home

Addington Disease: The New Yorker

Jane Mayer's extensive profile of Cheney aide David Addington in the New Yorker is an excellent read.

Addington, who now holds Scooter Libby's job, has been a formidible force in the Administration's positions on everything from torture to Guantanamo to presidential signing statements.

He insisted, for instance, on maintaining the admissibility of statements obtained through coercion, or even torture. In meetings, he argued that officials in charge of the military commissions should be given maximum flexibility to decide whether to include such evidence. "Torture isn't important to Addington as a scientific matter, good or bad, or whether it works or not," the Administration lawyer, who is familiar with these debates, said. "It's more about his philosophy of Presidential power. He thinks that if the President wants torture he should get torture. He always argued for 'maximum flexibility.' "

Another short quote:

Meanwhile, Addington has fought tirelessly to stem reform of other controversial aspects of the New Paradigm, such as the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. Last year, he and Cheney led an unsuccessful campaign to defeat an amendment, proposed by Senator John McCain, to ban the abusive treatment of detainees held by the military or the C.I.A.

On Guantanamo:

In a series of meetings at the White House, Gordon, Bellinger, and other officials warned Addington and Gonzales that potentially innocent people had been locked up in Guantánamo and would be indefinitely. "This is a violation of basic notions of American fairness," Gordon and Bellinger argued. "Isn't that what we're about as a country?" Addington's response, sources familiar with the meetings said, was "These are 'enemy combatants.' Please use that term. They've all been through a screening process. We don't have anything to talk about."

He also is in step with the Administration's passion for secrecy:

"Lip-lock" is the word Addington's old Pentagon colleague Sean O'Keefe, now the chancellor of Louisiana State University, used to describe his discretion. "He's like Cheney," O'Keefe said. "You can't get anything out of him with a crowbar."

Mayer implies he drove other Administration lawyers out:

The Administration lawyer said, "He's a bully, pure and simple." Several talented top lawyers who challenged Addington on important legal matters concerning the war on terror, including Patrick Philbin, James Comey, and Jack Goldsmith, left the Administration under stressful circumstances. Other reform-minded government lawyers who clashed with Addington, including Bellinger and Matthew Waxman, both of whom were at the N.S.C. during Bush's first term, have moved to the State Department.

Addington is the force behind the presidential signing statements:

He reportedly scrutinizes every bill before President Bush signs it, searching for any language that might impinge on Presidential power.

Addington comes off like a cancer in the Administration that kills off even the healthy cells. I do wish Mayer relied less on Bruce Fein as her constitutional authority, and the article is way too long, but if you have the patience, it's well worth the time.

< Duke LaCrosse Player Passes Polygraph | Believe in People Powered Politics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    ok, so it's pretty clear this guy has lived in a fantasy world for pretty much most of his adult life, as has cheney. this could well explain his rather odd conceits, regarding practically every facet of the constitution. bottom line: he's a nutcase with a law degree, convinced that his machiavellian manuevering will "save the country!". he's a character straight out of "Dr. Strangelove".

