It all depends upon what you define as torture. If you mean breaking someone's kneecaps in order to get them to talk, okay, that's something we can agree isn't the way to go (though, yes, I know there are some arguments in favor of using any means necessary in certain doomsday scenarios, such as a terrorist having info on an imminent nuclear attack or something, but I'm talking more generally).
If you define torture as keeping a guy awake for 24 hours straight with constant interrogation, with only a little water and virtually no food during the interrogation, then there's a disconnect. It's disingenuous as all hell to say the Bush administration supports torture. It's that the administration may differ in opinion as to whether certain interrogation practices are really torture. That's a legitimate question. I approved of representative Hunter standing up and voicing a concern as to whether this legislation is going to ban certain proven, effective interrogation techniques as 'torture'.
It all depends on how torture is defined. That is THE problem the Administration had with the legislation. And please, for the love of god, let's be HONEST here and admit that yes, torture can actually be defined TOO BROADLY. This isn't a perfect world, and we're fighting a very ruthless enemy, so sometimes tough interrogation techniques are necessary. That doesn't mean we should be beating the shit out of prisoners, because that obviously WOULD be tortured, but if I was in the administration, and you were to come to me and try and argue that something like depriving a prisoner of sleep in an interrogation (which is something police officers do, routinely, with no serious constitutional problems), I would tell you to kindly fuck off.