It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is

Only one reporter has had the opportunity and the presence of mind to ask President Bush, directly, if he thinks water-boarding is torture: Bill O'Reilly. Sullivan analyzed the transcript, also available from FOX news here. Let's just focus on this part:

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

So much for the "no-spin zone." Not only did Bush not answer the first question, he did not answer the second one either. The implicit answer is: "Trust me." (And I thought that in the US, it was conservatives who did not trust the Government, and did not want to give it unfettered powers.)

Bush's excuse for not answering question No. 1 does not make sense either: it's not like the question was, "tell me what techniques you are using to interrogate suspects". It was about a very specific method. Any terrorist watching will have to conclude that yes, waterboarding is indeed used, and might consider "training" for it. (It appears that such training is, actuallly, impossible to do, since the method relies on triggering basic reflexes and a sensation of drowning.)

So what is the reason for not answering the question, other than the political embarrasment that a straight answer might cause?

The only one I can think of is that perhaps it's all a very clever plan to get terrorists to train for waterboarding, and then use some different technique on them when they are captured, thus wasting the terrorists time! Still, other governments do use waterboarding, and some are the receiving end of "extraordinary rendition" by the US. So it seems that a terrorist would be well-advised to "train" for waterboarding anyway, just in case (again, if such a thing were possible). Thus, I see no strategic advantage in either case.

Back to the question: is waterboarding considered torture, or not? Memos from the Bush White House and Justice Department would seem to indicate that it does not fall under their rather narrow definition of torture, since it does not cause permanent organ damage or failure. This lets Bush say that "we are within the law" and "we do not torture:" the law he signed got to re-define what torture is.

Leaving aside the morality of such practices, there are many doubts about their practicality: it is not clear that good intelligence is obtained in this way. The victim will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear. (One example of this: the main source for Saddam's supposed al-Qaeda links was tortured in Saudi Araba, and apparently made it all up.)