it was President Truman who said that Eisenhower would have difficulty adjusting to political life, because he had been used to being a General, and to being obeyed as a General.

If Truman said that, he had very little understanding about what being the commander of the European Theater of Operations actually entailed. Ike had to deal on a daily basis with the heads of at least five different military services (US Army, US Navy, British Army, British Navy, RAF), none of whom were used to taking orders from anyone. He had to keep Montgomery from undercutting Patton at every opportunity, and keep Patton from executing his wackier ideas. (Unfortunately, he failed to stop Monty’s wackiest idea, the “Bridge too Far” plan.) He also had to gain cooperation from British civil authorities in housing and moving his men, keep on top of what the OSS and other spy services were doing (and if they didn’t follow his orders, how would he ever know?), keep the Free French satisfied enough to stay in the war, and so on and on.

All in all, it was an excellent preparation either for being President with a hostile Congress, or herding cats.

your pathetic little database of links where you’ve declared yourself to be the winner of a debate because you’ve outlasted your interlocutor

The significance of the examples I cited (example, example, example, example, example, example, example) is not primarily a matter of who posted last. Those examples are important because they demonstrate that you routinely create your own reality.

This thread contains new examples that you refuse to address, such as your curious definition of the word “invasion.” I pointed out that the Gulf War was an invasion. You responded by claiming I was wrong to apply that word to the Gulf War. You said this:

you hear “invasion” and you can’t tell the difference between briefly crossing the border to surround troops in Kuwait, and invading in order to “eliminate[] the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.”

Except that the Gulf War didn’t just consist of “briefly crossing the border to surround troops in Kuwait” (a nonsensical statement that you haven’t bother to explain). It included moving troops to within 150 miles of Baghdad. It was an invasion. Why did you claim otherwise?

Yet again, you rely on your special GOP dictionary where words take on magically elastic meanings.

I think it’s only polite to let you know, so you don’t waste your time crafting a long reply for a non-existent audience. (That’s charitably assuming you were even the tiniest bit interested in exchange; if all you really want is the last word because you think that doing so counts as victory, feel free to post again.)

jukeboxgrad:
She made a statement “about what other peole may have done.” I pointed out why I was skeptical about that statement, so I was indeed asking her to substantiate her statement.

If that’s what you meant, that’s what you should have said. You don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on this sort of thing, because you routinely make statements that are divorced from reality. (Links). Trouble is, you didn’t ask her anything, nor did you point out why you were skeptical about that statement. Here’s what you actually said:

Wrong

…and…

More ignorant nonsense. “HLR does not have signed student works, for Presidents or others.”

Unlike what you do, that’s not selective quoting; that’s everything you wrote to her. Nothing in there is a question. Nothing in there “points out why you were skeptical” about anything. You simply called her factual claims “wrong” and “ignorant nonsense.”

If that’s what you meant, that’s what you should have said.

That is what I said. Your stubborn refusal to read any statement in context does not actually eliminate the context; it just makes you disingenuous.

In my opinion, people who post blog comments and then fail to follow-up and respond to the responses tend to be people who are not terribly credible. As a general rule.

In my opinion, that’s nutty. Some people have lives. That in no way relates to their “credibility.”

When it represents a tiny portion of the relevant population, in context. If you have six noses on your face, it would be fair to call them “numerous,” because the expected quantity is one. Likewise, if I put six different sandwiches in your lunch bag, it’s fair to point out that I gave you “numerous” choices, because there again the expected quantity is one. On the other hand, the total number of HLR alums is much greater than six. Therefore calling that group of six “numerous” is a form of hackery.

You have invented new meanings for both the words “numerous” and “hackery” here. In any case, even by your own bizarre definition, “numerous” is correct, since you foolishly thought the expected quantity was zero, and I gave you six counterexamples. (To be precise, I gave you three, and then you moved the goalposts and I gave you three more to refute even your new claim.)

No one said anything about “an agreement.” It was a question of etiquette, or common practice. And we were talking about an HLR president, which means that the most relevant example would another HLR president. You found this many: zero.

It’s true that no one said anything about an agreement. Except you. This many times: twice. At least. You claimed that “The fact that the note is unsigned means that the author is agreeing to not take credit for it.” You then claimed that “When such an author agrees to not take credit, it’s not fair to claim they ‘hid it.’”

And we were talking about an HLR president, which means that the most relevant example would another HLR president. You found this many: zero.

Wrong on both fronts.

Ipse dixit. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It’s plausible that the culture could stipulate that what’s OK for other members of a group is not OK for the leader of the group.

Ipse dixit. No, it isn’t plausible that it would be acceptable for other members of the HLR to take credit for their notes but not for the president to do so.

It’s logical that someone at a higher rank has to follow higher standards.

No, it isn’t, and in any case it’s moot since there is no such “standard.”

And the fact that you found zero such examples is consistent with this perspective.

Are you going to keep repeating this dishonesty? I did not “find zero such examples.” I didn’t give them because I wasn’t giving a complete catalog of every such situation, and because the discussion wasn’t about HLR presidents per se so there was no particular reason to focus on them. But HLR presidents, too, take credit for their (unsigned) notes.

Give it up. Please. Your “explanations” are getting more and more desperate. Maybe you can move the goalposts yet again, and claim that there was an “agreement” that people whose last names begin with the letter “O” don’t claim credit for their student notes.

I guess you’re saying that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang around Bush didn’t have a major influence on him. A novel theory.

Guess again. It’s funny how your guesses, inferences, and speculation about what other people are saying are never right, isn’t it? One might almost think it’s deliberate on your part.

Hmm, let’s see. First PNAC said we should attack Iraq. And then they talked about the importance of positioning a large military force near Iraq, and they talked about how a “catastrophic catalyzing event” would make it politically easier to do this. And then after the “catastrophic catalyzing event” they indeed used that event as an excuse to attack Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. Here on Earth, 1+1 actually equals 2.

