David Addington Is Scary, in a Mean 10-year-old Boy Kind of Way
Dana Milbank is a great political columnist at the Washington Post. He flavors his writing with a hilarity and mockery not usually found in the Post’s newsy pages (though certainly found in the Style section). We fear the Washington Post will lose him to The Daily Show any minute now.
Last week, David Addington was the subject of Milbank’s Washington Sketch. Addington is chief of staff and former legal counsel to VP Dick Cheney. He replaced Scooter Libby after Libby’s fall from grace. Addington is a Duke law grad and “the most powerful man you’ve never heard of.”
He’s also mean and scary, judging from these exchanges during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week:
Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? “I’m not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of,” Addington growled.Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? “That’s irrelevant,” he barked.
Would it be legal to torture a detainee’s child? “I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee,” he snarled. “You do have attorneys of your own.”
The dialogue reminds us of arguing with a precocious, but mean-spirited, 10-year-old. Except this one has a lot of power. And helped determine the country’s policies for torturing detainees. More scary Addington after the jump.
Addington was not happy to be called to testify. The description of him slouching in his chair is reminiscent again of a discontented youngster:
[Addington] sat slouched in his chair, scratching his mustache, as Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about “the unaccountable monarchy” before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds — most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler’s introduction.“Is that the entirety of your statement?” the chairman asked.
“Yes, thank you,” Addington replied. “I’m ready to answer your questions.”
In that sequence, Addington reminds us slightly of some ATL commenters. How’s the grammar in this post thus far?
He likes playing frustrating word games too:
When John Conyers (D-Mich.) inquired about Addington’s pet legal concept, a “unitary executive theory” that confers extreme powers on the president, Addington dished out disdain.“I frankly don’t know what you mean by unitary theory,” Addington replied.
“Have you ever heard of that theory before?”
“I see it in the newspapers all the time,” Addington replied.
“Do you support it?”
“I don’t know what it is.”
The usually mild Conyers was angry. “You’re telling me you don’t know what the unitary theory means?”
“I don’t know what you mean by it,” Addington answered.
“Do you know what you mean by it?”
“I know exactly what I mean by it.”
Na na na boo boo. Sounds like Addington won this round. Next witness!
When Anonymity Fails, Be Nasty, Brutish and Short [Washington Post]
(60) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
I didn't know the name David Addington, but just glancing at the title I knew this was going to be ATL snark about a right-winger. How did I know that?
That guy kicks ass. Kash, you may be a hottie, but give the guy some props. He refuses to kowtow to some grandstanding Congressmen. We should be praising him.
Addington = untouchable. He's been blackmailing Cheney by threatening to out his daughter.
Powerful? He's the chief of staff to the vice president in a lame duck administration. This administration is over. He doesn't have the power to do anything. This guy probably can't go to the bathroom without having a hearing before some ethics committee.
This guy is a poster child for the arrogant stupidity that has been the hallmark of this failed presidency.
Addington will pwn you in your sleep.
1:13: I disagree. Addington did not say anything that was wrong, but he is not doing much to convince anyone of his and the Bush Administration's position. Instead of evading the issues and giving the appearance that the Leftists may be correct after all, Addington should have said firmly that foreigners with no connections to the United States are not entitled to any rights under the U.S. Constitution (a position that was wholly uncontroversial given the Eisentrager ruling, at least before the activist Supreme Court ignored and distorted precedents in Rasul and Boumediene).
Fed Soc
1:51: I disagree.
1:44- if that's true, why waste time in the 2 days before Congress goes out of session to call him in? If he's unimportant, there are plenty of things for Congress to work on.
This guy is fuking awesome!
When asked about the unitary executive theory:
*****
DA: "I frankly don't know what you mean by unitary theory,"
C: "Do you support it?"
DA: "I don't know what it is."
C: "You're telling me you don't know what the unitary theory means?"
DA: "I don't know what you mean by it,"
C: "Do you know what you mean by it?"
DA: "I know exactly what I mean by it."
****
moron left mid-west congressman - PWNED!
Yes I am not a fan of the administration either, but that is EXACTLY the way I would have my client answer such stupid questions in a deposition.
