Pepperdine Job Prospects

[PNym]

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.

I wasn't really paying much attention to the Whitewater and Lewinsky-witness-tampering charges at the time they were being levied against Clinton, but judging by what I've read about the scandal in Tom Sowell's archived columns, it seems unlikely that a major media outlet would scrutinize an independent investigator who was investigating the Gonzalez firings as critically as they had scrutinized Ken Starr, because media outlets generally lean left in their ideological dispositions.

It is precisely the common journalist's inability to report the facts as facts, to put spin in the context of proven evidence, and to refrain from editorializing in news coverage that allowed coverage of Ken Starr's investigation to, if not revolve around unwarranted criticism of Ken Starr, meander into totally inane tangents.

I haven't studied either the topic of media coverage or the Starr investigation in enough detail to draw this conclusion beyond all doubts. But my readings of dispatches from the AP, Reuters, Time, the NYT, and Newsweek have suggested that many journalists are simply incompetent partisan point-scorers when it comes to substantial reporting on political matters.

If I'm not mistaken, much the same happened with media coverage of the Valerie Plame incident.

[Lindbergh]

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.

[Lindbergh]

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.   

[PNym]

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."

[Lindbergh]

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. 

Yup -- it's refreshing to see someone put partisan politics above the national interest!   

[Lindbergh]

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. 

Yup -- it's refreshing to see someone put partisan politics above the national interest!   

"Refreshing?"  I don't know about that.  Your homies' partisanship got them fired.  It's wonderful how you exhibit no partisanship though.  The war effort needs more Lindberghs if it's to be successful.

Especially considering the ideas some of those start-sh*t-and-runawayicans have been espousing.

Oh, I think it's clear that the only thing that has gotten "my homies" fired is the naked desire for political power on the part of the Dem's.  (I'm actually an independent, and simply call bull when I see it.)

You're correct on the rest, though.  We clearly need more people to get their heads out of their asses and focus on the actual needs and priorities of their country.  But maybe the radical Dems will get lucky, successfully lose the war on terror, and finally see the collapse of the country they've been praying for since the 60's. 

[PNym]

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?

[PNym]

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?

This one made me laugh the loudest.  It reminds me of a scene from "A Fish Called Wanda."

"How were we "defeated?" Who defeated us? Under what conditions?"

Oh No!    It's nnnnnnnym ccccccoming to kkkkkkill mmmmme!

Did you get us into this mess?  Probably not, so the following statement probably doesn't refer to you specifically.  But you referenced claims and they seemed important to you, (and they sure as hell were important to those in charge) so if the shoe fits....

"Obsessing over "claims," whether made by islamic militants or the U.S. Government, is what got U.S. into this mess."

WMD, Hussein's ties to 9/11, yellow cake, etc., all false claims, obsessed over, unless you feel going to war over them isn't an excessive enough response to constitute an obsession.

And as far as Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack (two members of a liberal think tank who saw God only knows what of Iraq) "seem[ing] to think [...] "we are finally getting somewhere" (wherever that may be), that sounds like highly qualified and quantified rock solid evidence of our impending victory.  At the very least it clearly makes avoiding defeat a certainty.

Oh No!    It's nnnnnnnym ccccccoming to kkkkkkill mmmmme!   
 

I notice you reference Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their advocating "immediate withdrawal" without a single quote by either of them backing up your claim.  Is that what you consider a "qualifying" statement?  Instead you quote an ambiguous opinion by "frik" and "frak" of a think tank.  They cite "potential."  We've always had "potential."

It must be the personal attack that you feel makes your argument wonderful and worthy of a post on this board.

Good luck nnnnnym!       

Oh and nym, this board, of which you feel I'm an unworthy participant, it's not so special.  And neither are you.

Oh boy, a flippant, whiny, self-obsessed leftist is shocked that I would offend his sense of intellectual superiority by offering a contrary opinion. And he responds to my arguments by obfuscating the issues being discussed by brainlessly repeating some inanity. How surprising. I'm shocked.

Anyways, Pollack and Hanlon's report was recently printed in the NYT editorial page. Considering that Pollack and Hanlon, who had been critics of the war, would offer even the slightest affirmation that our current strategy was working is very surprising. And considering the liberal slant of the NYT's editorial page, and the leftist bias of the Brookings Institute, it's equally surprising that their editorial voicing such an opinion would even be published. However, considering that the two scholars have academic reputations to defend, their affirmation that we could win this war must be based on the firsthand observations they made while in Iraq.

I'm not going to bother looking for a quote by Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi advocating immediate withdrawal. I think they have firmly and publicly established their position as such to the point where such evidence is not needed. You're free to disagree with me due to my not presenting this evidence, but considering the complete lack of stakes I have in furthering this particular segment of this discussion, I'm not really going to care.

[El_Che]

How did we go from Pepperdine job prospects to this?

I'm still interested in hearing about Pepperdine prospects, btw.

[iLukeisamazing]

How did we go from Pepperdine job prospects to this?

I'm still interested in hearing about Pepperdine prospects, btw.

You obviously do not know the wonders of Lindbergh.