Cheney's long history of bitter skirmishes?!? Over WHAT? They appear to be in complete harmony with regards to policy. If this is the case, then what's up with Pat Buchanon saying that the CIA will tell Cheney things that it won't tell Obama?

Steven Hayes, the author of the Weekly Standard Article, is coincedentally Cheney's personal biographer. No surprise Hayes got the scoop.

No surprise, also, that Hayes was able to quote an "unnamed Bush official" who "grumbles" about the result. That unidentified, grumbler is, no doubt Cheney.

it's a false assumption that the CIA is one entity;
it's many factions that supported Cheney and still do and others who want the truth out there, who want to release those memos.
Wait and see; we're always going to get many contradicting answers to our questions.

This is Cheney's way of obstructing the truth.

I can almost hear the Liz Cheneys of the world now:

Liz: "My father made it clear that these interrogation techniques saved lives, they got us actionable intelligence. And he knows that, he's seen the reports, the memos. And when the Obama Administration and the Democrats started coming after him and others on these techniques, he wanted those memos released, but Obama's CIA said no. So you tell me, Mika, how fair is it for the Justice Department to selectively release some memos that they say show, you know, say they are 'bad,' but not release the memos that show they techniques worked. that they were good, and kept us safe."

"So you are saying, so what are you saying? That this is a railroad to get your father, to go after him on torture, on these techniques?"

"Yes, I think it is. I mean, how else can you look at it? Obama and the Democrats are basically trying him in the public media, and it's a one-sided thing. It's their memos against my father's word, because he can't show the memos that show he was right."

"So maybe there needs to be an investigation."

"Well, Eugene, sure, maybe. And there--"

"What if it were by a special prosecutor?"

"--should be a bipartisan--wait, no, I don't think there should be a special prosecutor, no, I don't. It should be a bipartisan committee, or something like that."

"But what's wrong with a special prosecutor?"

"I'll tell you what's wrong with a special prosecutor, Mika. My father didn't commit any crimes, we didn't engage in torture, so there is not--look, we didn't have a special prosecutor on the attorney firing controversy, so why for this? We have legal memos that show this was legal. And the White House is trying to use these memos against my father when he can't effectively defend himself, because the CIA won't release their memos showing these techniques were effective. It's ridiculous."

"You're a treat. Let's keep you on an extra segment."

"Thanks, Mika. I'd love to."

This is precious:

As you are aware, a request for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended, which was signed and executed by the President on March 25, 2003. Under section 3.5.(a)(3) of that Executive Order, a document is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review if that document contains information that is the subject of pending litigation. This provision ensures that the Mandatory Declassification Review process is not used to disrupt simultaneous litigation proceedings that are already pending. In researching the information in question, we have discovered that it is currently the subject of pending FOIA litigation (Bloche v. Department of Defense, Amnesty International v. Central Intelligence Agency). Therefore, the requested document, which contains this information, is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review.

He's being denied under executive order that Bush made, and because of pending FOIA litigation, also against Bush.

Is this delicious irony, or did Cheney know it wouldn't be released and was only pretending to ask for it.

Deep thought: Is the CIA our version of ISIS? You know, the Pakistani intelligence agency, which is fighting the Taliban, but parts of which is supporting the Taliban?

Do we have a pro-Cheney, pro-torture faction in the CIA fighting against an Obama-siding CIA?

absolutely right, AnswerFrog; there is a pro-Cheney faction and a pro-Obama faction fighting the PR war for our painful ears.
and here's a good example from the Wash Independent:

"Ali Soufan, the former FBI agent who helped interrogate detained al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, told lawmakers Wednesday that he wasn't the only interrogator who opposed torturing Abu Zubaydah at a CIA-operated facility in the spring of 2002. According to Soufan, all the members of the CIA's interrogation team stood against a single CIA 'contractor' who advocated such techniques as placing the detainee in a 'confinement box.'"

Wait a mimute and if i'm wrong please tell me. Isn't this a bad decsion by the CIA? Don't we want the CIA to declassify those memos so the public can see that Cheney is wrong and that torture never led to getting any type of substantial infomation?

Joe Scarborough influences no one but himself, Liz Cheney, the Idaho Militia and the Texas Separatist Movement.

I recall very clearly the comments regarding Cheney "visiting" the CIA at Langley, as an "unprecedented" VP action. It was clear even then that Cheney went there to prevail upon the CIA Ops teams that he wanted certain kinds of information to be found, and that they had better find it for him. Over recent years, watching his modus operandi, he threatened, intimidated, and then destroyed anyone who didn't cooperate with his demands to provide him what he wanted (Valerie Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson). From all counts and the vast political web, it's obvious that everyone in Washington DC was - and maybe still is - terrified of Cheney's power to destroy people. IT's also obvious that his power included Congress: just observe how little opposition to the Repugnicons there was from 2001 until 2007.

It's also obvious that anyone visible in the Democratic Party, both office-holders and DNC staffers were eavesdropped on. All that was necessary was to whisper in a senator or congressman's ear that they were overheard saying something which could embarrass or destroy them, & the opposition to the repugs disappeared.

Ah, isn't Cheney just trying to draw attention away from the torture policies they pushed in 2002 and 2003?

Quote:

"Cheney requested two CIA reports, both of them from the “detainees” folder, which suggests that the docs detail the interrogation of suspects.

One is dated July 13th, 2004, and numbers eight pages.

The other is dated June 1st, 2005, and numbers 13 pages."

What we want to see is the documentation of the orders by Cheney and Rumsfeld to interrogators (CIA and private contractors) to "push hard" for links between Al Qaeda and Saddam in 2002 and 2003.

According to Mcclatchy,
"It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document."

That is corroborated by the testimony of FBI agent Ali Soufan, who said that the CIA came in with private contractors and 'took control' of the Al Qaeda suspects at that time, using "Cold War tactics designed to elicit false confessions."

Obviously, this is what Cheney is trying to draw attention away from - the choice to use torture as part of the propaganda push for an Iraq invasion.