Well, that makes it pretty obvious, doesn't it? Cheney did it, and they're going to use every Zeigler-approved method to dodge, obstuficate, and distract from the fact that Cheney ordered torture on detainees until they said such a link existed.

Can we put this guy under indictment now, please?

OMG this woman lies straight to your face just like her daddy. In the short run it works great because she intimidates George and everyone else to just shut up, but in the long run facts are stubborn things and they will get out and bite her in the ass too, just like daddy.

I love how she takes a shit on Wilkerson. The Cheney Crime Family has long despised Powell for being halfway decent when they were hoping for fully corrupt, and now they have that pissant Wilkerson running around spilling the beans on everything from the inside out. It's all Powell's fault for letting a wimp like Wilkerson in on the deal.

SECRECY! LOYALTY! FOREVER!

Well, that settles it. Obviously, Vice President Cheney was ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS here. It was the CIA guys who told him who he should approve being waterboarded, the VP would never insinuate his own directions into their field of expertise like people are suggesting....

And, that's right, now that you mention it, it was Nancy Pelosi who suggested to the Dick that he should claim he's not a member of the Executive Branch because the VP-dency has some interaction with Congress....

I am not trying to detract from your blog comment reply. Also, my following mention could most likely be better articulated and with a more seemingly precise legal factual basis for support of the alleged allegations.

In that position of Us Secretary of State and from his VOLUNTARY (UNTRUTHFUL AND DISHONEST) UNITED NATIONS SPEECH that led our Nation of our 'We the People' Democratic Country to an illegal War(s) and his own admission, to my recollection, that these statements as being false and unsupported.

Colin Powell should be held accountable. Also, from my observation he has shown NO REMORSE and NO REASONABLE ATTEMPT AT AN APOLOGY OR TO ACCEPT ANY TRANSPARENCY, OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

In my view he has shown to seemingly some extent hollow, shallow statements and to some extent and thereof with seemingly an abundance of false and misleading self rewarding gratification and/or endeavors, thereof, to my recollection, none of which coincide to the full expected extent within our US Constitution, Bill of Rights necessary and expected support for TRANSPARENCY, OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY and in my presuming he definetly and most assuredly had and has an avenue to do so.

Of course she wavered.

The Republicans are trying to use the so-called September 2002 "CIA Torture Briefings" as both sword and shield, as we lawyers would say.

It is of course illegal for briefed members of Congress to disclose the specifics of any briefings, a stricture which Pelosi for one has been very scrupulous to adhere to.

Recall that the narrrow question of when the CIA informed Pelosi of waterboarding was first raised in its specifics by Porter Goss in a WaPo OpEd just after release of the DOJ Torture memos.

Pelosi in her much ridiculed (more importantly much discussed) statement was very careful NOT to disclose the substance of the Sept 2002 CIA briefing beyond that which was already public

From ZackPost:

We also now know that techniques, including waterboarding, had already been employed, and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information. At the same time, the Bush Administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (our itals)

The briefing at issue was not solely about Abu Zibaydah's waterboarding. The September briefings and the torture program itself (not to mention the baked National Intel Estimate the CIA was working up at the time) were primarily about supporting the phony case for war in Iraq.

Pelosi doesn't come out and say so but she carefully and deliberately links the specific briefing to the Bush War Campaign of Sept-Oct 2002

She may not have been very elegant in her attack, but you don't have to be brilliant, only sentient to see what's going on here

So is Liz Cheney now being groomed as a spokeswoman for Cheney's alternative government? That's scary.

That is ABC for you. You know Britt and all the other crew, all for the Bush Cheney cabal. Amazing how everyone tries and tries to hide their malfeasance but poor, poor Bush, with Cheney blabbing all the time, we can be sure the story keeps on keeping on. My mom said she could tell which kid did something naughty even when she was not there to observe. As a single parent in depression years she had to work. But when she confronted us for some problem, the guilty kid always said, "she did it not me". I thought she was just omniscient but alas we gave ourselves away. Seems Cheney has never learned to keep his mouth shut and his kids seem to be doing the same.

The Walter Pincus / Washington Post story that Cheney cites has a big escape hatch - the term, "waterboarding". What about the many other torture techniques they used? For example, beating someone to death.

As of March 2005, 108 detainees had died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan - with at least one-quarter of those deaths the result of harsh interrogations.

This was reported by the AP here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml

Mr. Pincus needs to ask his friendly CIA sources how many Iraqis were "treated harshly" in order to manufacture a bogus casus belli for the neocons' march to war.

If only the press monkeys will ask the right questions of Cheney in the same vicious and attack-dog way they did with Pelosi. Pelosi was eaten alive by the press, having to repeat her answers over and over again.

I'd like to see the press treat Cheney with the same level of (dis)respect.

It's really Dick in drag. No one mentioned the similarities. This nut didn't fall far from the tree. (The nut tree).
Even though this is all indefensible, BS & smoke, I'll argue against.
She & they say that what they did is somehow so heinous that by just being semi-informed you're also complicit. Liz sure seems to know alot!?
Also, would anybody listen to Chelsea Clinton if she attempted to defend her father? Also, also, isn't Liz the Gay daughter? Why isn't she preaching about those human rights if she is, instead of going with the enhanced BS techniques?
They want us to believe that Nancy Pelosi should be taken down with them, but that they aren't the them that should be going down with her. Huh?
Talk about a whopper of a bluff. Really though, what do the Cheneys' have to lose. Their guilty of so much, what's a few more measly lies? It's just another cheney war with no exit strategy.
Napolean wept when he had no more worlds' to conquer. The dickster kind of weezes!

How does Daddy's Little girl know every damn thing Daddy did, when he did it and why he did it? Does family of those with top secret clearance automatically have top secret clearance as well?

Why does anybody care what Liz Cheney is saying? What credibility does she have? Does Dick think she's better to make the case because folks won't challenge her and she is more likable?

I hate to break it to you, Liz, but dear sweet Daddy is a monster.

This guy doesn't have a conscience to bother him when he goes all out pushing for an invasion of Iraq, causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason, and then lies to the American people before and after the fact trying to manufacture some kind of justification for it that won't land him in a courtroom in the Hague.

He's a monster, Liz. You can love him, but trying to cover for him is just taking on some of the guilt yourself. How much of your name and credibility do you really want to invest in this wretched excuse for a human being?

As a couple of commenters have noted, why does she know anything at all about these secret doings?

What I'd like to see when Liz Cheney is spouting off, implying knowledge of torture (and its results), is for her to be questioned directly enough and specificly enough that she either (a) makes clear she doesn't actually know anything, and thus looks like a fool (along with her positions), or (b) does know things and makes her father look like he's been passing along State secrets, so they both look like criminal fools.

1) Going after Pelosi only underscores the importance of going after those who TOOK the actions she was supposed to have been briefed on. If the actions were so bad that she deserves to be punished for not doing enough to stop them, then just how bad were those actions?

2) Republicans who are calling for her to produce evidence are (a) idiots for believing that anyone can prove a negative and (b) ignorant of the laws governing the release of confidential information. THESE GUYS are the guys who are supposed to help the Republican Party find its way out of the wilderness?

3) To those of you who are wondering where the balance is in the MSM these days, may I remind you that while the Republicans brayed so loudly about the "liberal-biased/left wing media" during the past election, it is only coming back to help them now by demonstrating that they can be "Republican-biased", too.

It IS helping them, isn't it?