David Addington Pushed To Eliminate Job Of National Archivist Who Challenged Cheney
David Addington Pushed To Eliminate Job Of National Archivist Who Challenged Cheney
In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information. He claimed that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
The National Security Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) wrote Cheney’s then-chief of staff David Addington on two separate occasions in summer 2006, disputing those claims. Cheney’s office ignored both letters. Finally, in Jan. 2007, the ISOO directly asked — to no avail — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve whether the executive order applies to Cheney’s office.
In a new interview with Newsweek, ISOO director J. William Leonard — described as the “gold standard of information specialists in the federal government” — said that he is quitting after 34 years, partly because of pressure from Cheney’s office. Addington personally tried to “wipe out” his job after Leonard attempted to challenge Cheney’s claims. From the interview:
LEONARD: So I wrote my letter to the Attorney General [asking for a ruling that Cheney's office had to comply.] Then it was shortly after that there were [email] recommendations [from OVP to a National Security Council task force] to change the executive order that would effectively abolish [my] office.
Who wrote the emails?
LEONARD: It was David Addington.No explanation was offered?
LEONARD: No. It was strike this, strike that. Anyplace you saw the words, “the director of ISOO” or “ISOO” it was struck.
Leonard also reveals that much of the information Cheney’s office was classifying wasn’t actually “real secrets,” underscoring the need for independent oversight. Some of the materials, for example, contained politically damaging information related to the Valerie Plame leak case:
A number of prosecution exhibits [in the Plame-related perjury trial of I. Scooter Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff] were annotated, ‘handle as SCI.’ SCI is Sensitive Compartmentalized Information, the most sensitive classified information there is. As I recall, [one of them] was [the vice president and his staff] were coming back from Norfolk where they had attended a ship commissioning and they were conferring on the plane about coming up with a [media] response plan [to the allegations of Plame's husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.] That was one of the exhibits marked, ‘handle as SCI.’
Cheney’s office refused to directly respond to Newsweek’s piece.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If a Democratic president takes office in 2009 can we get to see these documents ( and all that we want to see in Cheneys archives )
If no, why not?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI read an article years ago on the amazing increase in classifications under this admin, and it was pointed out that so many of them were classified specifically because they were embarrasing, not actually sensitive material.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pmIf a Democratic President takes the office in 2009, can we try the current scumbag VP for treason?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pmIf no, why not?
Comment by overlap — December 26, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
It’s all in Cheney’s man-sized safe, which will probably get moved out when he does.
Seriously — I suspect that the new president in 2009 (regardless of party) will probably make some speech about “moving forward” either at the inauguration or shortly thereafter, and won’t do a thing to hold the current crooks accountable for anything.
This will send a clear signal to all political wannabees in this country that you can get away with anything while you’re in office, as long as you can limp to the finish line without any indictments. After that, you’re home free.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI read an article years ago on the amazing increase in classifications under this admin, and it was pointed out that so many of them were classified specifically because they were embarrasing, not actually sensitive material.
Comment by Wilco — December 26, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
That goes along with “executive privilege” no longer having anything to do with national security. We could probably make a sizeable list of all the terms that have undergone redefinitions under Bush.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pmWhen will the long, dark nightmare end?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pmDid Cheney claim one time that the VP was not part of the administrative branch of government? He was asked about appearing before a judiciary committee or something and he said he would but didn’t have to because he was not a part of the administrative branch of the Gov’t. Cleary Cheney thinks that the laws and the constitution do not apply to him.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIf Cheney really had his way, this guy would have been beheaded.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pmComment by missmolly — December 26, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
As usual, you stated it perfectly, and sadly enough it’s probably true.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWe could probably make a sizeable list of all the terms that have undergone redefinitions under Bush.
Comment by missmolly — December 26, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
It’s almost like he’s renditioned the Enlish language.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pmCheney’s office refused to directly respond to Newsweek’s piece.
Cheney did, however, wish them a happy GoFu(kyourselves!
December 26th, 2007 at 3:14 pmWhen left wing nut jobs give up on their conspiracy theories and join the real world.
