Jed Babbin has a good gloss on it today in the New York Post , pointing out that it rebuts the notion that Gonzales and Rumsfeld in any sense approved or created the environment for the abuses:

The Church report proves those assertions wrong. It says, “We found, without exception, that the DoD and senior military commanders responsible for the formulation of interrogation policy evidenced the intent to treat detainees humanely, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that such officials or commanders ever accepted that detainee abuse would be permissible . . . [and] it is clear that none of the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater.”
But what about Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay? Weren’t the interrogators just turned loose? In fact, no. Church wrote, “We found no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse.”
Church found that most of the abuse cases didn’t even come out of interrogations. “Of the 70 cases of . . . substantiated abuse, only 20 of these cases, or less than one-third, could be considered ‘interrogation-related.’ ” The rest occurred in situations such as at the “point of capture” — where soldiers who’ve captured people they believed had caused the deaths or wounding of their pals got emotionally carried away.

More:

As the Church report shows, the terrorists are trained in our interrogation methods and how to resist them. When we use more aggressive techniques — as we did in the case of two “high-value” detainees at Guantanamo who resisted standard interrogation for months — the new techniques “successfully neutralized the two detainees’ resistance training and yielded valuable intelligence.”
Church said in a conference call Wednesday that our interrogators are now “clamped up” — declining to push interrogations as hard as they legally and morally can and should for fear of the next investigation that will come along.