Unfortunately, in jukeboxgradland, when one pulls things out of context, one can often “prove” that people said something entirely different than they actually said.

which is obviously not the equivalent of asking for proof about what other peole may have done

She made a statement “about what other peole may have done.” I pointed out why I was skeptical about that statement, so I was indeed asking her to substantiate her statement.

My comment about making no posts is a reference to the time period after your (alleged) rhetorical challenge.

If that’s what you meant, that’s what you should have said. You don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on this sort of thing, because you routinely make statements that are divorced from reality (example, example, example, example, example, example, example). And speaking of nonsensical statements, for some strange reason you have still failed to explain how a foreign army traveling within 150 miles of Baghdad isn’t fairly called an “invasion.”

There’s no evidence she ever saw your challenge

In my opinion, people who post blog comments and then fail to follow-up and respond to the responses tend to be people who are not terribly credible. As a general rule.

Not everyone saves up imaginary grievances

You have created a remarkable track record of hackery here. It’s a noteworthy achievement, and it would be a shame to let that achievement go unnoticed. And I assure you that keeping those links on my computer does not place a great burden on my hard disk storage capacity. Just in case you were losing any sleep over that.

And if there’s anything “imaginary” about the mountain of proof I’ve presented (see the examples cited above), you should tell us what it is. There’s no time like the present.

Since when was six not numerous?

When it represents a tiny portion of the relevant population, in context. If you have six noses on your face, it would be fair to call them “numerous,” because the expected quantity is one. Likewise, if I put six different sandwiches in your lunch bag, it’s fair to point out that I gave you “numerous” choices, because there again the expected quantity is one. On the other hand, the total number of HLR alums is much greater than six. Therefore calling that group of six “numerous” is a form of hackery. Calling them a “handful” would be far more appropriate. And it’s also a form of hackery to claim that you were “refuting” something, as if you don’t understand the principle you yourself stated (“it’s consistent with the claim, but it isn’t at all sufficient to prove the claim”). And your selective, opportunistic embrace of that principle is itself a form of hackery. Likewise for your selective embrace of the concept of context.

we were discussing whether there was an agreement not to claim credit for an unsigned note

No one said anything about “an agreement.” It was a question of etiquette, or common practice. And we were talking about an HLR president, which means that the most relevant example would another HLR president. You found this many: zero.

There was (and is) no reason to think the rules on claiming credit were different for HLR presidents as opposed to other HLR staffers

Ipse dixit. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It’s plausible that the culture could stipulate that what’s OK for other members of a group is not OK for the leader of the group. It’s logical that someone at a higher rank has to follow higher standards. And the fact that you found zero such examples is consistent with this perspective.

There is “no reason to believe” … that the expectations for HLR presidents are different than the expectations for other Law Review heads.

More ipse dixit. Your claim makes sense if one believes that Harvard is just like every other university. Trouble is, it’s not.

she never… made claims about HLR specifically

If she wasn’t making some kind of implied claim about HLR, then her comment was meaningless and irrelevant, because the Obama situation involves HLR.

it would be very unusual for a head of law review not to have published

Then how surprising that you found zero such examples (aside from Obama) regarding HLR.

That’s precisely why people were so surprised when there was no record of Obama having published.

The people who were surprised were mostly people who didn’t know (or pretended to not know) that HLR doesn’t publish signed student notes.

in no way was the document about “planning” to attack any of those places

When a group that already called for “military action” against Iraq calls for a major buildup of forces just outside Iraq, it’s reasonable to believe that someone is thinking about attacking Iraq. Repeatedly denying this obvious reality just helps to further establish the depth of your denial.

You’re tendentiously pulling part of a single sentence out of a document written at one time and pretending it’s part of a different document written at a different time by different people.

I’m not “pretending” anything. I’m pointing out correctly that the two documents were issued by the same organization.

The “Pearl Harbor” quote is not about attacking anybody.

The “Pearl Harbor” quote is about the political usefulness of a “catastrophic catalyzing event.” So it’s no surprise that Bush and his PNAC pals were ready to derive maximum political usefulness from 9/11.

While that would involve the ability to attack Iraq, it would also involve the ability to attack China; that doesn’t mean that the goal of transforming our military was to attack China.

Except that PNAC had not previously called for “military action” against China, whereas they had indeed called for “military action” against Iraq. Likewise, the PNAC document which called for major forces to be stationed on the border with Iraq definitely did not call for major forces to be stationed on the border with China.

let alone Bush himself, who as “the decider” was the only person actually relevant to Dilan’s underlying claim

I guess you’re saying that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang around Bush didn’t have a major influence on him. A novel theory.

it is completely false to say that PNAC … said that they wanted a Pearl Harbor to enable them to attack Iraq.

Hmm, let’s see. First PNAC said we should attack Iraq. And then they talked about the importance of positioning a large military force near Iraq, and they talked about how a “catastrophic catalyzing event” would make it politically easier to do this. And then after the “catastrophic catalyzing event” they indeed used that event as an excuse to attack Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Here on Earth, 1+1 actually equals 2.

I showed proof she was wrong, which is rhetorically the equivalent of challenging/asking her to show support for the claims she made. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t mired in pedantry.

First, it’s no such thing. You claimed you asked her something; you didn’t. In other words, you’re fabricating again. Second, you showed proof she was wrong about Obama not having published, which is obviously not the equivalent of asking for proof about what other peole may have done. “If you say, “every Republican I’ve heard of is corrupt, while no Democrat has been convicted of a crime,” and I say, “You’re wrong; Congressman Jefferson was convicted,” that is obviously not a “challenge” to prove that all Republicans are corrupt.

she made no posts on the thread at all

Laura Victoria made three posts on this thread. Are you having trouble finding them? When did the number three become defined as “no posts?”

