So Dan is going to say that his source is the same that gave him the Abu Ghraib pics. Should we believe that? And if that isn't true, why would Dan say that? By saying it was the Abu Ghraib source, does that add credibility to the docs since AG turned out to be true?
This is very interesting. Or does Dan figure since he's going down, he might as well re-raise the subject of Abu Ghraib?
This is sooooo curious.
The proof is in the kerning!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007779.php
I, for one, have always felt the Abu Ghraib prison photos smelled like some kind of a set up (guess my tin foil hat is showing).
But why would people "pose" like that for pictures that they had to know would "get around?"