I'm going to take a guess and say you'd be very skeptical of the contents. Maybe you'd go so far as to say everything about the document was a lie perpetrated by the Republican party and other supporters of "advanced interrogation techniques".
This is just a prime example of confirmation bias [0]. If a report comes out saying torture has worked, you dismiss it. If a report comes out saying the opposite, you hail it as the only evidence that even matters (obviously I'm exaggerating a bit to make my point, but I'm sure you get the idea).
A very strongly-sided report just became declassified with little insight into any biases that its writers may have. I highly doubt anyone in the government lacks the integrity to put out a completely fake report of this caliber, but everyone should be looking at this with at least a little cynicism.
Obama may have issued an executive order when he entered office, but attempting to block/redact/delay this report betrays his true loyalties.
It isn't an extremist position that torture is wrong, or that the people who support/cover up torture are in the wrong. If anything, it is an extremist position that torture is a valid tactic.
>"Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture."
>"The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out...I assume that the White House supports torture..."
Politics is a dirty, complex game. If you treat every news event as black and white like this, you will form many extremist positions very quickly. Obama, for example, banned torture via executive order when he took office. Did you cry that he was "against torture" when that came out?