See what I mean about the fact that you pattern-match rather than understand the concept of “context” in reading a statement? Obviously I know she made posts in this thread; I’ve talked about them. My comment about making no posts is a reference to the time period after your (alleged) rhetorical challenge. As anybody who reads context rather than just individual words understands quite well. That is, if she had made a bunch of other posts in this thread after your “challenge,” it might be fair (if it really were a “challenge”) to say that she had failed to respond to you. But since she didn’t post at all, it isn’t.

It’s funny how certain people somehow manage to find time to post misinformation, but can’t manage to find time to respond when challenged on their misinformation. Interesting how that works.

She posted three times in this thread on February 10. You “challenged” her two days later, on the afternoon of February 12th. There’s no evidence she ever saw your challenge-which-actually-wasn’t-a-challenge. Not everyone is as obsessed as you are with finding someone on the internet to try to prove wrong. Not everyone saves up imaginary grievances to bring up days, weeks, or months later. It’s a holiday weekend. For all you know, she had left for a vacation long before your imagined “challenge.”

Sorry, that’s little too cryptic for me. Six became “numerous” on 1/29/1741, at 8:13 pm? Huh? What? On what planet?

You want less cryptic? Okay, here: “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” Since when was six not numerous? If you meet your friend (I’m being charitable) at the restaurant at 8:00, and he says, “Where were you? You were supposed to be here at 7. I left numerous messages for you,” are you going to check your voice mail and then say, “Liar! You left six messages! When did six become numerous?” In short, unlike when I point out that you can’t understand the meaning of what someone wrote, your ridiculous semantic quibbling here is the real “splitting of pedantic hairs.”

I wasn’t looking for information about HLR presidents when I posted that

I don’t know why not, since we were discussing an HLR president.

No, we were discussing whether there was an agreement not to claim credit for an unsigned note. You and your magic googling skills couldn’t find anybody who had claimed credit for one, so I was pointing out how your googling had failed. There was (and is) no reason to think the rules on claiming credit were different for HLR presidents as opposed to other HLR staffers, so there was no need to hunt down HLR presidents.

If her comment was not meant to imply something about normal practices at HLS, then her comment was meaningless, because she was making a point about someone from HLS.

There is “no reason to believe” — an accurate use of the phrase — that the expectations for HLR presidents are different than the expectations for other Law Review heads.

It’s not just that I don’t know of HLR presidents who took credit for an unsigned case note. It’s that you were also unable to come up with any such example, even though you obviously looked. There is indeed no reason to believe that Laura has information that you weren’t able to find.

Your premise is wrong — I did not look for examples involving HLR presidents. I just looked for a bunch of examples of people claiming credit for unsigned notes in the HLR, since that was the topic at the time — and therefore your conclusion (that Laura has information I was “unable” to find) is flawed. If she looked for it (though of course she never, as you finally admitted, made claims about HLR specifically, but just about Law Reviews in general), then that would be reason to think she might have information I didn’t.

In fact, although her claim about Obama was wrong, her underlying premise is right: it would be very unusual for a head of law review not to have published. To know that, one might need to have gone to law school (and perhaps served on law review) rather than being an anonymous internet blowhard. That’s precisely why people were so surprised when there was no record of Obama having published.

You’re saying that as if those concepts are divorced from each other. Trouble is, they’re not. The paper was about structuring our military in a way that would help us confront certain specific countries.

Trouble is, “confront” is such a weasel word that it means a lot of things, but if by “confront” you mean “attack,” then the claim is false. The paper was about structuring our military in a way that would help us fight major and minor wars anywhere and everywhere we might feel the need to do so, simultaneously. (The document was discussing the Gulf, Balkans, Korea, and Southeast Asia, primarily, simply because those were the places where the author(s) foresaw it as most plausible, from the perspective of 2000. But in no way was the document about “planning” to attack any of those places.)

The identity of the individual author is immaterial.

…for the purpose of hackery, true. But for the purpose of actual analysis, it’s quite important, when one is trying to link different things together.

I’m not ‘importing’ anything. I’m pointing out the obvious connection between two documents issued by the same organization.

No. You’re tendentiously pulling part of a single sentence out of a document written at one time and pretending it’s part of a different document written at a different time by different people. The “Pearl Harbor” quote is not about attacking anybody.

PNAC wanted us to transform our military in order to (among other things) attack Iraq.

No. Read the document, rather than your fake website. The authors wanted to transform the military to enable us to deal with every possible global threat simultaneously. While that would involve the ability to attack Iraq, it would also involve the ability to attack China; that doesn’t mean that the goal of transforming our military was to attack China.

In short, it is completely false to say that PNAC — let alone Bush himself, who as “the decider” was the only person actually relevant to Dilan’s underlying claim — said that they wanted a Pearl Harbor to enable them to attack Iraq.

the only post where you addressed her was this one, which contains no questions at all.

I showed proof she was wrong, which is rhetorically the equivalent of challenging/asking her to show support for the claims she made. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t mired in pedantry.

she made no posts on the thread at all

Laura Victoria made three posts on this thread. Are you having trouble finding them? When did the number three become defined as “no posts?” Around the same time that the number six was defined as “numerous?” Only in nieporent world is the difference between 3 and 6 equivalent to the difference between zero and “numerous.”

she was busy

It’s funny how certain people somehow manage to find time to post misinformation, but can’t manage to find time to respond when challenged on their misinformation. Interesting how that works. Maybe you can help us understand this phenomenon. After all, you embody it so consistently in your own behavior (example, example, example, example, example, example, example).

When did six become “numerous?”

1741. January 29th. 8:13 PM

Sorry, that’s little too cryptic for me. Six became “numerous” on 1/29/1741, at 8:13 pm? Huh? What? On what planet?

