....why are the Dems implicated by Cheney's dishonesty not calling Cheney a liar?....

Why did Pelosi and Obama trip over themselves racing to assure "them" that any investigation would be "off the table?"

Why, after being handed 700 billion dollars, no questions asked, did Jamie Dimon turn to us, middle finger raised, and say, "Here ya go, suckah, any more questions?"  

Why?

Obama told you why....we are now "one." The coup is complete. We'll never know how 9 billion "vanished" after leaving a C5A transport, we'll never know what obscenity our 700 billion will finance, and we'll never know who said what to whom.

All we'll know is that they ALL knew, especially Obama

He knew he couldn't get the white, working class voter, so he substituted Republicans instead.

But it's about more than the potential complicity of individual Dems in the crimes of Bush/Cheney. Congress needs to establish a means to get a full accounting of what was done and who was complicit and why if it's going to be able to reassert its power and its proper place as an equal branch. Even if Obama hands back some of that expanded Executive power as promised, it's going to be because the POTUS chooses to, not because Constitutional balance has really been restored.

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,...

That argues that Rockefeller did protest, and it also argues that he spoke with others, including the NYT. (Let's don't argue that point again, just agree to disagree.)

Remember that the NYT article was held for a year, and that the meetings were started in '03. Also note this:

....and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

So, evidently, the Democratic leadership knew about it, but cut a deal with the administration because they didn't think it illegal, especially after the changes made to satisfy the FISA judge.

That most who will read this thinks it was illegal is basically meaningless. Your great leaders protested to make you feel good while doing what you don't like. That they hurt the country by all of their protests and support of the NYT... a joint call to the NYT by the Demo and Repub leadership would have stopped publication... is an oft repeated tale.

But we've had the FISA vote in which Obama voted yes, so it isn't illegal anymore.

So it goes back to their initial involvement and their obsession with being labeled as weak on defense.

So apparently Rockefeller was on board then too.  So I'd like to know how we got from point A to point B there.

Here is a list of other people who would've known about the NSA program:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) (Jan 2003-)
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.)
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.),(Jan 2003-)
Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

I may be missing some, I got the names from this WaPo article.  I think Graham sets the lowest bar for answering the question "what happened in that meeting" (from same article):

"Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. 'Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object,' Graham said in an interview."

Even with the little we know it would be pretty easy to confirm that as pure BS.  (Just look to the next two sentences - "the California lawmaker [Pelosi] did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation...")