Wow, that's an amusing mistake by the State Dept, accidentally emailing the AP their talking points ahead of the report's declassification. While it may be a little egg on their face, the proposed messaging is hardly much of an incitement against the CIA. The last three pages of questions, though, are actually pretty interesting, and what I wouldn't give for frank, honest and informed answers to them, but sadly I can already envision carefully worded non-answers to all of them:

Doesn’t the report make clear that at least some who authorized or participated in the RDI program committed crimes? Will the Justice Department revisit its decision not to prosecute anyone? Until now the USG has avoided conceding that the techniques used in the RDI program constituted torture. Now that the report is released is the White House prepared to concede that people were tortured – or will this be like the non-coup in Egypt where you won’t admit the obvious? . . .

In light of the findings in the report, has the United States complied with its obligations under international and domestic law regarding issues such as culpability, accountability, redress, and remedy? What standing does the U.S. have to criticize or judge other countries’ human rights practices when it itself sanctions torture and other violations of basic human rights in the name of national security? . . .

How will you ensure that such activities are never again undertaken in the name of national security?

From the PDF of State Dept proposed messaging

I agree with you, there does seem to be some jockeying and maneuvering between arms of the USG. You say you don't think Brennan should survive this, and I agree with you, but there is hesitation among the involved senators to go that far:

[Feinstein] stopped short of calling for Brennan’s resignation, and said she expected a prompt declassification of Buckley’s findings.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the panel and one of the agency’s harsher critics, said the CIA inspector general had vindicated the committee but stopped short of calling for Brennan’s resignation.

Udall seemed to have the harshest reaction, which, all things considered is still rather mild I think, saying:

“From the unprecedented hacking of congressional staff computers and continued leaks undermining the Senate intelligence committee’s investigation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program to his abject failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the agency, I have lost confidence in John Brennan,”

Three prominent Democrats are quoted in the article, and yet not a peep from any of the Republicans on the committee. I can only assume that absent outside pressures, the Republican party as an institution, is more than happy to protect Bush's legacy vis-à-vis George Tenent's CIA, by not making a ruckus here. While they're busy vilifying Obama, they certainly don't want their base seeing a vivid recounting of Bush's tactics. Ultimately, it sounds like Obama is in the best position to do something here. Although, given what his spokesman has said about the matter so far, giving a nod to a Bayh-led investigation (as suggested by Brennan himself, no less!), it doesn't look like there will be much pressure on Brennan.

I guess ultimately, it will come down to what comes out about the issue, and what the public's reaction to it is. It's a little frustrating because despite how many stories and much research I've done into this debacle, I still don't feel like I have a good grasp of what happened, or is happening. This is my understanding, maybe someone with more insight and information can correct me if I'm wrong:

1. After 9/11, the CIA engaged in shady/immoral/illegal behavior, which involved the rendition and torture of people related to terrorism. The full extent was not made public at the time, and I'm still unclear on exactly what behaviors/policies/actions are really at the heart of the issue. Already, I'm aware of many tactics they've admitted to using (water-boarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc.) but I have to wonder what is it that goes further than that, which they're intent on keeping concealed.

2. (This seems to be a new development) Parts of the State Department were kept in the dark about retention/detention/interrogation (RDI) program at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell. If I recall, Powell was used like a tool by the Bush Administration, so I guess I'm not really that surprised by this revelation. I find the idea of the CIA subverting the chain of command within the State Department to be a little more disturbing, where they told Ambassadors to not report to their superiors. I guess in a weird-way, the CIA demands ultimate loyalty from all members of the USG, or at least the executive branch? I'm curious what exactly the details are behind this.

3. Fast forward several years and now the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) is attempting oversight on the CIA RDI program. After being stonewalled by the CIA, they eventually gave the SSCI staff access to an enormous repository of documents of all sorts related to the RDI program, which was unorganized and unsearchable, through a special secure network at a CIA facility, called RDInet. At some point in their investigation, after encountering and setting aside particular documents, they found those documents to be missing, which was in violation of a prior agreement between the SSCI and the CIA. All of this oversight investigation was prompted by the discovery that the CIA had destroyed video evidence of RDI procedures.

4. Later they found a draft document called the "Internal Panetta Review" which was particularly incriminating. The CIA accused the SSCI of illegal behavior in accessing it, but Feinstein said it was provided to them by the CIA through the RDInet, and also later erased from the RDInet. Supposedly the Internal Panetta Review came to many similar conclusions that SSCI did, and that the CIA, now, is ostensibly and publicly denying.

When the CIA admits to spying on the SSCI, are they talking about monitoring what documents they were accessing on the RDInet, in addition to removing some of them, or were they spying on the SSCI staffer's actions outside of the RDInet, as some of the quotes make it sound like? It would be nice to have a clear accounting and investigation into what is going on. I thought this one particular quote was of interest from the article:

Brennan’s apology also complicates a developing CIA pushback against a report that agency officials, current and former, consider shoddy. George Tenet, the former director whom Brennan served and who oversaw the brutal practices – where suspected terrorists were subjected to simulated drowning, had guns fired by their heads, were kept in undisclosed prisons for years and were sent to countries like Gadhafi’s Libya and Assad’s Syria for even more abusive treatment – is said to be developing a public strategy to attack the committee once the report is released.

I can't help but wonder how he's planning to attack the committee.

I don't think I grasp your simile; what is the argument about an innocent schoolyard kid with limited power to harm? Are you just implying that congress has an apparently limited ability to affect USG Intelligence operations through oversight, or are you saying something more than that? Do you think the executive branch/intelligence community should be actively surveilling the legislative branch? I'm not understanding what you're saying here.