Talk about Abu Ghraib, and many conservatives trot out that it was worse under Saddam.
Ain't that grand. If one is happy being just a hair better than Saddam. We don't know how much better, because of the way he was demonized for years.
We DO know that he wasn't responsible for WTC, and that we attacked him instead of "fighting the war on terrorism".
How the mighty have fallen. We aren't as bad as Iraq.
(And by the way, the poster is so full of manure it's unbelievable. He makes stuff up constantly.)
And the same people pick on a person who served their country in war while supporting a deserter.
Go figure. Deserting is better than serving, and we're better than Saddam.
Pah-thetic thinking, pathetic expectations.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to If you knew what the new Iraqi government was doing to Al Qaeda prisoners, you would think that the USA's treatment was mild by comparison.
Some of us remember a country one didn't have to compart with Iraq, leaders we didn't have to compare with Saddam.
The whole thread (15 posts)
- "Sadism" at Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld held "indirectly" responsible.
- If you knew what the new Iraqi government was doing to Al Qaeda prisoners, you would think that the USA's treatment was mild by comparison.
- That's what the US has come to under Bush, folks. "Sadism".
