An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

David Addington: A Patriot Or A Traitor?

01aaa_abughraib.jpg

One of the underreported and unappreciated aspects of the Age of Bush is that despite the appearance of unanimity some administration officials, typically careerists and not political appointees, were horrified at the embrace of torture and other extralegal actions and spoke up. They were silenced and in some case were fired, demoted or resigned.

01aaa_addington.jpgWhen an official whose loyalty to the rule of law ran deeper than their loyalty to the administration tried to fight back, they usually were met by a human chain saw by the name of David Addington. After the president and vice president, the chief of staff and former legal counsel to Dick Cheney has been the most powerful if relatively unknown man in Washington over the past seven-plus years.

History is filled with people like Addington who believed absolutely that they were doing right for god and republic but whose actions were so awful that what they saw as patriotism was in fact traitorous.

By that calculus, the foul deeds of Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss and Aldrich Ames pale in comparison to Addington’s actions.

* * * * *

Indeed, Addington is in a class of his own. Before the fires at the World Trade Center and Pentagon had even been extinguished, Addington asserted himself as the indispensable man even though his legal, political and military bona fides were overshadowed by his far right-wing views, as well as a paranoia that extended to keeping his office locked at all times and a ruthless mastery of the art of confronting outright or backstabbing anyone who got in his way.

There were career lawyers in the Justice Department who had substantial experience with terrorism, but few in or out of the White House were conversant in presidential powers. Neither was Addington, but he was quick to fill this vacuum with his extreme opinions as the chief lawyer for another paranoiac, the vice president.

Although Condoleezza Rice was nominally President Bush’s national security advisor, it was Cheney who ran the national security show. Unfortunately for the victims of 9/11 and the nation as a whole, like Rice he still had a Cold War mindset, did not have the foresight to see the threat Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda represented and blew off the confidential papers and briefings that warned of this imminent danger with his trademark arrogance.

From the outset, Addington pushed what came to be known as “The New Paradigm,” a absolutist doctrine at the fringes of even conservative legal thinking that the president had the authority to disregard virtually all legal boundaries, including the Constitution, if national security required it.

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for an index and links to recent torture-related posts.

  • RememberNovember
    My votes on traitor. You can't be a patriot and only have some American values, true patriots embrace and respect all America.
    He's an opportunistic sociopath who was given the keys to the kingdom, and vetted by cronyism. Funny thing is that happened a lot in Fascist Italy,Spain, Nazy Germany and many other despotic countries. This is nothing new. He should be in prison.
  • jwest
    Amazing.

    How one person’s descriptions, conclusions and worldview could be so wrong on so many levels is just amazing.

    It’s shaping up to be a busy day, with workers to oppress, disadvantaged people to take advantage of and minorities to disenfranchise, but I will try to find the time to dissect this libelous screed in subsequent comments.
  • kritt11
    Patriots don't twist long-established laws and standards to meet their own ends, ignoring the ones they find inconvenient. America's international reputation is in the toilet partly because of Addington and largely because of his boss. It is important to stand for something better than what the terrorists stand for. The beliefs our country was founded on can't be tossed aside like used toilet paper just because a higher up circumnavigates our system of justice. Its funny how rule of law was so important to conservatives when they impeached Clinton, but now seems irrelevant. so, by all means---------traitor
  • shaun
    jwest:

    Bring it on.

    Just make sure your pushback focuses not on the messenger but the people delivering the message: John Ashcroft, Jack Goldsmith, Ted Olson, Richard Shiffrin, five to six Supreme Court justices and Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the latter two who are cited elsewhere in The Dark Side for having tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to get Bush to countermand Addington's excesses.

    These people, by your calculus, would be the traitors, correct?
  • DLS
    Shaun, aren't you through yet? You're overdoing it again, and it's not overdoing it by me to point out once again that you're overdoing it again.

    Nobody decent condones torture or denies it when it is practiced. However, nobody intelligent associates the practice of torture with McCain or the Republicans this November, either, if that is one of your on-going motives for continuing to strike this long-dead subject (corpse!).
  • DLS
    "traitor"

    Legally (or technically), he isn't, nor is he as powerful as Shaun would claim or imply (were he, we'd all know about him already), but he is anti-American or un-American and a scumbag if he believes it's okay to torture people.

    Fortunately, though some might not realize this because they are so clouded with emotion, the USA isn't associated with torture or brutality in prisons (as in Abu Ghraib, the first time the USA "fell from grace" and tarnished its reputation); these Bush Administration-related departures from decency are exceptional, not the rule. Hence we're not going to be held hostage by these things or overreact in a leftist form of pathological "collective guilt," which is in no way merited or justified.
  • shaun
  • SteveK
    "You're overdoing it again, and it's not overdoing it by me to point out once again that you're overdoing it again."

