Interrogations vs Interviews

Interrogations vs Interviews.

By Gerald: Internet Anthropologist Think Tan

Chris Matrhis on MSNBC  was running his

usual semantic spin on his program a few days

ago.

His carefully crafted spin was playing with 

the word "abuses".

He was using the word "abuses" as a synonym

for the word "torture".

And while torture is an abuse, not all abuses

are torture.

It is an expectation during an Interrogation that

there will be abuses.

Even the police will abuse perps during 

interrogations, yell at them, get angry,

lie to them.

Chris was able to spin the CIA Interrogation 

methods by using the word "abuses"

instead of the word "torture".

There is abuses during Interrogations

but they shouldn't reach the level of torture.

But the CIA was trying to work leads

related to WMD.

Both George Bush and the CIA

had the obligation to protect USA

against a Nuke, and had Intel

about a Nuke strike in CONUS.

The NUKE attack Bush has already been through> link.

On 911 George was told the WTC was hit twice, and the Pentagon but he was told something else too.
That USA had intel there was a NUKE in New York city.

George didn't come back to DC they flew him to a nuke shelter, someplace he could run the government from.

If the USA is under threat of a Nuclear attack

how far do you want the CIA to go to protect

Americans.

Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: Exclusive:Al Qaeda after nukes ...

The CIA isn't conducting Interviews, these

are Interrogations

Gerald

.

More:

After the September 11 attacks, the CIA faced the daunting prospect of al-Qaeda seeking a nuclear bomb and collaborating with Pakistani nuclear scientists in an effort to build one. A mood of grim determination gripped the U.S. intelligence establishment, a sentiment highlighted by CIA Director George Tenet when he stated that "We are behind the eight ball" in tracking al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain WMDs.

.