They are not "my" citations...they are plainly attributed to a sourcewatch.org page.
The last part of "Ari's" answer on the white house linked page that you use as an "example", is the reason that sourcewatch cited that page.....
Quote:
|
Q Ari, the British government is <b>putting out a list</b> of human rights violations by the government of Saddam Hussein. Amnesty International is saying that this has been known for a long time and Britain has looked the other way, probably the U.S. also. Now they're coming up with this argument and, according to Amnesty this is a way of preparing for war.
|
Quote:
|
......and there's no dispute by Amnesty International about the accuracy of the document -- the facts on the ground in Iraq.
|
...it seems that Ari Fleischer was telling the press that Amnesty International was not disputing "the accuracy" of the British government "list". That was a "sign", that the administration position was not, as Cheney described it on May 30, 2005:
Quote:
KING: Amnesty International condemns the United States. How do you react?
D. CHENEY: I don't take them seriously?
KING: Not at all?
D. CHENEY: No. I -- frankly, I was offended by it........
........For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.
|
Ari Fleischer was taking Amnesty International "seriously" enough to use that organization's lack of criticism of the details of the British "list", to support his argument. <b>It showed, that unlike Cheney in May, 2005, Fleischer, speaking in Dec., 2002, took Amnesty International seriously enough to infer that their lack of criticism of the British "list", somehow legitimized it!</b>
Ustwo, if you had looked at the sourcewatch.org citations more thoroughly, you might not have been so quick to dismiss the point. The hypocrisy and shortsightedness of the Bush administration knows no limits:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060401344.html
<b>An Administration's Amnesty Amnesia</b>
By Dana Milbank
Sunday, June 5, 2005; Page A04
The folks at Amnesty International are practically begging for a one-way ticket to Gitmo. After the human rights group issued a report late last month calling the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our times," <b>top officials raced to condemn Amnesty.</b>
President Bush: "It's absurd. It's an absurd allegation."
Vice President Cheney: "I don't take them seriously. . . . Frankly, I was offended by it."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: "Reprehensible . . . cannot be excused."
Funny -- these officials had a different view of Amnesty when it was criticizing other countries.
<b>Rumsfeld repeatedly cited Amnesty when he was making the case against Saddam Hussein, urging "a careful reading of Amnesty International" and saying that according to "Amnesty International's description of what they know has gone on, it's not a happy picture."
The White House often cited Amnesty to make the case for war in Iraq, using the group's allegations that Iraq executed dozens of women accused of prostitution, decapitated victims and displayed their heads, tortured political opponents and raped detainees' relatives, gouged out eyes, and used electric shocks.</b>
Regarding Fidel Castro's Cuba, meanwhile, the White House joined Amnesty and other groups in condemning Castro's "callous disregard for due process."
And the State Department's most recent annual report on worldwide human rights abuses cites Amnesty's findings dozens of times.
"<b>This administration eagerly cites Amnesty International research</b> when we criticize Cuba and extensively quoted our criticism of the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the war," protested William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.....
|
Uhhh....Ustwo....when your "game" is pre-emptive war...isn't it necessary to demonize the nation or regime that you next intend to "take out"? Isn't the mid 2005 simplistic and empty reaction to crticism by Amnesty International,
by Cheney, et al, akin to sawing off the branch of the tree that you are standing on?
For an U.S. administration that enthusiastically "used" Amnesty International "reports" to justify the waging of it's new policy of "aggressive war", shouldn't
Amnesty International's Guantanamo Gulag report almost automatically be accepted by the U.S. administration, as "truth"? They waged aggressive war against others, signifigantly "justified" by Amnesty reports that suited their purpose. Read the feeble, factless reactions by these folks in the last quote box, compare them to all of the sourcewatch.org citations....then post a convincing argument that our "leaders" are honest, forthright, reputable men who cannot reasonably be accused of war crimes!