Comment by good_golly
_________________________________________
When more people finally realize what and why this administration has done instead of blindly being sheep.
I have found a good 30% of the people I talk to (mostly republican,,, it’s an Indiana thing) have changed their opinion of this administration from being ‘great’ no matter what, to ‘real damn scary’ and ‘Damn, you were right 3 – 4 years ago year when you tried to tell me they were being criminal’.
Sad to say, many will be shocked when things really surface.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm#12: “It’s almost like he’s renditioned the Enlish language.”
G, I think you may have beaten him to it. (snork)
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI thought that man-sized safe was where Dick’s gimp (think “Pulp Fiction) resides. I think it was a Christmas present several years ago from his BFF Jeff Gannon….nah, I’m just kidding. That’s where he keeps his supply of fresh puppies! A man has to eat, right?
Seriously though, THIS man is the epitomy of what our forefathers had in mind when they attempted to insure oversight. I don’t think even they could have envisioned a more contemptable ogre would ever fill the position of VP. This barnacle has been around DC for decades biding his time, making powerful friends and dancing on the edge of the law hoping for a chance to finally have ultimate power. His laughable claims of not being part of the executive branch belie the unchecked power grabbing and his endless claims of executive priviledge (not to protect state secrets but to protect his own criminal mischief). This treasounous leach spends every waking minute thinking up new ways to bleed the average American so that he and his corporate thieves can make even more billions from no-bid contracts, off shore tax free corporate addresses, dangerously one-sided energy policies, artificially inflated oil prices and lets not forget all his friends who get richer EVERY day the War on Terror stumbles on. He turns up his nose at the American citizens while insisting on ABSOLUTE secrecy in making decision after decision that benefit noone but his cronies. He laughs off ANY attempt at oversight, while hypocritically saying about the WH’s sifting through innocent Americans e-mails and telephone conversations that “if you’ve got nothing to hide you shouldn’t be worried”.
Well you know what, Mr. Cheney? If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you let your employer (the American paople) see exactly what you’ve been doing these past seven years on OUR dime?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pmHas anyone read Valie Wilson’s book? I have to say that I think a reason that there was so much redacting was specifically because there would have been embarrassment vs. national secret interests.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm“Has anyone read Valie Wilson’s book”
– - It was valie good. I enjoy reading between the redactions.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pmOOps. Valie=Valerie. (Damn old fingers).
December 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pmWhen left wing nut jobs give up on their conspiracy theories and join the real world.
Comment by good_golly — December 26, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Feeble attempt, troll. Try, try again.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pmWhen left wing nut jobs give up on their conspiracy theories and join the real world.
- – Oooo! Oooo! Tell us again about how Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons!
December 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThe most secretive administration ever. Could one of the “Bush is My God” posters here tell me how the investigation into Pat Tillman’s death/murder could possibly fall under Executive Privilege?
And you cheesy twats are ok with that?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIf 2009 exposes Bush & Cheney, Bush & Cheney expose Clinton.
If Bush & Cheney expose Clinton, Clinton exposes Bush Sr. & Reagan.
If Clinton exposes Bush & Reagan, Bush Sr. exposes Carter.
Etc.
This is a general pattern that incumbents are usually happy to keep going, although there are some things that change that… two-termers make or fewer iterations, and some of the players have been recycled, making them doubly culpable…
…but all in all it makes sense for Cheney to hope the Dem candidate is Hillary, and for the Clintons to play the game to win ~ exposing nothing.
Not what you were hoping to hear I suppose
December 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pmLast week we were told how the miserable failure was going to try to restore America’s image with the rest of the world (the image he and Cheney ruined). Nothing would help restore that image faster than the world seeing this corrupt, un-American, fascist lead out of the VP’s residence in handcuffs.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pmDick Cheney is more secretive than Stalin.
-GSD
December 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pmIf a Democratic president takes office in 2009 can we get to see these documents ( and all that we want to see in Cheneys archives )
If no, why not?