I wasn’t looking for information about HLR presidents when I posted that

I don’t know why not, since we were discussing an HLR president.

I was just refuting your ridiculous claim that there was an “etiquette problem” in claiming credit for an unsigned note.

I think you’re the same nieporent who recently said these words: “it’s consistent with the claim, but it isn’t at all sufficient to prove the claim.” I think you’re smart enough to understand why those words are relevant, without me spelling it out for you.

her post in no way “implies” anything about “every other HLR president.”

If her comment was not meant to imply something about normal practices at HLS, then her comment was meaningless, because she was making a point about someone from HLS.

The fact that you don’t know something does not mean that there is “no reason to believe” it.

It’s not just that I don’t know of HLR presidents who took credit for an unsigned case note. It’s that you were also unable to come up with any such example, even though you obviously looked. There is indeed no reason to believe that Laura has information that you weren’t able to find.

your ridiculous analysis of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper

Yup, it sure is ridiculous for me to think that a call for “a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait” might have anything to do with an intention to attack Iraq. Why would anyone think such a thing? Just because the same organization had called for “military action” against Iraq? Maybe by “military action” they meant a performance by a marching band.

The topic of the paper is how to structure our military, not who we should or shouldn’t attack.

You’re saying that as if those concepts are divorced from each other. Trouble is, they’re not. The paper was about structuring our military in a way that would help us confront certain specific countries.

In a different paper, written a couple of years earlier primarily by a different person

Both documents were issued by PNAC. The identity of the individual author is immaterial.

One cannot import one into the other just because it is convenient for one’s case.

I’m not ‘importing’ anything. I’m pointing out the obvious connection between two documents issued by the same organization.

It merely made the observation … that transformation of the military would be gradual unless there was a new Pearl Harbor.

There’s nothing ‘mere’ about it. PNAC wanted us to transform our military in order to (among other things) attack Iraq. And when the “new Pearl Harbor” came along, this opened the door for them to do what they had been calling for for years: attack Iraq. Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Naturally. When the same organization that has called for “military action” against Iraq also specifically calls for “several hundred cruise missiles” to be stationed near Iraq, there’s no reason to think that this has anything to do with “planning to attack anybody.” Why would anyone think that?

The most likely explanation for someone believing that is partisan hackery combined with an inability to read. That’s my informed hypothesis as to why “anyone” — and by that, you mean you — think that. That’s simply not the topic of the paper. The topic of the paper is how to structure our military, not who we should or shouldn’t attack. Anybody who actually reads it would know that.

Why are you presenting a phony quote? The source I cited didn’t say “all the stated goals.” It said “their stated goals,” which was a reference to the goals stated in Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

Right — and none of the goals stated in that paper were attacking anybody. In a different paper, written a couple of years earlier primarily by a different person, a goal of eliminating the threat from Iraq was discussed. One cannot import one into the other just because it is convenient for one’s case.

And what’s of further importance is that Rebuilding America’s Defenses mentioned the importance of a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

No, it didn’t. It did not “mention the importance of” that at all. It merely made the observation — no normative claim at all, despite the partisan hacks who attempt to fool people into thinking otherwise through links to fake sources — that transformation of the military would be gradual unless there was a new Pearl Harbor.

Really? How? Yes, I suppose it’s possible “she researched it,” by personally locating and interviewing lots of other HLR presidents, or by some other mysterious means. On the other hand, it’s possible that she is simply making shit up. Occam’s razor favors the latter answer.

Really? How? I think this is what psychologists call “projection.”

You’ll have to ask her, not me.

I did ask her, and she responded with silence. Which tends to create the impression that she was simply making shit up.

I must have missed the post where you asked her. Because it looks to me like the only post where you addressed her was this one, which contains no questions at all. And even if you had asked her, not responding to you does not create the impression that she was making things up. It just creates the impression that she has better judgment than I do, since responding to you is a waste of time, since you simply won’t admit when you’ve made shit up. Like your ridiculous analysis of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper, which even you know is utterly ludicrous, but because of your partisan hackery, you’d rather stick by your guns than admit that you hadn’t read the paper — but just some left-wing site which quoted a half-sentence from it — and didn’t understand what it said. (Of course, she didn’t not respond to you; rather, she made no posts on the thread at all, which for normal human beings “creates the impression” that she was busy, rather than that they “won” some internet debate.)

When did six become “numerous?”

1741. January 29th. 8:13 PM

And this many of those “people” were the president of HLR: zero. So you presented this much proof regarding HLR presidents taking credit for their case notes: none. And since you looked for such information, and presented none, why should anyone think that such information is in Laura’s hands?

I wasn’t looking for information about HLR presidents when I posted that; I was just refuting your ridiculous claim that there was an “etiquette problem” in claiming credit for an unsigned note.

Once more you demonstrate your poor reading comprehension. That’s not what she said. She said “he’s the first L.Rev. president I’ve ever heard of who didn’t publish his note.” No “H.”

You’re right; she didn’t say that. But it’s not poor reading comprehension; I hadn’t gone back and re-read what she wrote, because I was assuming that you were being a tiny bit honest when you claimed she was “implying that every other HLR president published a case note.” In fact, you weren’t; her post in no way “implies” anything about “every other HLR president.” No honest person would read her quote that way — unless that person had “poor reading comprehension.”

Except that “them” means “a significant number” of “L.Rev. president[s],” not necessarily HLR presidents. Which brings her statement further into the world of nonsense, because there’s no reason to believe that she actually has this information about “a significant number” of “L.Rev. president[s],” and there’s also no reason to assume that the practice at other schools is relevant to the practice at HLS.

The fact that you don’t know something does not mean that there is “no reason to believe” it. Whether you happen to have a sufficient factual background to draw a conclusion does not mean that all other people do not.

