George Will this Morning on Face the Nation

[Lefty_the_Right]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but..
.


Did anyone else catch his definition of "unilateral"?

He was saying that shrub wasn't acting unilaterally in Iraq, because he asked first!

The first thing that came to my mind is that, by that definition, a rapist isn't raping someone if they asked the victim if it was OK first.

Anyone else see it that way?

[Deja Q]

1. Asking or intimidating?

Add to the buckets of lies he's been throwing out and it's sick that any American believes and forgives this cretin*.

[Deesh]

2. I agree with you...

It's the sort of thing we've come to expect from George Will. Kurt Vonnegut referred to him once as "that 'A' student, George Will."

What the 'A' stands for is a matter of perspective. My vote for what it stands for would be bleeped out of Face the Nation.

John Kerry said that Bush's actions were "blusteringly unilateral." On this issue, I think Will is wrong and Kerry's right.

[mmm]

3. I used to not find George Will so repulsive

now I can't stand watching him.
He spouts his smarmy BS in the most pompous way possible.
Not a treat.

[maggrwaggr]

6. Isn't he one of those "elites" we've been told to hate?

he sure acts like one.

I've despised that man for years.

He's a disgrace as a man, and as a human being.

[liberalhistorian]

11. He is, and always has been,

a pompous, egotistical, smug, self-righteous sickeningly patronizing repuke prick, and I don't even bother with him anymore. Unfortunately, too many others pay attention to him.

[pretzel4gore]

12. mygod man! He's waging war against your country!

can't anyone at least spread the word? like all bullies, the mediawhores like geewill are easily intimidated just by a few hard looks in gee's direction...

[Devlzown]

4. Bush went to the UN and said,

"We want to invade Iraq, want to join in?" They said no and he said, "Fuck y'all, we're gonna do it anyway." If George Will wants to claim that irrelevant coalition of the willing made the war a multilateral action, I guess that's his prerogative. But that little charade they pulled at the UN did not in any way give this war any legitimacy.

[Dimsdale]

5. Will is on the same team with...

Mona Charen, Chuckie (Upchuck) Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, all of whom have been marketed nationwide and appear regularly in major print media. Krauthammer is listed as one of the clients of Benador Associates, one of the PR firms retained to promote the Iraq War Part II. Benador is mentioned in "Weapons of Mass Deception" by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. These idiots are marketed like the latest SUV.

Whose buying? Not me.

[karlschneider]

7. George Will

do anything for a buck.
:grr:
The oldest profession.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

8. I always thought unilateral

meant going it alone. There were over 50 countries in the Coalition. That's not unilateral. Britain was always with us. We certainly led the charge, but when the fighting started, it was a multilateral effort. Whether that in and of itself legitimizes the war is another issue.

[Dimsdale]

9. 50 Countries?

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? How many of the alleged 50 were bought? Poland, Bulgaria to name two. If Canada couldn't support this war, that should be a red flag right there. It's reasonable to consider Canada our closest ally. If they didn't go for Chimpy's war, that should tell you something.

[jburton]

10. i see what you mean, but...

Technically it was multilateral, but %90+ is US forces, and we're paying the bill, too.

Plus, one of BushCo's whole arguments was that we have MORE countries WITH US than we did in Gulf War I.

Well, yeah, but Gulf I was paid for almost entirely by Mid-East countries.

And, look at the countries we have now in our "Coalition", such as Eritrea and a bunch of other powerhouses. It's a sham coalition.

[ma4t]

14. "technically multilateral" and multilateral in actual fact

The Iraqi war is not jut "technicaly" multilateral. It is truly multilateral. The U.K. and Poland, to name two, are involved in more than a token effort and are paying their own way there.

There are plenty of reasons to object to the Iraqi war but objecting on the basis of unilateralism makes one seem stupid since the U.S. is clearly not acting in a unilateral manner. Besides, did anyone object to our invasion of Haiti because it was unilateral (and totally without any kind of U.N. sanction)?

Why do so many Americans discount many Democrat's arguments against this war? Is it really because they are all stupid or does it have something to do with Democrats making invalid, inconsistent arguments rather than those that would make sense?

[Poiuyt]

13. I know I felt safer

knowing that we were shoulder to shoulder with the Marshall Islands

[PSR40004]

15. Is this a winning topic?

Do you think this is a winning topic with anyone but a hard line DU'er? I mean most people don't seem to care a great deal about the UN and then you got all those other countries in the area helping us (remmeber the Italians, Bulgarians, Polish, British, amongst others). And then you got alot of time spent in the UN trying to get another resolution before the war. Truthfully I think this issue ends up making the Dems look weaker in foriegn policy when we don't need that to win in the fall (my opinion).