Talk:William J. Luti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Is that all there is?

A lot of attention to this article is detailed in the "history" but we're left with just a few sentences. Luti's key role in justifying / prompting the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Feith-Luti) cries out for so much more. Although his role (and the war) may be controversial, it is possible to write a factual entry with more detail than just his billet title and where he went to school. CarlitosCorazon 00:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone has clearly sanitized this. 71.65.66.110 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm 71.65.66.110 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is properly source the controversy. Biographies of living persons are not barred from being controversal. 71.65.66.110 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservative label is just flat wrong

A little cursory research (aka top 10 hits on Google) confirms (via a liberal and highly unfriendly source, at that) that Luti is a retired naval officer who didn't move into the political arena until the late 1990s [1], when he joined the staff of House Speaker Newt Gingrich directly out of the military. He never was a liberal, even of the Scoop Jackson variety, and this means that he is not a neoconservative as the term is understood. He might have sympathies with them, but having sympathies with Africans doesn't make me an African, either. RayTalk 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]