Comment by overlap
Why not? Because these crooks are going to have a gigantic bonfire on their way out of office. I’m betting there will be nothing left by the time they are done shredding and burning anything that was politically damaging.
Every time I read something like this, I think to myself, if that was Bill Clinton doing this, what would the Republiscums be saying. I know that they would be screaming bloody murder about it. Unfortunately the Democrats are either too polite or too chicken to behave the way the Republiscums did behave and would behave if this was done by a Democrat.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pmThis will send a clear signal to all political wannabees in this country that you can get away with anything while you’re in office, as long as you can limp to the finish line without any indictments. After that, you’re home free.
Comment by missmolly
And then, if it is a Democratic President, we will listen to the Republiscums howl about how bad they are when they start doing the same things that Bush has done.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pmWell you know what, Mr. Cheney? If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you let your employer (the American paople) see exactly what you’ve been doing these past seven years on OUR dime?
Comment by A Patriot Acting
The “if you have nothing to hide” canard only applies to rightards telling us that we shouldn’t care about our government spying on us because “we have nothing to hide”. They wouldn’t even think of applying the same principle to their lord and masters.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pmbilbo, excellent point!
December 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pmSay what you want about Hill’reh’s tactic of painting Obama as a muslim crack user / pusher, it seems to have worked, and she is pulling ahead in Iowa, just before the caucus:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ epolls/ 2008/ president/ ia/ iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
December 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pmSlag, let me repeat my previous answer to your obvious question.
1. America’s undying and unilateral support of Israel.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm2. America’s history of meddling in ME affairs, re: Shah of Iran, Lebanon circa 198x…
3. Specifically, our stationing of US forces in Saudi Arabia. Remember that? The ONE thing Bin Laden shouted as the reason for the existence of al Qaeda?
We are going to find, at the bottom of the necrotic heap of humanity responsible for the destruction of our rule of law in this country as well as the demise of our democracy, one main individual: David Addington.
David Addington is the worst kind of human being imaginable. His sole purpose in life has been to thwart and overturn our democracy.
David Addington is at the bottom of everything that’s wrong with this country since Bush Co. took over.
It’s time for Congress to put Addington under investigation. We will all realize that Addington is the true american ‘ENEMY WITHIN” and really should be sitting in jail right now.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:17 pmDavid Addington (along with Cheney & Bush) have tried to coup this democracy by breaking or circumventing every known Federal law and they are still sitting pretty; Clinton had a BJ and was “gone”! How low have we descended as human beings and americans? It’s very sad as we approach the beginning of another year – another year of Bush scandals – another year of discovering horrendous and heinous things done to this democracy by Addington & Co. In my entire lifetime, I have neve been more embarrassed of my government, more disgusted with the apathy of Congress, and more convinced that the thugs within the White House need to be sitting someday in prison.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pmMark my words: When this country learns the full truth about what really happened on 911, then we will have reached a new nadir or low in this country.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Is that your mission for today, Hendler? Just repost the same irrelevant comment over and over?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSlagt:
Except: You are wrong on all counts:
Clinton did not lie about wmds – he had less info than Bush – who had actual inspectors in Iraq who were coming up empty.
Iraq had no ties to al quaida – and clinton didn’t say so.
clinton said Iraq was dangerous – but did not consider it enough of a threat to go to war over – exactly the right position.
contrast this with Bush:
December 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pmLied about WMDs, lied about “yellowcake” and the nuclear threat (mushroom cloud by Condleeza Rice). Lied about Iran, lied about most everything.
Dick cheney is the liar in chief – check out his latest lie – forcing the EPA to counteract the California emissions limits – against the advice of the EPA staff itself.
