Talk:William J. Luti

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)

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

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)

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, 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. Ray Talk 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)