The liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year seeking records related to Cheney's FBI interview.

In a court filing Wednesday, Acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron (Pres Obama's admin) argued that parts of Cheney's interview should be kept secret because they involve confidential deliberations among White House officials. Barron said their disclosure could limit frank and open discussion about matters of national importance in the White House in the future.

He said Cheney's recollection of discussions with Libby, the White House communications director and chief of staff about media inquiries into the Plame leak were among those portions that should be protected. He also included Cheney's discussions with the CIA director about Wilson's trip and his role in resolving disputes about declassifying "certain information" in that category.

I'm sorry but any conversation relating to politics, that may have been criminal, should be given to the American people.  The White House is 'our' house.

Every thing about the "Plame leak" was POLITICAL in nature.  The leak was to STOP any harm or harsh criticism of President George W. Bush's administration, when it came to discussing Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Any discussion as to the original request to find any 'link' to Saddam with respects to gaining nuclear material can be blacked out.  That is about national security. 

Discussions however, on how to stop the resulting 'facts'  (was there yellow cake involved or not) from that report getting out should NOT be stopped in this case, because LIES were told about that report, to convince the American people into going to War.  Americans were lied to.

I realize the President is trying to protect any future conversations HIS administration might have; but he is wrong about this in my opinion. 

Political conversations that may or may not involve illegal actions or used to deceive the American people -- should NOT be protected.

A CEO does not have the right to hide the fact that the company is going bankrupt or has more money than is being reported to the Board of Directors of that company.

We the American people are the Board of Directors.  STOP THE LIES and COVERUP -- NOW!

"We're talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy."

Gates added: "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is "outed" in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.

Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.

"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

I sincerely pray that Mr Gates and President Obama mean what they say about finding a more humane way to handle things UNTIL the DADT rule is abolished.  Otherwise, the only way to be more humane is with a rule that -- if caught in the ACT of having sex while ON DUTY/IN THE FIELD you are immediately RELIEVED of your duties....PERIOD.  That should go for ANY kind of sex (homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual).

Saying you are one way or another sexually, or even being accused of having a certain orientation is NOT reason enough to discharge or fire somebody.  Unless that person is HARMING or infringing on the rights of another human being -- there should be NO rules on what TYPE of sex you like or WHO you love or date.  If you are off duty, off the field, out of the office, etc... what the HELL does it matter what you do and with whom.

PERIOD!!

This is pathetic and should END right now.  Soldiers of all sexual orientation and all sexes are either dying or suffering from injuries while at war and here we are, COMMON ordinary citizens arguing over what 'we think' is best for those same soldier's SOCIAL LIVES???? 

I need to be educated a bit over the situation i Honduras and the one in Iran. 

President Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, who was ousted in a military-led coup this past week is being supported by President Obama.  The U.S. is supporting 'his' protesters and against the citizens that removed him from office, saying that Zelaya must be reinstated as the Democratly elected leader; but in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was also Democratically elected (even though we all know the election was rigged) but the U.S. is standing with the protesters against Ahmadinejad's regime saying that the citizens wishes must be heard.

In one country we feel the right to intervine but in the other we don't?

Can somebody tell me what is the difference between the two nations events and why we feel we can step in on one but not the other?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anybody - just asking for information.