Shame on you...Shame on us...

Recently, all the talk has been of 'torture' and 'prisoner abuse' and the administration's accountability or lack thereof.
Last night I was watching Hardball on MSNBC, and they had on Laura Ingraham, that charming political commentator. She was matched with some ho-hum Democrat strategist. When, oh when are they going to book a Democrat or liberal that can match up to these vitriol-spewing Conservative commentators like Ingraham, Coulter, Hannity..etc. I mean, every show that claims balance is like watching an episode of Hannity and Colmes. The Conservative yells and accuses and the Democrat talks very low and doesnt respond to any of the accusations and sticks to the talking points. Lets go people...wake up! You are losing the war because you won't answer the baseless accusations! Ok, sorry to get off on a tangent.
Anywa, Ingraham used what has become my all time favorite topic changer/response for most conservatives out there--I call it the "Clinton and Switch"..similar to the bait and switch. Its when you dont have a response, so instead, you bring up our former President and hope that your opponent will start to defend Clinton, at which point you can bring up any number of points that have nothing to do with anything based in what we can define as 'current events'.
Exhibit #1: Ingraham...Here is the transcript (emphasis mine):
MATTHEWS: Let’s go back to the merits. Under U.S. law—under U.S. law, you can be executed for mistreatment of prisoners.
INGRAHAM: That’s—no, for torturing them.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You can be executed. This is serious business. This isn’t just P.R. and politics. On the merits here, has Gonzales done something wrong?
ROSEN: On the merits, Gonzales did his job. And the president supporting his recommendation is what was wrong. So the president is entitled to his attorney general.
But to suggest that it is OK for the White House counsel to sit around with the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department and...
INGRAHAM: They’re not sitting. They’re talking. They’re trying to figure out what the policy is post-September 11.
ROSEN: And a group of other people from the administration, but not including those who have more experience in treatment of prisoners, who have more influence in the military.
INGRAHAM: Did that happen in the Clinton administration, Hilary? Did that happen?
ROSEN: I don’t think anything like this ever happened in the Clinton administration. And you know it.
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Oh, you know why? They actually didn’t have to deal with the terrorist threat that this administration has to deal with.

Someone help me out here. I dont understand how there is any relavence WHATSOEVER with what happened in the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have any relavence even if 9/11 didn't happen. This is classic Republican/conservative tactics. I was argueing with someone over world threats and I mentioned North Korea and he said "well, Clinton didn't do anything about it". I granted the point to him, but he seemed to be saying that because Clinton didn't address it, Bush should get a pass.
To date, no one, NO ONE has been held accountable for the prisoner abuse that has happened in the name of the 'war on terror'. If you read the reports, there are atrocities in there that I can't even type. Yet, the man who drafted the policy, the man in charge of the military, and the man in charge of us all--not accountable.
I have to laugh when all these conservatives talk about 'moral values' and 'pro-life' when they will defend the abuses suffered by prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. We have a moral standing in this world to uphold, if we don't have that, what are we fighting to protect????
I don't want to live in a world where for my safety and my protection, others are tortured. I don't want to defend the policies of a country that does this! Where is the moral outrage?? Why can't people be angry at this? It doesn't mean you aren't a patriot, it doesn't mean you don't support Bush or the war. It means you have some moral compass or sense of whats right and whats wrong.
Ingraham then employed the other well known conservative tactic employed by others, such as Michael Savage...I call it the 'this is what really happened' offense:
Exhibit #2 (emphasis mine):
MATTHEWS: No, you said it was politics to oppose him. I want to talk about the merits.
INGRAHAM: Of course he should be confirmed.
MATTHEWS: OK. All right.
INGRAHAM: He’s the president’s choice.
To say that this guy is responsible for Abu Ghraib is an insult. The American people see past this. The American people do not lose sleep over whether Zubaydah is getting three culturally appropriate meals a day, OK? They’re not losing sleep over it. If there are excesses, they should be dealt with. The president has dealt with them.
And the idea that the Justice Department shouldn’t be speaking with the Office of Legal—the office of White House counsel is crazy. Ted Olson made that point. He’s exactly right.
Laura, you do yourself a disservice. You and I know both know that you are making a molehill out of a mountain. I have no respect for statements or people who make statements like that.
The second emphasized portion was just for fun...I mean, Laura, its time to up the meds if you think that the President has dealt with anything. Unless you call Lyndie England the mastermind behind the prisoner abuse scandal.
All conservatives and Republicans do themselves a disservice by not being more outraged at these actions.