"...top Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on some of the harshest tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little, or perhaps nothing, to stop them."

Feel free to out these people. Jane Harman is one. She is my representative in congress who traditionally votes with the Republicans and goes with the flow when it comes to torture, war, corporate rule of government etc... She refers to herself as "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." Her and her husband are worth 3 billion dollars. She goes uncontested almost every year for her seat in congress. She uses her congressional influence to lobby on behalf of the military industrial complex in our district (of which she and her husband have a conflict on interest in their government contracts) and does little for the people of the district.

"Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy." ~ wikipedia.

Basically, she covered her ass with this letter, claimed it was classified, yet leaked its existence when it became politically expedient. That is like stating: 'I am a witness to constitutional crimes in government, but I can't blow the whistle because of my security clearance.'

If anyone wants to run against her, I'll work for you.

...masks the real set up. He/they had obviously made a deal with one or two reporters pre-interview to call on them in exchange for a softball question. The last question "what message are your trying to convey?" is about as stupid a question a reporter could ever ask, thus Perry's desire to step in and so forcefully make sure that particular reporter got the final question.

Some would think that the party has nothing to loose and everything to gain by allowing the quisling Lieberman remain in the Democratic caucus and retain his chairmanships, I can offer a difference of opinion.

You are going under the assumption that there is, and will always be, just one Joe Lieberman in the Senate. Now that all Senators, and incoming Senators know that party loyalty is a bartering chip you've just made your job forming a consensus harder. Anyone is now welcome to stray off the range and decide to challenge leadership to get what they want. Seeing that there is no penalty for disloyalty, why would any Senator out of the 60 not try to position him/herself as the swing. You no longer have a caucus, you have 58 Democrats who can/will all perceive themselves as the swing vote on any initiative.

You've sent a very poor message to your constituents. They want justice. They don't trust this man. They don't want the Senate to trust him with an important chairmanship. Justice, although not a political move, has its place. This is rightfully being perceived as weak and old boy network. I'd say this move just cost a lot of people a lot of political capital with their constituents.

You've left a dangerous man in charge. He's the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and on the Armed Services committee. He's a neo-con. You now have a neo-con setting the agenda for homeland security, and have to convince the neo-con to vote with you on issues of armed services. He has a lot of power in these positions. He is not, nor has he ever been in anyone's pocket. His status is exactly the same as it was last year. He is under no threat, that he wasn't under last year.

If this Senator, would change all his votes to Republican, after voting with the Democrats on 90% of issues, out of spite, I'd have to ask: "what is the point of him being in the Senate?" You should be able to strip him of all his power, kick him out of your caucus, and he should still vote the same way. His excuse all along is that he had to stray because he was voting his conscience.

If there is a quorum of 60 in the Senate, and Lieberman is the swing, how are you not enabling this neo-con to control the entire Senate?

Lastly, horse trading, going along with the administration without debate, back room dealing, lack of accountability, "bridges to no where," are just a few of the broken ways in which our government works. This was supposed to be a season of change. Looks like the same old same old to me. This sticks to Barak Obama.

@Emaan Singh

Although I admire the attempt to "danger" up the government experience with a prison yard metaphor, come on, we are after all talking about the likes of Lieberman and Reid.