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 08:07:38 PM EST
    Next...how to indict the whole slimy crew for war crimes. I believe it will happen. The Army is melting down before our very eyes and no one seems to be noticing. Yeah, there's a lot of coverage of the murder and rape in Iraq by our 'noble' troops, 'our boys' but nothing is being written about why this is happening. The Army is coming apart. Warm up the choppers for liftoff. And when that happens we must direct the American outrage at 'losing' towards the architects of McChimpy's Excellent Adventure. And send them to the I.C.C.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    Lot's of articles recently about how evil Addington is. Is Addington diversion? He's an employee. Cheney and bush are the ones responsible for the "new paradigm" using Addington to construct legal justifications, however weak they are, as evidenced by the SC decision barring trhe tribunals (Addington's bastard child)? Shift the debate and the criticism and the blame away from bush to Addington? Set him up to draw the heat and be thrown to the angry mob before the elections? Speculation... but these guys are capable of anything, and rats will feed on each other when cornered.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    Something felt fishy about the article. Here we are, years along and suddenly the entire thing--the crazy power grabs, the shocking indifference to domestic and international law, the scary nihilism about human rights--it all comes down the influence of one minor functionary? Of course, it was mentioned that Addison's view is Cheney's view but the idea seemed to be that Addison is this crazy wild card who has significant influence. There was a very intriguing pile on of Addison. Everyone seemed happy to exorciate him--unappointed bureaucrats, military officials--almost to the point of saying that the reason there was torture was because that crazy Addison guy. All this was implied, more of a tone and a focus than an outright argument. It just doesn't seem plausible. Why should he be so influential. All the sudden Yoo and Gonzalez are dancing to his tune. These guys don't look like they need rely on somebody else's arguments! I'm pretty sure they are quite capable of making arguments to turn the U.S. into a police all on their own.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 09:41:03 PM EST
    Bush pledged to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution twice as President, and I suspect that the beginning of his TANG experience and Texas governorship included similar oaths. Yet--no joke, no hyperbole, honest-to-Pete--does anyone think he's ever read it?

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    There may not be much love lost between Cheney and Addington, and cheney/bush/GOP could certainly use any way of redirecting voter anger... Sunday, January 29, 2006 The Kremlin Watch: Newsweek identifies scapegoat
    The latest Newsweek piece (co-authored by the odious Stuart Taylor) is a classic for Kremlinologists. The basic storyline is something like "Real conservatives opposed Cheney overreach on civil liberties. Sacrificial goat: Addington."
    Wednesday, March 12, 2003 From Dystopical: "W: One Hero, hold the baloney" In March 2003 the satire site whitehouse{dot}org "ran altered photos of Ms. Cheney that pictured her as a gap-toothed hillbilly with a red bulb nose. Accompanying these defamations was a mock and mocking biography that tended to cast the Second Lady in a very negative light." With it's satire the site had:
    ...been successful in hampering the war effort by distracting the vice president from his mission of dreaming up new, more convincing reasons for the PossibleWar (tm) in Iraq, requiring him instead to threaten legal action against the offending site. Naturally his threats immediately evoked cries of outrage from jerked knees all over the nation, ultimately forcing the Second Banana to blame the whole thing on his legal counsel, David ("Scapegoat Dave") Addington. It seems that Mr. Addington, as is the habit of all salaried employees of rich and powerful men with egos the size of the Taj Mahal, had acted completely autonomously, doing whatever the hell he damned well pleased, without so much as a "mother-may-I" or a by-your-leave to the vice president. Let's face it, the servant problem has just gone to the dogs.
    Cheney has a long memory?

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 01:43:41 AM EST
    thanks, fellow-commenters, for all the backgound info supporting the idea that Adder-ington is probably the next guy to be thrown from the bus--- following Libby? Isn't the sealed indictment (acc. to JL), Sealed vs. Sealed, supposed to be unsealed in a couple weeks? Wonder if this recent "love-fest" is just Cheney's way of preparing the ground so that he looks less culpable in the eyes of the public?

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:41:48 AM EST
    Maybe Addington is going to be throw off the bus for being sorry-ass incompetent. His kangaroo court tribunal idea has been tossed into bush's lap by the SC and all the chimp can do is hope there are enough fawning repub yes men in congress that are willing to be crucified in November to legitimize what Addington (Darth Smackdown) was unable to. And super dave couldn't even put a stop to this for his boss. Forget throw him off the bus. They'll probably shove him under it. Dave? Maybe it's a good idea to start thinking about turning on Dick? Give Patrick a call, or go meet him for lunch or something. Quietly of course.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 07:07:27 AM EST
    I'd like to see the MSM interview people like Rove and Addington since they seem to be creating all the problems we're facing. Why should Murtha be cross examined on the talk shows and Rove and Addington escape this? Please don't make me watch McCain or Biden ramble on one more time.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 07:43:35 AM EST
    I don't think the piece was overlong, particularly in the context of the New Yorker*. I'd rather more pieces like this on denizens of the WH because we have a right to know and judge their policies, acts and performance. That this piece provided, essentially, in-depth journalism, and was put to bed before Hamdan (and so was not affected by that case's outcome) is really a public service, one I wish the NYT and other papers would start providing more of. And, anyone who thinks Deadeye (and probably W) wasn't ratifying everything Addington brought forth, doesn't have much of a clue. One does not get into and stay in high positions such as Addington's without being an alter ego for the principal, here, Deadeye. Let alone spend the better part of the two decades before 9/11 working closely - hand in hand - with that same principle. To be fair, Deadeye and Addington each probably know how the other thinks and would react as well as many spouses, if not better than most**. If there was any daylight between Deadeye and Addington on any issue of ideology, philosophy, tactics or otherwise, Addington would have long since been replaced by someone else. They are each other. In this regard, and in light of this article (before-hand, e.g., I had no knowledge that Addington went all the way back to the early 80s with Deadeye), we need to look again to see whether Addington rolling over, or cooperating with Fitz, is a likely thing to have already taken place. I make no judgment on that question, rather merely say that it needs be re-examined. It would also be useful, if only for historical purposes, if someone would look into just what part Addington played in getting Deadeye to choose himself to be VP in 2000, and so on.... Not that such is likely to ever happen.... - - - *For example, last winter they devoted about 50,000 words (it seemed) to how coal gets from the High Plains of Wyoming to a power plant in Georgia, to make air-conditioning electricity for the southeast. Not much of it was worth passing over, and it illustrated how f'd up our economy is and how we create so much global warming, inter alia. ** this is not to imply anything more than a professional relationship, albeit one of great depth.

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    Jane Mayer: According to someone who knows Powell, his comment [...] was terse. "It's Addington," he said, referring to Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington. "He doesn't care about the Constitution." Brad DeLong, in his blog yesterday titled "Don't Be So Stupid, Colin Powell" takes issue with Powell with...
    No, Mr. Powell. It's not Addington. It's Bush.
    ...and two of the commenters on DeLOngs blog expand on that with:
    Personally, I think the theory of the unitary executive needs to work both ways--unitary authority and unitary responsibility.
    and
    But isn't Jane Mayer's article just an endless variation on Powell's thesis? Unless I'm missing something, she seems to imply that Addington owes his influence to the ignorance of the law of Bush & co. Nowhere in her article does she discuss the odd fact that Bush hasn't (apparently) sought other legal advice or has, and has ignored it.
    There is lots more on the web about Addington that just a little googling turns up quite easily, and the more I read the stronger my feeling is that Addington, though I agree that he is one sick and twisted human being, is being scapegoated, set up, and used to divert blame from bush because he can be simply because of those qualities. Something stinks here and the smell is familiar: A rove is still a rove by any other name...

    Re: Addington Disease: The New Yorker (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    In the context of discussing Powell, let's not forget who it was who made him: Cheney. There's a vignette in one of Powell's books (I don't have a link available) where he discusses an event which occurred during his command of V Corps, then HQ'd in Frankfurt. He was discussing how he spent his day (this is the mid-80s) studying and preparing for the Soviets to come roaring across the border and through the Fulda Gap, how he had the photo of the Sov general who would command against him on his desk and how he studied this general, to better get the feel of the man he'd oppose, and so on. He then goes on to describe a visit from an obscure Wyoming congressman who nonetheless was quite well-versed in all things NATO, V Corps and Cold War. He noted this Congressman being quite interested in the photo on his desk and a few other items. A short while after the congressman's visit - he gets jumped out of the corps command (a very respectable place to conclude an Army career) and sent to the Reagan WH's NSC. The congressman? Cheney. He had been sent out (by whom, it'd be interesting to find out) to vet Powell and see if he had potential for bigger things. Bigger than a corps command. So, when Powell and his CofS start busting on Addington, I do look at it with a bit of a jaundiced eye, more than I would if someone less indebted to Cheney than Powell was doing the busting. It smacks of (a) Cheney (and maybe even Addington) playing a little inside baseball, or (b) small-minded office-political backbiting over who's the teacher's pet.