Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
I criticize people who are either incompetent or reckless with the truth. I am a litigator. If I told my client that I had a slam dunk case for a TRO to shut down a copyright infringer, and instead my case dragged on for 2 years, and cost them lots of money without getting the TRO, I would (and should) be canned.
Is America better off without Hussein? In a moral sense, maybe. From a strategic sense, I think that he was pretty well contained, and that he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. I think that the invasion has hurt the US because it diverted our attention from Afghanistan and other problems in the war on terror.
Are the Iraqi people better off? I would guess that they would be in a better position to answer that question. Most of the atrocities that you will no doubt cite occurred before, or in the immediate aftermath of, the first Gulf War. I'm not ready to say that it's a bad thing that he's gone, but I'm safe here in Podunkville. I'm not one of the people blown up by a car bomb in Baghdad, or caught in the crossfire in Fallujah.
Nonetheless, we overthrew him, and now we are stuck in Iraq, and we can't just leave the place broken. But why should we allow the people who didn't listen to the advice of those (like Powell and Franks) who may have favored overthrowing SH, but warned of the very problems that we are now seeing, get a free pass on criticism? There are *still* problems with getting plates for Kevlar vests to our troops on the ground. There are *still* problems with getting Humvees uparmored. Why doesn't this bother you?
Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"
|
We are war with people that want us wiped out. We ignored the threat for years. We can no longer. Your analogy is an insult really to the 3000 people who died on 9/11.
Fighting terrorism is not some optional TRO. It is a bet the farm fight for the company.
Did you read that Saudi religious authorities are now telling young men not to play soccer and concentrate on Jihad?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-8-2005_pg7_8
I just don't think your party's policy of hoping it gets better is the way.
Have there been mis-steps, mistakes, things that should be corrected to this day? Sure. You know we lost some battles in WWII, right?
When you console your client on trying to get the TRO I know you would also tell them it isn't likely you'll get relief that fast, you tell them if they lack the stomach for a long lawsuit they really shouldn't consider the TRO. If you do that then you can remind them of the advice later when they want out.
Bush has said, at every step, the fight will be long and difficult. He never spoke of a TRO win. Your side will snipe at every action taken- they will never be good enough, but those actions are still better than the long inaction that put us where we are.
