What held up last month's intel reform?

The answer begins with the letter "t" and rhymes with "plorture".

Remember when the intelligence reform legislation was stymied in Congress despite overwhelming support last month? Turns out the bill included strengthened restrictions on interrogation techniques (torture) and the White House lobbied to cut those restrictions from the bill -- effectively killing that version of the bill even though it passed the Senate 96-2. The New York Times:

But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill after the White House expressed opposition.

The White House opposition came from our next Secretary of State:

In a letter to members of Congress, sent in October and made available by the White House on Wednesday in response to inquiries, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds that it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy."

Now it makes sense. At the time, we figured maybe it was Rumsfeld, who didn't want to cede power to a Director of National Intelligence. As it turns out, the White House wanted to continue to torture people so -- BOOM! -- the bill went back for revisions while we all stared, confused at The Stay-Puft Denny Hastert and wondered, "Whattup?"

But who cares. Pitt and Aniston broke up!