The WashTimes editorial board knocked one out of the park today by unearthing the real reason behind Amnesty International’s blatant lies about GITMO. They lied to gain fame and fortune, and they did not care who it put at risk (our people in harms way in Muslim countries) or hurt (many Muslims who may take up arms and waste their life’s blood attacking us). This revelation comes from the lips of Amnesty themselves, and the obvious response from the moonbats:

But Amnesty authorities won’t[,] and to understand why consider this exchange from the interview. Mr. Schulz said: “Chris, I don’t think I’d be on this station, on this program today with you if Amnesty hadn’t said what it said and President Bush and his colleagues haven’t [sic] responded as they did. If I had come to you two weeks ago and said, ‘Chris, I’d like to go on Fox with you to talk about U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo and elsewhere,’ I suspect you wouldn’t have given me an invitation.” To which Mr. Wallace, no dummy journalist, responded, “So you’re saying if you make irresponsible charges, that’s good for your cause?”

Mr. Schulz deflected the question, but the answer he was looking for is yes. According to The Washington Post, in the past week “traffic on Amnesty’s Web site has gone up sixfold, donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled.” In the world of Bush-bashing activism, unsubstantiated charges directed at the U.S. government — preferably the military — is good for business.

Putting American lives at risk overseas is good business? When did this ugly new form of corporate greed become in vogue?

UPDATE:

Powerline discusses this topic