Here’s an example of actual myth-making. If the U.S. was loved during the Clinton years, why was 9/11 planned during those same years? Also, see this article from 2000: http://www.commondreams.org/views/040900-106.htm
Comment by Manslagt
When you say your nightly prayers to King George the dufus, please thank him for 9/11. He was the president, it was on his watch. He has every bit of info available – once he learned to read – so 9/11 is bush’s gift to the US. Please remember – IT HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH. HE IGNORED THE WARNINGS. HE WAS AT FAULT. HE HAS NOT RECOVERED FROM THIS HORRIFIC MISTAKE. But you worship him, so it can’t be all bad, no?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pmAll this must have been when a photographer got a shot of a huge moble shredder truck at…..V.P. cheney house.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#41, justasking,
Thanks, I do like the graphs showing the mean line with the individual data points distributed above and below – gives you a better sense of the situation.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:36 pmComment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
manny do have a job or not? first you leave because you claim you have to go to work and then, less than hour later you’re back again!
do you have a paper route or what?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:36 pmIs that your mission for today, Hendler? Just repost the same irrelevant comment over and over?
Comment by gummitch
Has he ever had another one?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 26, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
In general the mean is meaningless but I assume you would know that
December 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIs that your mission for today, Hendler? Just repost the same irrelevant comment over and over?
Comment by gummitch
Has he ever had another one?
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
He does have a serious boner for Hillary Clinton, I must say. Here we are discussing what a vicious totalitarian anti-American Dick Cheney is, and he’s off again about his g.f. You can imagine how creepy his room decorations are.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pmHere’s an example of actual myth-making. If the U.S. was loved during the Clinton years, why was 9/11 planned during those same years? Also, see this article from 2000: http://www.commondreams.org/views/040900-106.htm
Comment by Manslagt
US was loved? What the hell does that mean?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pmLook carefully at the photo. you can almost see the tabs on the black collar where the Darth Vader breathing device/helmet snaps in.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pmUS was loved? What the hell does that mean?
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Rough translation: “Let’s not talk about the Dark Lord.”
December 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pmLook carefully at the photo. you can almost see the tabs on the black collar where the Darth Vader breathing device/helmet snaps in.
Comment by RUCerious — December 26, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
At least he’s not showing his teeth; those photos really creep me out.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pmYou can imagine how creepy his room decorations are.
Comment by gummitch
Full of butterflies and with the song “Goodbye Horses” in the background?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pmMr. Leonard is not a “National Archivist” (as he is identified in the headline) and he does not work in “The National Security Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office.” He is director of the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives and Records Administration.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pmFull of butterflies and with the song “Goodbye Horses†in the background?
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Probably more like pix of Hillary interposed with Dungeons and Dragons characters.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm#30- OK, the image he and Cheney HELPED ruin. Is that better? The point is that this corrupt VP should be in prison for treason. But, you have no problem with that, huh?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pmYou lemming’s just continue to support my opinion that anyone that still approves of this corrupt, fascist administration is either so immoral, greedy and corrupt themselves that they don’t care about America, or, they’re just too stupid to know any better.
Which are you?
Walt, don’t forget to ask him when he stopped beating his wife and kids…
December 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pmYou can imagine how creepy his room decorations are.
Comment by gummitch
Full of butterflies and with the song “Goodbye Horses†in the background?
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Is space in his mother’s motor home really considered “his room”?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pmIs space in his mother’s motor home really considered “his room�
Comment by Shayne — December 26, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Yes, the tiny little shower/toilet stall.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWill you folks please flag jason for abusing this forum. He consistently posts items that have nothing to do with the thread (usually anti-hillary) and he does nothing other than to muck up a thread. If we consistently flag everything he posts, sooner or later TP will get rid of him. He’s not even interesting enough to play Whack a Troll with.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pmCheney’s Cheney
Issue of 2006-07-03
Posted 2006-06-26
This week in the magazine, Jane Mayer profiles David Addington, the Vice-President’s chief of staff and longtime legal adviser. Here, with Blake Eskin, Mayer discusses Addington’s unorthodox reading of the Constitution and how it has shaped the Administration’s approach to the war on terror.
BLAKE ESKIN: Most people have never heard of David Addington. Why is he important enough to be the subject of such an in-depth piece?
JANE MAYER: Addington has been the single most influential legal thinker, according to other Administration lawyers, in shaping the Bush Administration’s legal response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He has left almost no paper trail, and has avoided all public scrutiny—as far as I know, he’s granted no interviews to reporters, and he even avoids having his photo taken by the press. It seemed important to me to hold the creator of these policies accountable, so that the public could understand better who is behind them and how he thinks.
