Most Ridiculous Moment?

"After the second world war, US military commissions successfully prosecuted as war criminals several Japanese soldiers who subjected US prisoners to waterboarding.

"In 1968, a US army officer was court martialled for helping to waterboard a prisoner in Vietnam."

Here's a statement from Human Rights Watch : "If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American's head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives."

Caren Bohan of Reuters asked Bush about Cheney's comment during a photo op with NATO's secretary general this morning.

"Q Sir, do you agree with the Vice President that a dunk in the water is a 'no brainer' when it comes to interrogating a terror suspect?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: This country doesn't torture, we're not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they've got information that will be helpful to protect the country."

But of course Bush has never said how he defines torture, so the answer was meaningless.

A Contradiction

---

White House Briefing reader Dave King, from Merchantville, N.J., writes to point out a big contradiction in Bush's Iraq rhetoric, just from Wednesday alone.

I noted in my column yesterday what Bush said in his press conference about winning: "Absolutely, we're winning. . . . As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done."

But as King pointed out, "Then later, from the Oval Office interview , you quote Bush as saying: 'If we can't win, I'll pull us out.'

"That struck me as an unbelievable contradiction of all logic -- 'the only way we can't win is if we leave, but if we can't win, we'll leave' -- so is he saying that if we don't stay in Iraq, we'll leave? I'm confused -- what's winning?"

Kathleen Parker , one of the conservative writers who was invited to participate in the interview, writes today: "Bush tried to clarify what 'winning' is. . . .