"New Questions About Abu Ghraib By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, June 18, 2007; 2:12 PM" So. A necessary lie from the administration? Or unforgivable neglect? Or did they simply implement exactly what they promised from the beginning? Or did they go further than advertised? How can we explain the harsh criticism of those who claimed the abuses were systematic, and sanctioned in large parts by the administration? Is it possible to suggest that, for instance, the assumed basis for the statements the administration made was not entirely accurate?