How did David Addington get to know Vice-President Cheney, and how long have they worked together?
They met on Capitol Hill in the mid-eighties, when Cheney was a Republican congressman from Wyoming and Addington was a young staff lawyer working for the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. So they have worked together for about two decades. Their partnership was cemented when they worked together on the Minority Report on the Iran-Contra affair. Both Addington and Cheney took the idiosyncratic position that it was Congress, not President Reagan, that was in the wrong. This view reflected the opinion, held by both men, that the executive branch should run foreign policy, to a great extent unimpeded by Congress. It’s a recurring theme—pushing the limits of executive power and sidestepping Congress—in their partnership. One example is their position that the President, as Commander-in-Chief in times of war, had the inherent authority to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in an effort to make sure that Presidents don’t violate citizens’ right to privacy by spying on them without warrants.
After meeting and working together in Congress, Cheney and Addington continued their partnership at the Pentagon, where, during the Presidency of George H. W. Bush, Cheney was Secretary of Defense and Addington was his special assistant and, later, general counsel. There, Addington was known as a powerhouse, a stickler who controlled access to Cheney and marked up others’ memos in red felt-tipped pen, returning the memos for rewrites that would make them sharper—and more protective of executive power.
At the Pentagon, the two exhibited a similar pessimism about world affairs, in particular about the possibility that Mikhail Gorbachev represented true change, and also an unusually deep interest in “continuity of government†planning—how the government survives in the event of a doomsday attack. Addington kept the constitutional provisions for Presidential succession in his pocket at all times, a colleague told me.
Yet you write that some people—including some conservative Republicans—question whether Addington really respects the Constitution.
Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether Addington, in his eagerness to expand the powers of the Presidency, which he and Cheney see as having been unduly diminished since Watergate, gives enough weight to the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Some have suggested that he has aggrandized the powers of the President in such a way that the executive branch ignores the system of checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, so that its actions are unchecked and unaccountable. Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, told me that he regards Addington as an adequate lawyer but an inadequate student of American history, because he believes that Addington has failed to understand that the Founders designed the U.S. government specifically to insure that the executive would not have unlimited power. Fein suggests that the Founders, unlike Addington, understood the perils of concentrated power. They had seen in George III, among others, what tyranny meant.
What is the New Paradigm?
It’s a shorthand term that comes from a memo signed by Alberto Gonzales but believed to have been written in part by Addington, in which the authors articulated that the attacks of 9/11 required a legal response beyond the confines of ordinary criminal law and ordinary military law. Instead, they said, a “new paradigm†was called for, allowing the government to emphasize detection and prevention of crime, at the expense of more traditional notions of due process. Their aim was to stop terrorist attacks before they were perpetrated. To do so, they felt they needed to interrogate, detain, and try terrorist suspects in ways that would not be permissible under U.S. or international law. The New Paradigm has come to refer to all of the novel legal policies that the Bush Administration has forged in its approach to the global war on terrorism.
Following the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration released memos asserting the President’s right to decide, among other things, how to wage war and treat prisoners. How much of this came from Addington?
Some lawyers in the Administration believe that, as one told me, “It’s all Addington.†While Addington, of course, could not have written every memo, his “fingerprints,†as Lawrence Wilkerson, the former assistant to Colin Powell, put it, were all over these policies.
Addington was merely the legal counsel to the Vice-President until last fall, so it is curious that he exercised so much influence. But, according to other lawyers who deal with national-security issues in the Administration, Addington exercised enormous influence in part because he was seen as Cheney’s representative, and Cheney was the epicenter of power on these matters.
Addington also had a forceful, aggressive, and, some say, bullying style that allowed him to dominate legal debates. In interviews, other lawyers told me how he dismissed their views, mocked their softness if they championed international law, and worked secretively and, one of them said, viciously, to outmaneuver critics.
