Compare the death tolls of Islam versus The West over the last hundred years; nobody on the Muslim side comes close to Uncle Adolf.

Let's cheat and count the (secular Ba'athist) Saddam as an Osama-style Islamofascist (even though Saddam, as did and do all the other Middle Eastern dictators we've propped up, hated and feared Osama) and thus count all the people he's killed, even those killed in the course of the Iran-Iraq War (which Reagan and Cheney and Rummy encouraged, by the way, just as they turned a blind eye when Saddam was "gassing his own people", i.e. the Iraqi Kurds).

Saddam's death toll, using the highest estimates known, those of Human Rights Watch, was 290,000 over the quarter-century he was in power -- and HRW probably grossly inflated this figure (http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/28/one-out-of-every-forty/). Meanwhile, over a million people have died in the last four years as a result of Bush's invading and occupying Iraq (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html).

I'm actually being nice here: I'm not counting the regimes of China under (the secular Communist) Mao and Stalin's (secular Communist) Soviet Union, which together may well have offed far more people than Hitler, if you go by the highest estimates. (And I'm not counting the quarter-million or so that the UN sanctions on Iraq are alleged to have killed during the 1990s and early 2000s.)

See here: http://www.wormwoodsociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=85

They're fine with his being a bigot and Holy Roller.

They're fine with his being a sleazy hypocrite liar who would free Wayne Dumond, rapist and murderer (over the repeated pleas of his victims' families), just to piss off Bill Clinton (whose young cousin was one of Dumond's victims), and then to feign innocence when Dumond killed two other women after Huckabee freed him.

What they AREN'T fine with is the idea that he might try to raise taxes, particularly on the rich, in the course of trying to help the little (white, Christian) guy.

In other words, they like what's bad about him and hate that little bit that's good about him. Par for the course for the modern hyperconservative rich man's GOP.

That's why Salon has it and they don't.

The story was there for the taking, but the Corporate GOP/Media Complex won't touch it for the same reason that they won't talk about Sibel Edmonds or the existence of peaceful anti-US resistance groups in Iraq: It's not the story their rich and conservative GOP-aligned bosses want them to tell.

Pass this story on to the rest of the media, yes -- and shame them. If they can be shamed.

Seeing that the tone of press coverage is often the deciding factor in whether something carries "political advantage", it would appear that Time magazine is pro-torture.

Of course they do. And the American people lap it up.

That's the sad facts, folks: We and Glenn here are in the minority. The constituent parts of the corporate GOP/Media Complex have had decades to reinforce their chosen themes, and they have more money and reach than we do. (This is quite deliberate: See http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/080499a2.html for the details.) We have the internet, but they have TV and radio, and most Americans get their news from TV and drive-time radio.

We all know that the mainstream corporate press will always favor Republicans anyway. That's been shown again and again and again.

For years, polls have consistently shown that American Jews oppose Bush's Iraq craziness in greater percentages than exist in the general population:

http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2006/01/american-jews-and-iraq.html