Well that ought to do it, thanks very much Dub

According to the Washington Post:

"Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said emphatically. "And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans.

"Anything we do . . . to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law," he said. "We do not torture."

Great. Yet, also according to the Washington Post (via firedoglake):

In recent months, Cheney has been the force against adding safeguards to the Defense Department's rules on treatment of military prisoners, putting him at odds with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England. On a trip to Canada last month, Rice interrupted a packed itinerary to hold a secure video-teleconference with Cheney on detainee policy to make sure no decisions were made without her input.

Just last week, Cheney showed up at a Republican senatorial luncheon to lobby lawmakers for a CIA exemption to an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The exemption would cover the CIA's covert "black sites" in several Eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.

At this point, though, the question becomes how long can Cheney sustain the support to keep this hidden. He is losing support within the Administration by the day, as his influence over the President wanes in the wake of scandal after scandal emerging from the VPs office. And as other members of the Administration gain their footing and turn around the stab him in the back to advance their own agendas, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

At the same time Rice has emerged as an advocate for changing the rules to "get out of the detainee mess," said one senior U.S. official familiar with discussions. Her top advisers, along with their Pentagon counterparts, are working on a package of proposals designed to address all controversial detainee issues at once, instead of dealing with them on a piecemeal basis.

Who will ultimately win on this issue? Not sure yet. But it would be unwise to bet against John McCain and Condi Rice -- especially when both of them may have their sights set on a run for the White House in 2008. Never bet against personal ambition in D.C., I always say.

ETA: Mark Evanier has some thoughts on this too (slightly edited to remove points referenced above):

Here are some snippets from various news stories I've read this morning. See if you can find a logical connect...

"Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture."
"George W. Bush's administration ordered an internal inquiry into how classified data was leaked to The Washington Post and Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group."
"The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's handling of military tribunals for foreign terror suspects."
"Bush has urged swift confirmation of his nominee Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court."
"In his lower court decisions, Alito has generally been deferential to government."

So let me see if I have this straight: We have to find out whoever it was who revealed that we do torture, but of course we don't torture but we still oppose legislation that says we can't torture...

ETA, again: Or, as Shakespeare's Sister put it about Bush's blessed assurance:

And his administration has been nothing but honest, so I’m sure if he says it, it’s true.