Gee, I don’t know; maybe she researched it?

Really? How? Yes, I suppose it’s possible “she researched it,” by personally locating and interviewing lots of other HLR presidents, or by some other mysterious means. On the other hand, it’s possible that she is simply making shit up. Occam’s razor favors the latter answer.

You’ll have to ask her, not me.

I did ask her, and she responded with silence. Which tends to create the impression that she was simply making shit up.

numerous examples of people claiming credit for them

When did six become “numerous?” And this many of those “people” were the president of HLR: zero. So you presented this much proof regarding HLR presidents taking credit for their case notes: none. And since you looked for such information, and presented none, why should anyone think that such information is in Laura’s hands?

She said “every other president of HLR I’ve heard of”

Once more you demonstrate your poor reading comprehension. That’s not what she said. She said “he’s the first L.Rev. president I’ve ever heard of who didn’t publish his note.” No “H.”

One can reasonably infer that she’s talking about a significant number of them

Except that “them” means “a significant number” of “L.Rev. president[s],” not necessarily HLR presidents. Which brings her statement further into the world of nonsense, because there’s no reason to believe that she actually has this information about “a significant number” of “L.Rev. president[s],” and there’s also no reason to assume that the practice at other schools is relevant to the practice at HLS.

So you hear “invasion” and you can’t tell the difference between briefly crossing the border to surround troops in Kuwait

During the Gulf War, Coalition forces reached within 150 miles of Baghdad. I realize that on planet nieporent this is not considered an “invasion,” but back here on Earth it is. Also, you need help with geography. We didn’t cross the border into Iraq in order “to surround troops in Kuwait.”

the fact that before 9/11 people who weren’t Bush talked about military action — not invasion

“Military action” is a conveniently broad term that encompasses lots of things, and “invasion” is one of them.

Rebuilding America’s Defenses … says nothing about the intentions of anybody to attack or invade Iraq.

Naturally. It “says nothing about the intentions of anybody to attack or invade Iraq,” except for all the places where it does. Like here (pdf, pp. 17-18):

As recent strikes against Iraq demonstrate, the preferred weapon for punitive raids is the cruise missile, supplemented by stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. Carrier aircraft are most useful in sustaining a campaign begun with missiles and stealth strike aircraft, indicating that a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles is the most valuable naval presence in the Gulf. With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait, the demands for Marine presence in the Gulf could be scaled back as well.

After all, why would anyone think that “a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles” has anything to do with any “intentions of anybody to attack or invade Iraq?” And likewise for “a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait.” Because if some country that had once invaded us decided to establish “a substantial permanent Army ground presence” just outside our borders, the last thing we would imagine is that they had any intentions to attack or invade us again, right?

The words “stated goals” are not in the real thing.

There you go again, doing superficial pattern-matching, as if it’s a substitute for thinking. It is of no importance whatsoever that “the words ‘stated goals’ are not in the real thing.” What’s important is that the PNAC letter called for “military action” against Iraq. What’s of further importance is that Rebuilding America’s Defenses called for a “transformation” of our military for the purpose of being in a better position to confront countries like Iraq. And what’s of further importance is that Rebuilding America’s Defenses mentioned the importance of a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” And what’s of further importance is that Bush took advantage of that “new Pearl Harbor,” putting into effect the policies the PNAC had been promoting for years.

Rebuilding America’s Defenses says that the transformation of the military will take a long time absent a Pearl Harbor. It does not say “all the stated goals of the PNAC will take a long time absent a Pearl Harbor,” as anybody who had actually read the document, instead of some left-wing secondary source, would know.

Why are you presenting a phony quote? The source I cited didn’t say “all the stated goals.” It said “their stated goals,” which was a reference to the goals stated in Rebuilding America’s Defenses. You’re splitting pedantic hairs again, and you’re also fabricating a quote.

The fact that a document uses the word Iraq does not mean that it’s about Iraq, let alone that it’s about invading Iraq.

Hmm, let’s see. PNAC, in one document, explicitly called for “military action” against Iraq. And then, in another document, they called for “a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles” to be stationed in the area. And they also called for “a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait.” Why would anyone think that any of this might possibly have anything to do with “invading Iraq?” Just because the same army had already invaded Iraq?

R.A.D. … is not about planning to attack anybody.

Naturally. When the same organization that has called for “military action” against Iraq also specifically calls for “several hundred cruise missiles” to be stationed near Iraq, there’s no reason to think that this has anything to do with “planning to attack anybody.” Why would anyone think that?

jukeboxgrad: As usual, you’re splitting lots of pedantic hairs.

No. As usual you can’t think but can only pattern-match, so you are incapable of understanding the very concept of “context.” So you hear “invasion” and you can’t tell the difference between briefly crossing the border to surround troops in Kuwait, and invading in order to “eliminate[] the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.” Which would require not merely briefly crossing the border, but occupying the country. And if we did that in the “near term,” it would be odd not to pursue regime change until the long term.

Dilan’s claim was this:

No; that’s once again a lack of context. Dilan’s claim was that Bush’s promise of a humble foreign policy was a lie because Bush intended the invasion of Iraq before 9/11, that 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion, except for giving the administration a talking point. Dilan’s evidence was that before 9/11, certain people who were part of the Bush administration had talked about taking military action against Iraq. But the fact that before 9/11 people who weren’t Bush talked about military action — not invasion — does not prove that before 9/11 Bush intended invasion.

The PNAC letter supports that claim.

The letter “supports” the claim in the same way that me being in Los Angeles in June 1994 supports the claim that I killed Nicole Brown Simpson. That is, it’s consistent with the claim, but it isn’t at all sufficient to prove the claim.

Likewise for the 9/2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document.

