Our own Will gives his take on Gulf War 2 (so far)

You should have posted the whole article, some people are gonna bother to read the whole thing.


Anways, great article by Will, he is, da man.

 

So you guys honestly think that Saddam had no ties with any terror organizations?

 

No one ever said that.

The question I have is, since Mr. Assad in Syria has far more many ties to terror groups than Saddam did, why didn't we go after him?

Could it be because there is more oil in Iraq than in Syria?

Perhaps.....

We won't know the real reasons until 20 years from now.

 

Will S. is forced to accept some news reports, like the L.A. Times, and completely ignore even more credible news reports, like the UK Telegraph to make his argument work.

I don't think this article is very convincing because of its selective use of news sources.

 

If I am not mistaken he is more of an editorialist anyway, a spin doctor if you will.

DD

 

"You haven't changed the world in 19 months. You've only changed the subject."

Wow, now that is deep.

 

This whole damn war has been "spin." Look at Bill O'Reilly (ugh) and his "no-spin" zone. Lots of spin there. Sit and Spin.

As far as this "war on terrorism," well, Iraq was easiest to sell to the American public, who get their news in corporate-controlled sound bites on less-than-credible news stations.

Certainly no one can claim Iraq had no terrorists. Is there a country in the world that doesn't have them? Hell, the U.S. wrote the book on terrorism. We keep adding new chapters.

Does no one care that terrorists---from Tim McVeigh to Al Qaeda---made their attacks, however heinous, because they despised the U.S. government?

And now we just keep giving people reason to hate our government.

Afghanistan has reverted to its backward-ass status, except we now have U.S. troops to protect the Unocal pipeline we re-opened there. What have we solved there?

What did GWB do when he came into office?

"Let's drill for oil in protected Alaskan land. No? Well, we're too dependent on Saudi oil. What to do?"

"I have a great idea, Mr President," says Paul Wolfewitz. "Not only can we provoke a war in the Middle East, starting with Iraq, but we can grab you a second term by going after Syria, Iran...Look what happened to your dad. He ended that war way too soon. But war can keep you President, that much more time to press your agenda."

 

Roxtia,

Come on now, you are stretching things a mite there mate.

DD

 

Will is very confusing. He seemed generally in favor or the War against Iraq. Now he seems to be against it. Is he trying to have it both ways, like some of the Democratic politicians?
What is going on? Can he or someone else tell me?

Maybe he is someone who supported the war because of the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and he thought Iraq was a threat to the US. Perhaps now it doesn't look like that was the case to him, so he is ambivalent about the war. This could be the case. I must admit that I find it amazing that most of the country switched from wmd to lliberating Iraqis as a justification almost overnight without any trouble. Maybe he couldn't.

 

That seems to be my recollection as well. Well maybe his comments against the inspections process wasn't necessarily an admission that Iraq was really part of the war on terrorism as Bush tries to claim.

 

As I hear the story, Will went over to the Middle East, expecting to file a pro-war article, but a strange thing happened on the road to Damascus...

 

If you read the full text of the article, esp. the second to last paragraph, it still seems that he supported the war in Iraq. He just doesn't like the spin that has been attached to said war. That was my reading of it anyway.

 

ZING