Addington's responses are separation of powers put into action. I frankly wish that more folks who were summoned before Congress would push back hard against bloviating and grandstanding. If Congresspeople were subjected to Addington-style responses a bit more, they might approach their duties with a bit more rigor and intellectual honesty.
Given Congress' abysmal approval ratings, the public apparently thinks that the approach they're currently taking isn't getting the job done.
Kudos to Addington.
I enjoy when competent people expose Congressmen for the self-serving windbags that they are.
It's not Addington's responsibility to write good questions. Honestly, what did Conyers think he was going to say? "Why, yes, I know the unitary theory, it says the President can torture people. Next question?"
What a d-bag. Was probably on the Duke lacrosse team.
dana milbank is a sissy with a girl's name.
Dbag.
What I keep missing in these stories is the truly despicable comment by the Congressman from Massachusetts who suggested that now al Qaeda could now finally see Mr. Addington's face on TV. Say what you will about his politics -- you don't invite America's bloodthirsty enemy to take a good look at a government official. The suggestion was disgusting and below that of even a Congressman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2uvxsCU_M
8:58 : You mean the guys who were wrongly accused of wrongdoing by a petty, attention-seeking, government official with an agenda that couldn't care less about the truth? Hmmm...maybe there IS a connection...
Conyers is a worthless blowhard who got what was coming to him. You want to call somebody a d-bag, pick any of the congressmen/women who put this joke of a hearing together.
This guy is scum.
Correcting my post from 9:29. The Delahunt exchange made it into the story, but watching the video I hardly see the humor. What a truly petty and ignorant comment.
mmmmm.... Kudos
I guess all everyone who's worried about getting laid off is venting their frustration at Congress. Really, though, Addington was acting like a colossal asshole. It would be one thing if he politely refused to answer questions on national security grounds -- something that would at least conform to normal standards of decent social interaction with a fellow government official, if not the openness that Congress desires. But he frequently snarled at his questioners, interrupted some of them, and practically gave them the finger. That's just petty and immature.
Addington is making himself unemployable for the foreseeable future in the world he seems to love best and in which he has the best contacts. Since he seems to be both narcissistic and authoritarian, giving up a place in the center of political power in this country seems stupid, judged even by his own standards. Only high school students and developmentally slow law students (and anyone else with out of control insecurities) would think this kind of testimony is smart. It gets you a "fifeen minute" slot on the horizon, but then relegates you to obscurity (think John Bolton). One has only to watch John Yoo's testimony before the same committee to see how an equally bad case can be finessed. Judging by Addington's talent and temperament, talk radio is probably his next stop, but only if he is more articulate than his testimony would indicate. This was a juvenile response to a serious issue. 8:58 probably has the best explanation. Duke grads are deeply insecure, and should be.
he worked at baker donelson? i know a lot of you yanks have never heard of that tennessee firm, but they hire some pretty interesting government-types:
1. senator howard baker
2. linda daschle
3. jim duff (chief of staff of scotus)
the list goes on and on:
http://www.bakerdonelson.com/Content.aspx?NodeID=2
my question is...how and why do these bureaucrats want to work there?
I'd wreck that guy if he ever mouthed off to me.
I love how simple, reasonable answers become "vicious" when followed by words like "snarled," "growled," and "barked."
That dog seriously needs a bone.
Wow, Delahunt is such a bitch.
I disagree with this post. And if this were a Republican congress crucifying a Democratic counsel, he would be lauded for his bravery and courage under fire.
Do us all a favor and stay out of the partisan debate. Quit trying to turn this place into the Daily Kos.
“What did you have for lunch?” “A soup and salad at Cosi!” he howled. “How was the salad?” “Delicious,” he insisted, saliva dripping from his slimy red tongue.
"Addington reminds us slightly of some ATL commenters. How's the grammar in this post so far?"
Wow, Kash, are you angry with the commenters of ATL?
His next stop is either Fox News, some Neocon think tank or the Con Law chair at Regent Law School.