No. Rebuilding America’s Defenses (which, incidentally, was not written by the same people as the letter we’re discussing; of the ones named above, only Wolfowitz and Kristol were part of R.A.D.) says nothing about the intentions of anybody to attack or invade Iraq.

I cited a quote within a quote. The words “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor” are indeed from “the real thing.”

That’s right. But that’s half a sentence, with no context. The words “stated goals” are not in the real thing.

More pedantic nonsense. Their “stated goals” included both “the transformation of the American military,” as well as an intention to take “military action” against Iraq. And those two goals were intertwined.

The fact that I caught you in yet another misrepresentation is not “pedantic nonsense.” “Stated goals” is something that your fake source made up, not from Rebuilding America’s Defenses (*). Rebuilding America’s Defenses says that the transformation of the military will take a long time absent a Pearl Harbor. It does not say “all the stated goals of the PNAC will take a long time absent a Pearl Harbor,” as anybody who had actually read the document, instead of some left-wing secondary source, would know.

(*) To forestall your pedantic nonsense, the document does use the phrase “stated goal” once, but it’s talking about the Air Force’s stated goal, not PNAC’s.

How odd that the document (pdf) that is allegedly “not about the invasion of Iraq” mentions Iraq twenty-five times, and repeatedly promotes the idea that we must ‘rebuild our defense’ in order to confront states like Iraq.

That is not in the least bit “odd.” You have to think instead of just pattern matching. The fact that a document uses the word Iraq does not mean that it’s about Iraq, let alone that it’s about invading Iraq. R.A.D. is about restructuring the military to defend the country against different sorts of threats than the ones faced in the Cold War. It (ridiculously) wants the U.S. to be able to fight multiple large wars and small wars all around the world simultaneously, but it is not about planning to attack anybody. You have to read the whole document, not do a pattern-match on the word Iraq and count the number of instances where the word appears.

Laura is implying that every other HLR president published a case note. Really? How does she know that?

Gee, I don’t know; maybe she researched it?

Remember when you claimed that you thought there was some sort of rule that because they were unsigned, authors weren’t supposed to claim credit for them, and then sneered “how do you know” when I said that there wasn’t, and I had to google and find numerous examples of people claiming credit for them? Most people I know who publish — particularly in prestigious outlets like HLR — don’t keep their publications a secret. So all she had to do was find out who the HLR presidents were and then look to see what they published. Or maybe she was relying on word of mouth among all her friends and colleagues who were on HLR. You’ll have to ask her, not me. But your claim that HLR notes are “unsigned” is still a non-sequitur.

(Of course, she is not implying — I love your trick of rewriting what people say and then weaseling your way around the rewrite by claiming they’re “implying” something –that “every other president of HLR” published. She said “every other president of HLR I’ve heard of,” not “every other president of HLR.” The last three words would be superfluous if she meant “every other president of HLR.” One can reasonably infer that she’s talking about a significant number of them, but not that she is implying “every” one.)

he said Obama didn’t publish a note

I think Laura is a she. Yes, Laura said “Obama didn’t publish a note.” Trouble is, that’s wrong. He did.

So whether HLR has signed notes or not is a non-sequitur

Laura said “He’s the first L.Rev. president I’ve ever heard of who didn’t publish his note.” Trouble is, “HLR does not have signed student works, for Presidents or others.” Which means that Laura is not in a position to make claims about whether or not other HLR presidents published notes. Because if they did publish notes, they were unsigned.

your weird notion that unsigned notes were, or were supposed to be, secret

It’s not that unsigned notes are “secret.” The note is published, which means it’s not “secret.” Duh. The issue is the identity of the author. That identity isn’t necessarily “secret,” but it’s unknown, generally speaking. Which means that Laura is not in a position to make the claim she made.

If that’s still not simple enough, look at it this way. Consider the following assignment: of the last 30 HLR presidents, tell us exactly how many published a case note, and tell us the name of the case note. Do you know an easy way to find the answer to that question? I don’t. It would be a fairly easy question to answer if the notes were signed. Trouble is, they’re not.

Laura is implying that every other HLR president published a case note. Really? How does she know that?

jukeboxgrad:

He’s the first L.Rev. president I’ve ever heard of who didn’t publish his note.

More ignorant nonsense. “HLR does not have signed student works, for Presidents or others.” (link)

Even when your facts are accurate, your arguments don’t make sense. The previous poster said nothing about “signed” notes; he said Obama didn’t publish a note. So whether HLR has signed notes or not is a non-sequitur. I thought even you had finally admitted that your weird notion that unsigned notes were, or were supposed to be, secret was wrong.

If we invade in the near term, we would hardly wait for the long term to oust Hussein.

That’s blatantly ahistorical nonsense. I guess you never heard of the Gulf War, when we did indeed “invade in the near term,” and then also did indeed “wait for the long term to oust Hussein.”

it clearly refers to bombing, not invasion

What it “clearly refers to” is “military action,” which is a term that could encompass all of the above. The heart of the matter is that a certain group of people were itching to take “military action” against Iraq long before 9/11. And then 9/11 became a convenient pretext to carry out what they had already been preparing to carry out.

what “position” not in an administration is “close to” an administration? Kristol was in the media.

When you are “in the media” but nevertheless behaving as a mouthpiece for the administration (which applies to Kristol, Judith Miller, and lots of other so-called “journalists”), then you are indeed “close to” the administration.

“it’s no surprise” is very different than saying that Bush had intended to do it even before 9/11, which was Dilan’s claim.