Another reason Addington gained so much influence after 9/11 was that, unlike many other top Administration officials, he was not only a lawyer but also an expert on national-security law.
You argue that the September 11th attacks did not change Cheney and Addington’s expansive views of the power of the executive branch so much as allow them to implement their long-held views. What led you to this conclusion?
At least fifty sources were interviewed for this story. And those who knew Cheney and Addington during the Vietnam War and Watergate told me that, ever since then, both men have wanted to correct what they saw as a weakening of the Presidency. Cheney has participated in the writing of two reports reflecting this view, and he talked about it in a recent press conference. In many ways, 9/11 gave Addington and Cheney the chance to implement their views on the need for a stronger Presidency, since in times of war the President’s powers are greatly augmented.
Other Presidents have taken extraordinary legal measures during wartime—the suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln, the internment of Japanese-Americans under F.D.R. Is there anything different about the Bush Administration’s assertion of executive power?
All Presidents, it is said, overreach during wartime, but, according to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for my article, the Bush White House has done this differently. While earlier Presidents have, as you say, suspended ordinary laws, he suggests that earlier Presidents did not assert that this was their inherent constitutional right. In contrast, Schlesinger says, the Bush White House has taken these infamous aberrations and woven them together into a doctrine of Presidential power.
Last week, the U.S. Army recovered the bodies of two American soldiers who had been tortured. How does the Administration’s position on torture affect its ability to respond to such brutality?
Torture and abuse are perennial problems in all wars, but one could argue that, because the Bush Administration has blurred the lines concerning what sort of treatment of captured enemies is permissible, they have forfeited some of the moral high ground that the country could ordinarily occupy on this issue. It’s harder to condemn the outrageous treatment of our soldiers now that we are accused of treating detainees deplorably.
David Addington doesn’t speak to reporters, and he refused your interview requests. After speaking to many people about Addington, what would you like to ask him now?
I’d like to ask him whether, in his view, there is anything that the President cannot legally do in the service of national security. Bruce Fein, the Republican legal activist, suggests that, in Addington’s view, the President could kill someone in a public park if he deemed the person to be an enemy combatant. I’d like to hear Addington’s thinking about why such an extreme view might be justified, and also why it is that, according to colleagues, he sees no political downside to these extreme views. For instance, he has repeatedly argued that there have been no political costs associated with Guantánamo Bay. Yet even President Bush has acknowledged that the Defense Department’s camps there have hurt the image of the U.S. abroad. It would be interesting to hear why Addington doesn’t agree with the President on this.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060703on_onlineonly01
December 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pmYes, the tiny little shower/toilet stall.
Comment by RUCerious — December 26, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
tappy tappy tap tap!
December 26th, 2007 at 5:14 pmUS was loved? What the hell does that mean?
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Think of it as a candid admission of the binary nature of Rethuglican thought. If it is not loved, it is to be hated. If it is not hated, it is loved. It really explains a lot.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:19 pmSay what you want about Hill’reh’s tactic of painting Obama as a muslim crack user / pusher, it seems to have worked, and she is pulling ahead in Iowa, just before the caucus:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ epolls/ 2008/ president/ ia/ iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
——-
Jesus dude, give it a rest. The more you try to slam hillary, the more progressives will try to ‘defend’ her.
If you honestly want her out of the picture, just shut the eff up and move on. I hate Hillary and I think calling her Hill’reh is freaking lame.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:22 pmWhy don’t we take a page from our BFF’s the Saudis – and just behead the traitorous bastards?
December 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIf you honestly want her out of the picture, just shut the eff up and move on. I hate Hillary and I think calling her Hill’reh is freaking lame.
Comment by deebaser — December 26, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
I’ve been trying to get a straight answer on this stupid Hilreh crap for weeks. Is deliberately spelling someones name wrong some sort of cyberloser way of stealing one’s soul? Seems beyond lame unless it is some kind of cool voodoo shit or something
December 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThink of it as a candid admission of the binary nature of Rethuglican thought. If it is not loved, it is to be hated. If it is not hated, it is loved. It really explains a lot.
