It's amazing to me how the details of the Iraq war are now being used as arguments against the whole operation.
The Jessica Lynch (search) story is a good example. The Euros and the anti-war faction in the U.S. are trying to use the fact of her ambush to undermine the entire war effort.
Lynch's heroic story of capture: shooting her weapon until it jammed, fighting hand-to-hand, blah, blah, blah...
It now turns out to have been something else, maybe a little less heroic, but certainly an illustration of how a situation can get very, very nasty in war.
The BBC is compounding the attack on the Lynch story by claiming that U.S. forces didn't have to go into the hospital to rescue her guns ablazin', because Iraqi medical personnel wanted to turn her over to the Americans anyway.
They're saying it was all a bogus story from the get-go, and that it serves to illustrate how the Americans were manipulating every bit of it to justify an unjustifiable war...
This is yet another attempt to win the argument that this war should not have been fought.
Who is going to argue that Saddam Hussein should still be running Iraq? Or that the world would be better off sitting aground wondering what he might be do next?
Things aren't going great in Iraq, certainly not for American troops. They Iraqis may not have electricity at the moment, but they don't have Odai and Qusai Hussein running around cutting their tongues out either.
This is crazy. Who among our many whining anti-war friends wants Saddam back? And why?
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at email@example.com. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for previous My Word columns?