Dilan’s claim was this:

the Bush Administration national security team was filled with people who thought invading Iraq was a great idea and were looking for an opportunity to put it into practice

The PNAC letter supports that claim. Likewise for the 9/2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document.

we see you quoting a secondary source rather than the real thing

I cited a quote within a quote. The words “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor” are indeed from “the real thing.”

the real thing doesn’t say their “stated goals,” but much more specifically talks about the transformation of the American military

More pedantic nonsense. Their “stated goals” included both “the transformation of the American military,” as well as an intention to take “military action” against Iraq. And those two goals were intertwined.

that’s what the document which mentions Pearl Harbor is about — not about the invasion of Iraq

How odd that the document (pdf) that is allegedly “not about the invasion of Iraq” mentions Iraq twenty-five times, and repeatedly promotes the idea that we must ‘rebuild our defense’ in order to confront states like Iraq. Here’s a representative passage:

The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.

That passage, and the entire document, are indeed about setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq. It says we need a military “transformation” to be prepared to confront “North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states.” And here’s what it says about “Pearl Harbor:”

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Those words were published a year before 9/11. So this group which saw the need for “revolutionary change” was prepared to take advantage of that “catastrophic and catalyzing event.”

jukeboxgrad: They didn’t just call for “regime change.” They called for military action. The letter you cited says this:

[...]

“Military action” and “invasion” are not exact synonyms, but they’re close enough to support the point that Dilan was making.

No, they’re not. “Military action” can involve lots of things other than invasion. In fact, it makes no sense to read it here as invasion, because it says that we should take military action in the “near term,” and regime change in the “long term.” If we invade in the near term, we would hardly wait for the long term to oust Hussein. Thus, in context, it clearly refers to bombing, not invasion. And of course regime change doesn’t require invasion either; the favored policy of many of the PNAC principals was to arm the INC (and perhaps provide air support), not to invade the country ourselves.

In contrast, Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (link) called for support to “Iraqi democratic opposition organizations,” via a limited amount of money, training and equipment. It specifically indicated we should have no military role beyond that: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.”

Actually, it specifically did not “speak to the use of” the military, which is entirely different than “indicating we should have no military role.” Indicating that we should have no military role would be speaking to the use of the military.

Bush didn’t sign the letter, but people who signed the letter ended up holding important positions in and close to his administration (e.g, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Abrams, Bolton and Kristol). So it’s no surprise that he ended up carrying out the foreign policy advocated by the letter.

First, I don’t know what a position close to an administration is. You can be in the administration or not; what “position” not in an administration is “close to” an administration? Kristol was in the media. In any case, “it’s no surprise” is very different than saying that Bush had intended to do it even before 9/11, which was Dilan’s claim.

It’s also worth recalling this about PNAC:

According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses … their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”.

PNAC made that statement a year before 9/11.

Once again, we see you quoting a secondary source rather than the real thing, for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps because the real thing doesn’t say their “stated goals,” but much more specifically talks about the transformation of the American military, because that’s what the document which mentions Pearl Harbor is about — not about the invasion of Iraq.

they called for regime change, not necessarily an invasion

They didn’t just call for “regime change.” They called for military action. The letter you cited says this:

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.

“Military action” and “invasion” are not exact synonyms, but they’re close enough to support the point that Dilan was making.

In contrast, Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (link) called for support to “Iraqi democratic opposition organizations,” via a limited amount of money, training and equipment. It specifically indicated we should have no military role beyond that: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.”

even if they had “distributed a letter calling for the US to invade Iraq in 1998″ … none of those people are George Bush

Bush didn’t sign the letter, but people who signed the letter ended up holding important positions in and close to his administration (e.g, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Abrams, Bolton and Kristol). So it’s no surprise that he ended up carrying out the foreign policy advocated by the letter.

It’s also worth recalling this about PNAC:

According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses … their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”.

PNAC made that statement a year before 9/11.

Dilan Esper: Here’s a quick analogy. I think Barack Obama intends to appoint liberals to the Supreme Court during his presidency. Now, he may not get another opportunity to do so. But he intends to utilize any opportunity to do so. Now if someone came around and said that the Souter retirement caused Obama to reevaluate and decide to appoint a liberal to the Court, I’d call that person either misinformed or spinning. You, sir, are spinning.

That’s an analogy that assumes its conclusion. We know (or at least the analogy assumes we do) that Obama intends to nominate a liberal if he gets the opportunity. We don’t know that Bush intended to invade Iraq if given the opportunity.

Even if it were really true that “the Bush Administration national security team was filled with people who thought invading Iraq was a great idea and were looking for an opportunity to put it into practice,” (you meant the Project for a New American Century, not Project for America’s Future, I think), and even if they had “distributed a letter calling for the US to invade Iraq in 1998″ (they didn’t; they called for regime change, not necessarily an invasion), none of those people are George Bush.

Nobody can know anything for sure, but what you are doing is taking advantage of the fact that you can never be sure about counterfactuals (true) to argue that therefore one must accept the clearly empty case that the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11 (it wasn’t, or if it was, it was a completely idiotic one).

What we do know is that the Bush Administration national security team was filled with people who thought invading Iraq was a great idea and were looking for an opportunity to put it into practice. You can claim that perhaps they never would have found that opportunity, but that is not in any way saying the same thing as saying that 9/11 brought about the Iraq War. When you are looking for favorable circumstances to do something you want to do and the favorable circumstances arise, that’s very different from an event happening and you then determine for the first time that a particular policy should be implemented in response.

Here’s a quick analogy. I think Barack Obama intends to appoint liberals to the Supreme Court during his presidency. Now, he may not get another opportunity to do so. But he intends to utilize any opportunity to do so. Now if someone came around and said that the Souter retirement caused Obama to reevaluate and decide to appoint a liberal to the Court, I’d call that person either misinformed or spinning. You, sir, are spinning.

Obama hasn’t published one academic piece, not even a law review note.

Wrong.

He’s the first L.Rev. president I’ve ever heard of who didn’t publish his note.