Comment by robbez_92107
I mean, really, what does it mean?
Women? The Statue of Liberty? Ronald McDonald? The Great Lakes? Pomona?
What I can’t understand is the idea of countries being precisely beings that you can love, hate or huggle. It is the same argument about a country being moral…what the hell is that? The same idea behind Saddam hated America or Al-Qaeda hates America… simply nonesense that the sheeple will pick up.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pmdo you think the Republicans should have impeached him for that instead of for perjury and obstruction of justice?
Comment by Manslagt — December 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Have you EVER, just once, tried to make sense?
I mean, seeing how out to get Clinton at all costs the GOOP was at that time, if they could have pinned something REAL on him instead of Watergate or Monicagate, don’t you think they would have?
Pause, THINK before replying. You don’t want to go home feeling even more embarrassed, do you?
December 26th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThe same idea behind Saddam hated America or Al-Qaeda hates America… simply nonesense that the sheeple will pick up.
Comment by Juan C. — December 26, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Uh… yeah. I came to the conclusion a long, long time ago that “patriotism” was basically an irrational, evil thing.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:20 pmI came to the conclusion a long, long time ago that “patriotism†was basically an irrational, evil thing.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
But, oh, so very useful…
December 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pmCrooks and criminals, all. Nothing is too low for them.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmLet’s all hope that retirement comes early for Bushco and they spend it in JAIL!
December 26th, 2007 at 8:49 pmI hope Dick Chenney end up like another famous FACIST WAR CRIMINAL: Mussolini. His fat ugly body hanging upside down and the people of Italy spiting on it!
December 26th, 2007 at 9:55 pmDick Cheney cannot go back; he must either take control of our nation and its citizen in order to re-write history, or go down in infamy. He is in a fight for his life and he will do anything to win. If he loses, he loses big. If he loses, he and the rest of these fascists will be famous in the way that Benedict Arnold is famous.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm#s 75-76, “Hope” won’t get us there. Elected representatives who honor (and act on) the oath they took when they were elected will.
Only when (IF) they put the rule of law above their own interests will justice, and the Constitution, be served.
If all this is left unchallenged, it will be because the leadership willfully neglected their solemn oath and allowed it to go unpunished.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pmThey will be as culpable as those in the administration, and a disastrous precedent will have been set.
The enthusiasm with a new Democratic Congress led by Reid and Pelosi lasted only a month. Then it became obvious that they were going to waste the opportunity to set the record straight, show leadership and assure Amercans that no President and VP would ever abuse their powers and the Constitution without being held accountable.
As far as I’m concerned Pelosi and Reid are spineless weasels who frittered away their only opportunity to actually accomplish something of needed value for the country. Only an article of impeachment could have served to put Bush and Cheney under oath and on trial without the ability to use their executive priviledge and refusal to testify.
I suggest that Pelosi took impeachment off the table in a partisan effort to retain Democratic power and have Hillary elected President. Instead this inaction has turned off many voters because of the perception that Democrats in Congress are impotent . Did she put a Democratic Congressional win in 2008 in jeopardy? After the actions of Feinstein and Schumer sucking up to Mukasey it’s fairly obvious where the loyalties lie.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:28 amDavid will go to jail for Cheney. He’s a man love thing.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:20 amYou know – Newsweek appears to be the only national rag that actual has any balls left.
Lets’ all get subscriptions – they hired Marcos as an opinion person and they just ran a great spread on John Edwards.
Dump Time – and go with Newsweek.
PS – someone please do an expose on David Addington – he appears to actual be the devil incarnate.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pmDavid Addington is a traitor and all things NONAMERICAN.
History will not be kind.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pmThese files are not personal property, and the OVP is part of the executive branch. As government property, these files must be left behind and sifted to locate evidence needed for key investigations, and to prevent national secrets from being inadvertently exposed. Evidence of abuse of office and misprision of powers, and corrupt acts committed within the public domain and with taxpayer funded resources ought not to be surrendered to this VEEP….unless he signs a deposition taking full personal responsibility for all contents disclosed or not yet disclosed.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am