelle and Judge Thomas B. Griffith  peppering the  administration lawyers with questions.

The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges and   executive branch officials, but the Senate must  vote to confirm them  before they take office. Article II, Section 2 of the  Constitution  grants the president powers “to fill up all vacancies that may  happen  during the recess of the Senate.”

Those powers have produced centuries of give-and-take, with senators   regularly slow-walking nominees and the White  House looking for ways to  get its nominees in place — including the recess  appointment.

Mr. Obama, though, appeared to break new  ground by acting at a time when  the Senate was  meeting every third day, specifically to deny him the  chance to make  appointments.

The problem is the word “recess” has several meanings in  legislative-speak.  It can mean a short break during the day, it can mean  a break of days or weeks  for a holiday, or it can mean the end of a  yearly session.

The president argued that even though the Senate was convening every  three days, the pro forma  sessions didn’t allow any business, and nearly  every senator was absent from  the chamber, signaling that the Senate  wasn’t  able to perform its confirmation duties and should be considered  essentially in  recess.

His opponents had warned that if Mr.  Obama’s stance prevailed, then  presidents could make appointments when the  Senate takes its midday  recess for weekly party  caucus lunches.

The judges on Friday ruled that the only clear bright line is when the Senate recesses at the end of the year.

“The dearth of intra-session appointments in the years and decades  following  the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more  impressively than the  history of recent presidential exercise of a  supposed power to make such  appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent  presidents are doing no more than  interpreting the Constitution. While  we recognize that all branches of  government must of necessity exercise  their understanding of the Constitution  in order to perform their duties  faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role  to discern the  authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

Victor K. Williams, an assistant  professor at Catholic University School  of Law who filed briefs arguing that  the court should reject the case  as a  political question between Congress and the  president, called the  judges’ ruling “historically wrong.”

“This panel of the D.C. circuit has accomplished what Minority Leader  Mitch McConnell failed to do. Minority  Leader McConnell said that his  No. 1  objective was defeating Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s attempt to  govern. This D.C.  circuit panel has been successful where McConnell  failed. they have really,  effectively challenges the president’s ability  to govern,” Mr.  Williams said.

The judges’ ruling puts them at odds with several other federal appeals   courts that have ruled the other way. And another case is making its way   through the D.C. circuit and could be heard by another three-judge  panel.

Mr. Williams said the Justice  Department faces an interesting choice: It  could allow those other cases to  work their way through the rest of the  courts, or it could appeal immediately  to the Supreme Court.

The administration could also ask the full D.C. circuit to re-hear the  case.