More ignorant nonsense. “HLR does not have signed student works, for Presidents or others.” (link)

Richard, the Project for America’s Future, whose members formed the core of Bush’s national security team, distributed a letter calling for the US to invade Iraq in 1998. This wasn’t the equivalent of the Pentagon, as it should, drafting contingency war plans for every foreseeable situation. This was their policy goal.

It had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 just gave them a talking point to facilitate doing it.

This argument doesn’t work. The non-humble foreign policy, including the invasion of Iraq, was being planned well before Bush was elected, and 9/11 had nothing to do with the reasons for it.

The reality is that these were the stated views of many members of the Bush national security team at the same time that Bush was promising the humble foreing policy.

You made a completely unfounded “suggestion” (accusation) about how Obama got his spot on the Law Review. It was absurd.

Pete P, thanks for that fabulous display of Obama dementia syndrome.

Theo, your hero George W. Bush, with his MBA, promised America a “humble foreign policy”.

First, none of the students that I am aware of saw any distinction between the adjunct professors or lecturers (like Obama) and the tenured professors (like Cass Sunstein or Richard Epstein). Indeed, some of the most popular and respected professors — Richard Posner, Diane Wood, Frank Easterbrook, and yes, Barack Obama — were adjuncts or lecturers. So while it’s certainly possible to split hairs between tenure-track and non-tenure track professors, it’s not a hair his students were splitting (and, I would add, from the perspective of one of those students, it did not seem to be a hair that his fellow professors were splitting, though I obviously don’t know what sorts of conversations occurred outside the presence of students).

Second, I am surprised that Professor Volokh characterizes professors as being primarily used to lecturing inferiors. My experience as a University of Chicago student is that teaching us was almost a third priority, behind the second priority of engaging in scholarship and the first priority of interacting with other professors. While President Obama obviously didn’t engage in scholarship (he was busy being a legislator), he did engage in discussions with other professors. I know this because many of these discussions were open to students. Indeed, I probably learned as much from watching roundtables and panel discussions in which faculty memebers questioned and tested each other as I did in class. Moreover, even in the lecture setting, almost all of my professors recognized that they were lecturing a very smart group of people and always seemed receptive to new ideas — that is, they recognized that while they might be the most knowledgable people in the room (at least on their particular topic of expertise), they weren’t necessarily the most intelligent people in the room, and they were open to learning from the other intelligent people in the room.

If that sounds more appealing to you, Professor Volokh, than lecturing your inferiors, you may want to give your former (and our current) Dean a call and see about moving to Chicago. We’re even having earthquakes here these days, so you’ll feel right at home!

Third — and this is a minor point — someone above refered to President Obama as being a lecturer while he was a community organizer. While that’s technically correct (there was some small amount of overlap between his time as a community organizer and his time at U of C), for the bulk of his time at U of C, he was a state senator, not a community organizer.

Fourth, someone asked what President Obama taught. During my time there (and I think this was generally true of his time there, though I don’t know for certain), he taught Con Law III, which was the Con Law class at U of C that focused on equal protection. This was not a required course (no Con Law classes were at U of C). He also taught a number of seminars on related topics.

And if there’s one thing Obama knows, it’s how to win elections. As in ‘how to game them’. He’s only lost one election in his entire life – that was to Black Panther Bobby Rush.

I wonder if he made President of Harvard Law Review the same way he won his first election in Chicago – by having everyone else, including the incumbent, thrown off the ballot, so no one was ALLOWED to vote for anyone but him ?

But maybe this is too harsh–other times (the Afghanistan review comes to mind), he does in fact seem to be struggling with different views, almost to the point of paralysis. So this approach may not simply be rhetorical–it may be how he thinks. Indeed, although I view the positions he takes as generally leftish, he gets quite a bit of criticism from the left for not standing up for what he believes in. So perhaps he’s incapable of “picking a side” because this is not what professors do (of course, they do it all the time, but they don’t like to think they are doing it).

There is overwhelming proof. Obama has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and he showed the physical copy of the document to both Politifact and FactCheck. Hawaii’s official birth certificate is now the Certification of Live Birth, the one that Obama posted, and it is the only one that Hawaii sends out (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)..

It is not possible to get a birth certificate in Hawaii–either long form or short form–that says “born in Hawaii” on it unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. Obama’s birth certificate says “born in Hawaii,” and the facts on the document were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor’s administration.

Obama’s Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. . Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-

But the market went up 60% during his first year of office, delivering a ringing endorsement of his approach to governing.

Elites? Inferiors? Such language indicates why many people foreseeably hold academic conceit in contempt.

Scoring an academic position frequently has nothing to
do with skill, accomplishment, or intelligence. There is nothing about the academy that somehow exempts it from corrupt influences that infect every area of human activity (cronyism, nepotism, political favors, racism, sexism, etc.).

David Nieporent:
Well, the Yankees won the World Series last year.As this is a calamity bigger than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Vietnam War combined, I’d say that Obama’s legacy of failure is complete.

Amazing, but Yankees haven’t won a World Series during Republican administration since 1950s.

but to a large part his problems can be blamed on “the recession hasn’t ended yet, therefore voters are cranky”, and it’s not particularly clear how he could have changed that.

Obama brought that on himself. Remember, the market crashed during the campaign, not after it (but before he took office). He did not say that it would take a long time to fix; he did not say that he would ram through highly partisan agendas to try to fix it; however, he did say that he would stop the old ways of doing business in Washington. Obama lead many voters to believe that the old ways of doing business in Washington that would be ended included blaming one’s predecessors, not fixing problems in a timely manner, and acting in a partisan manner.

Obama is getting slammed for the same reason that Bush 41 did with “Read my lips: no new taxes.”

Furthermore, when people are promised that a $1 trillion stimulus package will keep unemployment under 8% and then it hovers around 10% for almsot a year – yeah, Americans get pissed.