rawstory.com— According to a leading Neocon, a few "sick" soldiers committed abominations and torture at Abu Ghraib without any orders from military commanders. Check out the video of this lying apologist neocon.
Aug 31, 2007View in Crawl 4
Typical conservative tactic. Even though there's a mountain of evidence showing that the guilt in the Abu Ghraib case stretches all the way back to the White House, lie about it until you're blue in the face. Maybe the idiots who believed you all along will still believe you.
No, your posts are in fact unrelated to the question at hand. There is zero relationship between the "scandal" this submitted article is about and the legitimate work the CIA was doing. They are different events under completely different situations. There is a difference between legitimate interrogation's and meaningless abuse carried out by immature grunts.The CIA agent described in the New Yorker articles was a trained profession doing a necessary job and doing so well within the bounds of the Geneva convention. You are looking at apples hot dogs and somehow coming to the conclusion that they grew on the same tree.
bshockSep 1, 2007
Typical conservative tactic. Even though there's a mountain of evidence showing that the guilt in the Abu Ghraib case stretches all the way back to the White House, lie about it until you're blue in the face. Maybe the idiots who believed you all along will still believe you.
elcaminosSep 2, 2007
What does the matrix have to do with any of this?
whiteravenSep 2, 2007
Where is your evidence of this, pintomp3?
flower2112Sep 2, 2007
My posts for this story stand for themselves. Refute at your leisure.
whiteravenSep 2, 2007
No, your posts are in fact unrelated to the question at hand. There is zero relationship between the "scandal" this submitted article is about and the legitimate work the CIA was doing. They are different events under completely different situations. There is a difference between legitimate interrogation's and meaningless abuse carried out by immature grunts.The CIA agent described in the New Yorker articles was a trained profession doing a necessary job and doing so well within the bounds of the Geneva convention. You are looking at apples hot dogs and somehow coming to the conclusion that they grew on the same tree.
mikehosekSep 3, 2007
Can you prove that the orders didn't come from the top?
rcook18Sep 4, 2007
Mathews' statement acknowledges that Gaffney is a lying sack of s**t.