I've got an auntie who is on the advisory board at Pepperdine Law. She does arbitration and is mightily impressed by the school's dispute resolution program. Apparently Ken Starr has sucky politics but knows how to carve a niche.
He's roped in many lawyers like my aunt as board advisers and visiting lecturers--he gets them personally invested in the school and suddenly you've got 50 world-renowned mediators talking up the quality of Pepperdine's training at every conference they go to.
No doubt Mr. Starr has also managed to convince many local firms that Pepperdine students have something unique to offer. I'm inclined to think he's right.
Why do you say he has sucky politics? Because he's not a Dem?
I think Cabra meant that Starr just has poor interpersonal skills when dealing w/ law school politics.
This is very possibly true, but I was referring more to Starr's knack for working cases where the legal issues seem to fall by the wayside in favor of right/left conflict. Perhaps he was just unlucky and controversial cases just fell in his lap and there was nothing he could do to minimize partisan bs, but I doubt it.
He does seem sorry about the various Clinton messes in retrospect, and I do think that his days of extreme partisanship are over. So I won't hold it against him.
Seems to me he was just doing his job.
When you're a special prosecutor summoned by one party to investigate serious allegations against the President who is a member of the opposing party, you're going to be accused of partisan hackery, even if there is merit to the allegations you're investigating.
There was word recently about the Dems appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration. I'm sure that prosecutor, whomever he/she may be, will be accused and admonished just as harshly as Starr was.
I'll just note that the whitewater investigation was initiated by the justice department when the Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. Ken Starr took over while the Democrats still controlled both branches, and was chosen by a 3-judge panel that included a Democratic appointee. (Clinton himself passed the law that created the special prosecutor selection process.) So Starr was actually summoned by the government, not a party.
There certainly seems to be tons of partisan hackery going on currently, regarding Gonzales, etc. I hope the media starts looking as critically at this as they did at Starr, who was again simply doing his job within a scandal-tainted administration.
Damn those hacks -- Specter, Hagel, Sununu, Coburn, McCain, Graham, Sessions, etc., etc., etc.,....
The term "partisan hackery" was originally used by the earlier poster, of course, to describe the Clinton scandals. I was simply mocking it. For the record, however, there were plenty of Dems disturbed by Clinton's stupidity and scumbaggery at the time.
You were, were you? Well I "was simply doing [my] job." 
Sorry, didn't realize you were employed by the defeatocrats.
Yesiree!! And I'm damn good at what I do. Just ask any of the many recently defeated, jailed, indicted republicans. 
I think he was referring to the politicians who have staked their political futures on immediately pulling American troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, this would allow many Islamic militants to claim that America could be defeated. Hence, "Defeat-o-crat."
I understand what he means and I disagree with his mischaracterization and oversimplification, so I'm playing on his play on words.
Obsessing over "claims," whether made by islamic militants or the U.S. Government, is what got U.S. into this mess. We were defeated when we decided the best response to the perceived/manufactured situation (claims) was to invade Iraq, and that appears to have been the bipartisan effort/"decision" of a bunch of crazy hawks and greedy chicken-sh*ts. No one is advocating a damn-the-consequences, immediate withdrawal, and very few (other than the architects of this fiasco) believe we can now "win" our (damn-the-consequences and let's not think about this too much so we can make a bunch of unfounded claims to sell our misguided) approach to "War on Terror."
blah, blah, blah, blah,.....
You cannot prove that I'm "obsessing" over claims, so don't bother characterizing my statements as such. And regardless, how I feel about those claims does not affect the truthfulness of those claims one bit, so saying that I'm "obsessing" over said claims only serves propaganda purposes by implying that those who hold such a position lack good judgment. Implying that people who hold opposing claims lack good judgment is not the same thing as making an argument that they lack good judgment, so please don't try to conflate the two.
How were we "defeated?" Who defeated us? Under what conditions?
Can you prove that the legislators who voted to authorize the Iraq War were motivated by greed? I object to that characterization for the same reasons I provided for why I object to your "obsession" characterization.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to be advocating an immediate withdrawal. If I'm not mistaken, they lead the Senate and the House, respectively.
And Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack from the liberal Brookings Institution seem to think that based on their recent firsthand observations of local political and security developments in Iraq, the war can be won.
To quote:
Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. . . . Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
Your unqualified statements that do not regard pertinent evidence do not lend credibility to your desire to be a lawyer. Are you sure you belong on these forums?
12 Replies
10876 Views