Over at neo-con central, they just don't get it. In the National Review, Michael Goldfarb writes, "From what I can tell this Cheney scandal story . . . is the mother of all nothingburgers. It's hard for me not to see it as a ploy by Democrats to distract from the fact that the stimulus bill is a dud, healthcare is going badly and cap-and-trade looks like a disaster. The base always enjoys beating up on Cheney and the press likes that stuff too."

Well, that mother of all nothingburgers has quite a pickle. The problem isn't the nature of the secret CIA program but rather that a political decision was made in the Vice President's office not to inform the Congressional leadership. That's simply a rule of law matter. It is that simple.

Beyond this, there are also operational concerns as Spencer Ackerman reported in the Washington Independent from his conversation with Congressman Rush Holt (D-N.J.) of the House Intelligence Committee. "The CIA should not want to take such risks of various covert action programs over the years without [congressional] oversight," said Representative Holt, "You just do a better job when you have to justify your actions to an independent evaluator." Having Congressional oversight would have either strengthened the program or would have ended it sooner and without the embarrassment that it is now causing.

There's more...

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute, the former Vice President confuses policy for breaking the law. Take the case of then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales who advised in 2002 President Bush to rescind the Geneva Conventions calling some of its provisions "quaint" and moreover "obsolete". Furthermore Mr. Gonzalez counseled that rescinding the Geneva Conventions would substantially reduce "the threat of domestic criminal prosecutions under the War Crimes Act." Members of the previous Administration including the former Vice President were fully aware that the policies they were pursuing were of dubious legal standing.

This is not about a policy dispute. This is about the rule of law.

I am taken aback that the Vice President can first say this:

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

And conclude that:

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings.

Frankly Dick Cheney's morality is not representative of the country and therein lies the problem.

There's more...

Today in the Washington Post, Porter Goss informs us that he has remained largely silent on the public stage since leaving his post as CIA director almost three years ago, but now feels compelled to speak out because our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. In doing so, Porter Goss insults our intelligence for his purposes are rather transparent.

I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

I might inform Mr. Goss the rule of law is the bedrock of our national security. It is because of our commitment to the rule of the law that this felicitous union of the many has so endured and prospered through the ages. Nor is the left trying to secure some partisan political advantage. Should any Democrats, including the Speaker have been complicit in permitting the debasement of The Constitution and the laws that govern our conduct as a nation, then let them too face the wrath of the nation.

What secrets have we given away? We don't torture. That's not a secret unless you broke the law and tortured. In which case, you broke the law. What we can't have is a secret intelligence service that runs covert operations that are contrary to the principles of democratic governance.

There's more...