NationStates Jolt Archive

U.N. Report on Human Rights in Iraq Draws U.S. Denunciation
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post
Thursday, April 26, 2007

April 25 -- A new human rights report by the United Nations mission in Iraq described high levels of ongoing violence, an unfair and potentially abusive detainee system and a country suffering a "breakdown in law and order." The report upset the U.S. Embassy here, which characterized it as inaccurate and not credible.

The 30-page report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, an appraisal of human rights conditions from January through March, said the Iraqi government is up against "immense security challenges in the face of growing violence and armed opposition to its authority and the rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis."

Bush is saying someone else is not credible :confused: :D :D :D

links-r-us :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502948_pf.html

Bush disagrees with people who say Iraq is a shit hole?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/TheEek.jpg

Bush disagrees with people who say Iraq is a shit hole?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/TheEek.jpg
Brilliant!

Bush is saying someone else is not credible :confused: :D :D :D

I doubt it. Credible's quite a tricky word, he probably got someone else to say it for him. ;)

Are there any specific reasons why it has been called non credable?

Ummm just maybe because it would make the USA look bad...

Are there any specific reasons why it has been called non credable?i dont know.. maybe because it spells out some of the obvious consequences of the US invasion??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_04_07_humanrights.pdf

"Two U.S. Embassy officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, convened a conference call with reporters to criticize the report. "There are numerous factual inaccuracies," one official said. The officials said they did not believe the Iraqi government was trying to withhold information but is attempting to consolidate the death toll figures into some "verifiable system."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502948_pf.html


From that, we could justifiably say that they are pissed off with -specifially - the fact that it doesnt say what they want it to. Presumably there was free hand-outs of that "Left Behind" book for everybody who listened in, delivered by an anonymous looking man in shades....

Are there any specific reasons why it has been called non credable?

Yes, it displeased Dubya, and his notion of reality involves any criticism as "non credible".

Lo and behold, Dubya was not mentioned once in that entire article.

Lo and behold, Dubya was not mentioned once in that entire article.

You don't really understand how spokespeople work, do you? They are speaking on behalf of the United States. Therefore, it's obvious that Dubya told them what the United States's opinion on it was.

Bush: Everyone's opinions except mine are wrong, even the majority of the American people are wrong, the WHOLE WORLD is wrong.... except me!

WH counts for nothing these days, it barely hold any public support whatsover, the last days of the current administration will be like the forum troll on his last warning flaming everybody they see until they finally get the ip ban.

These days especially, Bush has a real cheek to say that this report "isn't credible".

I say, good show UN! This is why I admire this organisation.

I think it's appalling the way that Bush maliciously spreads lies, casts aspersions and actively seeks to undermine the international reputations and the public trust earned by people and/or organizations far, far better than himself or his band of oppressive, criminal thugs.

I think the UN should give a Harry Reid like response, like 'I am not argueing with people that have a 9% approval rating' or something like that.

The Dubya Theorem:

Part 1) The credibility and correctness of a finding or action is inversely proportionate to George W. Bush's condemnation of the forementioned.

Part 2) The employment span of an individual is inversely proportionate to George W. Bush's wholehearted support of forementioned individual in a government post.