There's always a "but -"

We don't torture, BUT -

an amendment to the latest Defense Appropriations bill will allow use of evidence obtained through torture:

The amendment, introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and Jon Kyl, would severely curtail federal court review of detainees' cases, allow military tribunals to rely on evidence gained from torture, and undermine vital ongoing attorney-client relations for Guantanamo detainees.

But the Preznit says we don't torture. And we certainly don't send people to countries where they're likely to be tortured, as Condoleeza Rice told us. So where would the "evidence gained from torture" come from in the first place?

Would it be too difficult for these idiots to come up with arguements that are, well, consistent? Or do blatant Louisville-Slugger-to-the-head lapses of logic like that just not occur to BushCo or their apologists?