I simply cannot understand why people get so worked up over torture. Regardless of what a number of hippy-dippy Europeans tell us, there are bad people who want to do harm, and, shockingly enough, they’re not going to submit to voluntary question and answer sessions.
Surprise ... he's an arrogant, intemperate asshole who also works for .... an arrogant, intemperate asshole ("Go Fuck Yourself" indeed, Dick Cheney).
so glad I didn't take that job w/ Baker Donelson. This guy is a flaming pile of craptastic douche
"I simply cannot understand why people get so worked up over torture."
How about I strap these electrodes to your balls and then we'll have a chat about it afterward?
10:25=174
"How about I strap these electrodes to your balls and then we'll have a chat about it afterward?"
If he's hell bent on the destruction of the United States, then they can turn his balls into charcoal brickettes for all I care.
10:41- no one will agree that they want to be tortured, and that's precisely the point. The idea is that certain forms of interrogation (like waterboarding) would work wonders on getting information precisely because it's exactly what no one wants to endure.
10:48- I'm happy to trust our intelligent and informed leader to determine who is hell bent on the destruction of the US. His reality-based insight makes me feel safe at night.
(hopes Bush thinks 10:48's name is Osama)
10:49 -- Waterboarding works wonders at getting the subject to provide answers to his tormentor. Whether it works at getting real information from the subject is another question.
10:25 = comment of the day
10:32 = 100% true right on the mark!
10:53 -- who would you have decide it -- Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Liberal freak.
well, well, well...the political leanings of ATL are finally coming to the surface I see. Are there any orginal thoughts in "journalism" anymore...or does 90% of the industry simply parrot the symptoms of dysentery that are emitted from the pie hole of the DNC??
11:18- at least Ruth Bader Ginsburg can read without moving her lips. So yes, she is preferable to the clowns in the executive branch.
agree with 11:20. lat whats wrong with you and if this is kash's opinion then ultimately as editor in chief it is your responsibility
11:20 LOL If the DNC has dystentary then the RNC has the plague.
This guy is great. I LOL'd irl when I heard him say "Is there a question pending, ma'am?"
Nice job ignoring the douchebag Congressman's implication that he would love to see Al Qaeda assassinate an American government official.
Addington treated this hearing with all the dignity and respect it deserved -- none. It was a purposeless show hearing designed to allow windbags to release some hot gases. They deserved the contempt they got.
Conyers and the press are idiots. The unitary executive theory simply means the executive branch should implement the president's policies from the top down in a consistent fashion. But this doesn't stop them from repeatedly invoking it as some scary power grab from the other two branches.
Why, oh why, did they all go to Duke Law? Nixon, Starr, Claude Allen (nominated to the CA4 until it was discovered that he shopplifted at Wal-Mart), and now this.
At least we an claim Charlie Rose . . .
--Devil in Disguise
6:40 says, "Yes I am not a fan of the administration either, but that is EXACTLY the way I would have my client answer such stupid questions in a deposition."
It wasn't a deposition, child. It was a clinical interview. The more Addington talked, the more his paranoia and pre-adolescent grandiosity became apparent. I saw the whole thing on C-SPAN. It was truly scary, and very enlightening.
All your base are belong to us.
Note to DA: That beard does not conceal the fattiness of your face. Try diet and exercise.
Arrogance from a TTT Duke law grad, haha. Go to Yale. Then maybe someone would care what you would have to say. But of course, you weren't admitted.
Oh what planet is Duke TTT?
Those of you cheering Addington on are the reason our profession has gone down the toilet with respect to civility and professionalism. One can be civil to someone one doesn't agree with, especially when its Congress. I'd like to see any of you act that way before a judge.
You're all asshats. Kash is a liberal lefist that can't publish a story without trying to subtly point out her disdain for the right.
As for 3:03's post, not when Congress is on a witch hunt and both Congressmen referred two are bad about that.
Wooooahhhh! Nasty politicians? What news! I think I'll have a cunt sandwich in my pantsuit stuffed skirt! Change is good for Arabs and Nazis and Communists! The good old boys lawyers are like what DC is underneath all the glitter-a conglomeration of ego, power, money, and those nasty enough to covet all three in massive doses.