by D. Cupples | Yesterday, former White House employees David Addington and John Yoo testified before the House Judiciary Committee, which apparently wanted to know details about law breaking within the Bush Adminsitration.
The witnesses were far from silent, but they managed to not answer most of the questions asked of them. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank gives a few examples of the surliness and contempt with which Mr. Addington addressed Committee members:
"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."
"He had the grace of Gollum as he quarreled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman's questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself. When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: 'Is there a question pending, ma'am?...'"
"Addington's insolence appeared to embolden another witness, his former administration colleague John Yoo. Yoo took Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on a semantic spin when asked about whether a torture memo was implemented.
"What do you mean by 'implemented'?" Yoo asked. [This is almost as bad as asking someone to define "is."]
"'Mr. Yoo,' Ellison pressed, 'are you denying knowledge of what the word 'implement' means?'"
"'You're asking me to define what you mean by the word?'
"No, I'm asking you to define what you mean by the word "implement,"' the exasperated lawmaker clarified.
"'It can mean a wide number of things,' Yoo demurred. (Washington Post)
Since the Democrats (sort of) took over Congress in 2007, most Bush Administration folks who've had public sit-downs with congressional committees found ways to refrain from implicating the Administration in wrong doing when answering questions (often with the help of Republican members of Congress who pitch soft balls).
Yesterday, the blatantly disrespectful (at times contemptuous) attitudes on Addington's and Yoo's part seems to have set a precedent -- at least for the twenty-first century.
The message: We're not accountable to anyone -- constitution be damned.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Greenwald Eviscerates Olbermann's Defense re: FISA
Comments