    A most perfect example of how radicals (both left and right) view everything... Thanks DLS.
  • DLS
    Only Shaun is overdoing it, just in case that fact escaped you, Steve K.

    I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorists' Trojan horse...
  • DLS
    Shaun, Godwin's law is for losers and I am not questioning your right or even a need to speak out -- but most of us have spoken out and more importantly, _we know already_ and don't need to be reminded to excess about torture. (Or about the cynical energy-industry's-bidding behavior of the administration, et cetera.) Once it becomes excessive, it's that excess that itself becomes the new, real subject.

    November isn't far away, Shaun.
  • JSpencer
    If anyone had asked me 10 years ago if the US would ever put itself in the position of being associated with torture, much less if there would be Americans who would run interference for it, I would given an unequivical no. This is a shameful chapter in our history... to say the very least. As far as Addington goes, his KGB sensibilities have no place in the USA.
  • JSpencer
    DLS, re: Godwin's Law, did you happen to read far enough to see this?

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

    You need to watch out for the reflexive reaction and think harder about the context.
  • Silhouette
    When, and not if, the Bush administration is found to be acting in conspiracy with BigOil interests to not only wage war on the public penny, but also torture people and purposefully mislead the People with the sole intent of stealing another nation's sovereign property (oil), the culpable parties should unceremoniously and routinely be tried for treason. The level of damage they have wrought to our nation's worldwide image, our Constitution, our public treasury, our military and our economy, not to mention thousands dead on behalf of this blatant and utterly transparent crime is intolerable.

    In other words, it will not be tolerated.
  • DLS
    "did you happen to read far enough to see this?"

    [illogical additional advice deleted as a kind courtesy]

    It doesn't refute what I say about Godwin's law (which would be misapplied to what Sullivan had to say, in fact, as well as in what Shaun had to say, which was the subject at the time, not Sullivan's statements -- applying "Godwin's law" would be to say that both accounts are wrong simply because they refer to Nazi Germany in some way). You just supplied the opposite of what Godwin's law would mean.

    And:

    "his KGB sensibilities"

    At least you got something correct, here. The whole abuse-and-torture effort is not so much Nazi-like (even if there is an element of _nicht_und_nibel_ to the status of communications held by the prisoners in Guantanamo, as well as good old methods of torture the Nazi Secret State Police would recognize). Rather, it is instead more Kremlinesque. This hasn't gone unnoticed before when discussing the White House's penchant for secrecy and in particular, Cheney's obscession with it. (It also is merited as an analogy given how the liberal journalists have been untrustworthy enemies, the Mongol hordes seeking information merely to exploit in future attacks, from the start, motivating part of the hiding within the walls of a kremlin, but the administration's behavior extends far beyond mere dealings with the media.) The behavior has struck me as more Stalinesque than anything else (cruder and less sophisticated than a true Nazi-style system of oppression). No boasts (at least, since the war against Hussein's forces was won), no claims, no propaganda campaign, no information at all. Just cynical, silent maneuvering. Very Kremlinesque, Stalinesque if one wants to characterize this.
  • jwest
    Shaun,

    “These people [ John Ashcroft, Jack Goldsmith, Ted Olson, Richard Shiffrin, five to six Supreme Court justices and Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice], by your calculus, would be the traitors, correct?”

    No.

    As always, we conservatives believe words have specific meanings. Traitor, for example, refers to an individual who engages in treasonous behavior. This would be behavior detrimental to the security of the U.S. for ideological reasons or personal gain.

    The mentioned individuals might have different opinions than David Addington as to what constitutes torture (another one of those words with meaning), but all have the best interest of the U.S. at heart.

    An example of treasonous behavior is Aldridge Ames selling military secrets or Bill Clinton allowing classified missile guidance technology to be sold to the Chinese for campaign contributions.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    jwest--

    As evidence that "conservatives believe words have specific meanings" you're calling Bill Clinton a traitor?
  • jwest
    George,

    Not really. If John Glenn had done his job in the Thompson hearings, the answer might be different.

    That was just a bit of snark thrown back in Shaun’s direction.
  • runasim
    I have to go back a few years to find conservatives who actually had principles. Several of them are now speaaking up to call the current crop what they are: political party apoloigsts whose only unbendable principle is party power.

    The last one I heard on the subject was Mickey Edwards, but he echoes others in his revulsion at this. There is nothing about torture (not even redefining it) that makes it acceptable to these true conservatives.

    jwest does not speak for them, I'm glad to say.
    Some things are just inexcusable and unpardonable.

    It's America's shame that we're even in need of debating it.
    Some of us like to remember how we are different from the worst of the worst.
  • DLS
    Psst--Shaun: Lieberman. Hagee. New or revisited thread.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC