For years, congressional Democrats dreamed of getting a crack at a man they saw as a key player behind the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods against detainees in the war on terrorism -- methods the critics say amount to torture. On Thursday, they finally got their wish: Thickly bearded and glaring out through half-rimmed glasses, David S. Addington, a top aide to Vice President Cheney and alleged master-mind of the legal rationale for the harsh techniques, appeared before a House subcommittee. But rather than eliciting new information or forcing damaging admissions from the long-sought witness, the hearing turned into an emotion-charged demonstration of the hostility and mutual disdain between the most liberal critics of the Bush administration's war policies and one of the architects of those policies. For his part, Addington provided little specific information on his role in pressing for controversial interrogation tactics at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and with CIA prisoners. At the same time, he made it clear that he had played a central role in the matter. And he lectured the committee on the continuing nature of the terrorist threat. "No American should think we're free, the war is over, Al Qaeda is not coming and they're not interested in getting us," Addington told the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. "Because that's wrong." Yet when Democrats tried to pin him down on the moral and legal issues they considered crucial, Addington brushed them aside with barely concealed disdain. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who later characterized Addington's attitude as "smug," asked whether, if the interrogation program was found to be illegal, he would bear any responsibility. "Is that a moral question or a legal question?" Addington asked, then said he bore no responsibility, legal or moral.