(1) the alleged complicity of Donald Rumsfeld & other Bush administration officials in “torture” has been hashed over *endlessly* for *years* now, and the Senate report adds nothing of any interest to that discussion.

(2) Rumsfeld is long gone anyway, and the Bush administration is soon going.

(3) One has to be a religious fanatic (of one sort or another) to lose any sleep over Mohamed al-Kahtani getting water-boarded.

But, be all that as it may, the Blago-bama-rahma scandal is another matter entirely.

It might be interesting to see you discuss that scandal on its own…merits…so to speak.

The reason nobody wants to talk about that report is simple.

It was a formality that confirmed what everyone already knew.

The entire country, with certain exceptions, knew EXACTLY what BushCo was doing, and condoned it from the beginning. Nobody is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to find out that the government has been torturing Muslims. A blind eye was turned, in the media, in the public, in the government, everywhere. Even those Americans who opposed it did nothing but complain. There were no marches, no organization. Nobody took to the streets. A few people wrote books about it.

There was a silent contract with the president: do what you have to, and even if it makes us sick to our stomachs, we’ll let it go as long as there is not another 9/11.

Blago did not have the benefit of such an unwritten agreement.

What I am addressing here, as you seem intent on ignoring, is that there is something bizarre and disproportionate in the attention paid to *Obama’s* apparently tenuous connection to Blagojevich’s crimes when compared to the relative lack of attention being paid to a Congressional report that directly implicates high officials in serious crimes. They’re all serious offenses, but I hope we don’t have to dispute that abusing prisoners and torture are more serious matters than shakedowns and corrupt Illinois pols. They are all certainly more serious than some vague lack of transparency on the part of someone who is, as far as we know, not involved in any wrongdoing. The title may not have expressed all this as well as it could have, but the point stands.

Does the phrase “fallacy of the false alternative” mean anything to you?

You mean Liberal media right? Anything not FOX or Rush is liberal, mainstream media or MSM are just euphamisms. How come when the media is focusing (obsessing) on a dem scandal they are mainstream but otherwise they’re liberal? Doublethink? I doubt Rush will be describibg this as liberal media attacking one of their own. Were they liberal during the Clinton impeachment?

Truthfully, I don’t believe most people are that fascinated with Blago. It’s the press with nothing else to occupy their minds who can’t seem to talk about anything else. Largely because, and just like the many of the Democratic legislators of both houses, they have their own past to get past. Few people want to turn over too many torture rocks because for many their name might by under one of them. Or a lot of them. In the case of the press, it is because for the most part they didn’t perform their job. For the congress, it’s because they went along at best and actively approved at worst.