That was one of the most disturbing parts of his testimony for me. Asked myself that all day long…a, “What the H— was he doing there…and THAT many times?”

A fact witness…hmmm…

We can work with that…

Why would a lawyer from OVP go to GITMO at all, much less 5 or so times?

Real good question actually. Seriously. In what capacity, and for what legitimate purpose, was the Vice-President’s lawyer involved? The President, the DOD, the CIA, the DOJ, perhaps even DHS; those agencies and offices all are involved or participating to some extent in the activity at Gitmo. Unless the President is incapacitated under the 25th Amendment (and other than the standard Bush retardation, there is no evidence the President was incapacitated), what involvement did the VP have?

Addington himself said VP is not a part of the executive etc., what role did the OVP have there? If you assume Addington’s paradigm of what the OVP is, then he had no legitimate reason to be going to Gitmo. He was on a junket! He was an observer, not a counsel of record for any participatory party. A fact witness.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..h-fow.html

also, check out the disambiguation on wikipedia (last disambiguation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..guation%29
“Barnacle, (politics) a label used to describe the relationship between the Vice President of United States and the Legislative Branch of government”

Beaver will recall passing Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington in a Pentagon hallway shortly after she submitted the memo. Addington smiled at her and said, “Great minds think alike.”

I guess depending on your definition of “much later” he might parse that, but it looks like it would have been maybe Novemberish/Decemberish 2002? No date in this link, but I think maybe it was when Haynes was making his lists.

I can understand your point on that being his nature, but it is also just absolute classic witness evasion. And unlike the Libby case, this is one where his own ass is on the line. And notice how his relatively renowned memory (he sure remembered details of his Libby meeting and even the cases he discussed with Libby) got all fuzzy when the questions go to an area where he, personally, has a big prolbem? In LIbby’s case, his only big problem was if he lied. Here, his only big problem is if he remembers and tells the truth. I didn’t get the benefit of watching like you did and I’m not that great on tells anyway> I have tended to believe (JMO) and still do that all these guys, the Republican loyal Bushie cadre at DOJ, have only been motivated to do marginally decent things when they were looking at direct personal consequences.

So sure Addington told the truth with Fitzgerald, bc the equation was that liability came with lying under oath, but he was pretty clean on the overall scheme there. But where he is in the thick of the scheme, he just become forgetful or parses to use up time on irrelevancies. But again, I didn’t see him and don’t know that for a fact, it’s just my take from the bits and pieces.

Should both Bu$sh Co and the Military ‘believe’ that an attack on Iran will make ‘this’ all go away, they are very mistaken indeed, and a number of the Top Brass might wish to polish up their resumes and start seeking some cushy lobbying sinicure, as well as put aside some of their own money for legal defense. It might be wise if their legal counsel were conversant in more than just ‘Murkan ‘English’, I would also suggest counsel with a somewhat different demeanor to Addington.