Why are they ALL saying it was PUBLIC in January?!!!

[Th1onein]

Why? This abuse was not public in January. This is a lie. Rumsfield did not brief Congress about this until the day that the 60 minutes report was going to come out.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. public before january

try this du post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1548467

[stopbush]

2. It's their usual "old news, nothing to see here,"

"we expected this...we're working on this" shit.

[damnraddem]

3. It WAS public earlier -- and they tried to hide it.

But that's just part of their act: first deny it, then when they must admit it happened, claim that it's old news.

[VolcanoJen]

4. The only part that became "public" in January...

... was that the DoD admitted an investigation was underway.

That is all, that is it. No details, nada. We have to be sure we make this clear.

[waywest]

9. So, could the coverup be blamed on ...

That %&^** "liberal media"?
Faux, CNN, and MSRNC all were "notified" in January?
What were they waiting f..... oh, yeah.

[VolcanoJen]

10. The news story was indeed covered by the press... but...

The "story" was about the "investigation," not the crimes themselves.

It's the crimes, the photos that have us all outraged. No details were eluded to when the DoD admitted an investigation was underway.

[spotbird]

5. Like all great lies there is a shred of truth in it.

A vague report that sounded like there was a single incident without the release of the photographs proves there was no cover-up. Naturally it was nonsense, but so are all the lies they spew that are accepted as truth.

The sorry part is that the brainless have already accepted it hook line and sinker.

[kentuck]

6. A picture is worth a thousand words....

and the photos were not made public in January. They knew how much impact the photos would have??

[librechik]

7. I guess the liberal media failed to jump on that tiny paragraph at the end

of a routine report, probably muttered under the breath of some general who knew nothing anyway.

Nevertheless, BUSH WAS TOLD!! if he didn't notice it's just another example of his clueless incompetence.

[troublemaker]

8. Because it WAS public in January

I knew about it, and I have no access to classified information, so it was obviously public. All this shit is public, if people will only seek it out and read it.

For instance, everything Richard Clarke said this year was published in 2002, but Bush was really popular then and nobody cared. Bush is less popular today so it became a story 2 years after the fact.