What do you mean by wanting to practice business law? That's a pretty gigantic field. Transactional stuff? Litigation? If litigation antitrust? Securities? IP? etc.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
clever, you are saying that "fixing" is refering to the way Bush was arguing the facts to a predetermined outcome in the same way a legal advocate would. if Bush had a predetermined outcome like attacking Iraq way back in November then all his statements about using war as a last resort and not having made up his mind were disingenuous.I don't understand this position. The President just can't go to war. For it to even be an option you have to make the case for it. In making this case you have to present why war is justifiable. Even if you would prefer not to have to go to war but want war as an option you would still have to create a basis for it. It's like if you wanted to raise the age of retirement. You couldn't just do it, you'd have to build a case for it and explain why the facts were such that it should be done. Now maybe you'd be perfectly willing to forgo raising the retirement age in favor of some other solution but if you don't make the case for raising the retirement age that option is completely off the table.
Plus, the way that the Pres talked about the WMD, it was like he knew where they were and indeed RUmsfeld said he knew where they were (north, south, east and west of baghdad dbag)Wait do we believe the Downing Street memos as accurate characterizations of knowledge at the time or not? If so then they clearly state that the belief was Iraq had the capability of producing Biological weapons within days. As far as I know biological weapons fall under the WMD heading. They also specifically stated there was a ready chemical weapons capability. Generally chemical weapons are also placed into the WMD category (I don't think they belong there though).
To fix the facts around a policy of war, even in the way that you are describing, and a policy of a war of choice is terribly sinister.I don't see that at all. By that I mean, if you think a certain policy is the best choice how would you argue it other than by fitting the facts around that policy? Isn't that how advocacy works? Also you're looking at things in isolation rather than part of the overall picture. As I said, if you want war to even be an option you have to make the case for war. Also though let's say you just want to reimpose the inspections regime. If that's the case, in this instance you also have to make the case for war. As the Downing street memos say and as others have said in order to put sufficient pressure on Saddam to comply a credible threat of war was necessary. You can't have a credible threat of war if you don't in fact get yourself ready for war. In what way would you be able to convince Saddam that you were ready to go to war without making moves to advocate for war?
And your reading of the term "fix" is in the most generous way that one could read it. Even then it makes the Pres disingenuous and untrustworthy.I don't think it's generous. The memo didn't seem to hesitate when it felt that things weren't accurate (such as their doubt in the terrorist angle). So if they thought the intelligence was inaccurate I doubt they wouldn't have said so. And really why would they say the facts were inaccurate where their own facts commented on the ability of Hussein to produce Bio/Chem weapons, likely inability of getting the UN to force compliance, Ground war being the only method to ensure both regime change and reintegration of Iraq into the international community, etc.
But if you read it another way, the author of the memo could have been saying that Bush was fabricating the factsSee above.
Knowing what the problem was going to be, they should have had a plan to mitigate that problem. instead it is a game of wait and see.I don't know about that. I mean you don't make any distinctions from mistakes and mistakes for which there should be blame assigned. By that I mean in any policy there's going to be unanticipated events or events which you can anticipate but really you do the best that you can. Sometimes you don't have enough troops. You want to mitigate that shortcoming. But sometimes the only way to mitigate that shortcoming is to have more troops and sometimes the world is imperfect and you can't have more troops and you have to make do with what you have. Now there are certainly mistakes but without specifically mentioning them it's hard to analyze and there has to be some understanding of what we are comparing things to? Are we comparing against the perfect? The reasonable?
the damaging part is that eh fixed the intelligence around the policy. i do not that is or should be a tactic of politicians in a free democracy. that to me is incredibly damagain because it came from a third party, objective, nonpartisan source. Are you in favor of presidents fixing the facts around their policy.
what if bush decided that he wanted to jail a political opponent and fixed a bunch of facts around that policy?quote]
Wait isn't this what prosecutors and actually all litigating attorneys do and for that matter what all policy advocates do? By that I mean with any case there's evidence for and against a particular outcome. Ultimately you tend to believe one side or the other and from there you take those portions of the facts to support your side. In other words you fix the facts around that policy. Saying this was wrong is saying he should not have advocated a policy. Is that what you mean? Now if the memos had said that they were fixing facts-full stop. Then that's a different thing altogether, in that it would be akin to faking evidence.QuoteThe postwar stuff is a concern because there was no immediate need to attack Iraq when we did and we could have waited at least a month for the plans to be madeThe primary issue seems to be a troop level problem but that isn't a month long fixing process that's a result of years/a decade worth of force level reductions. Now you could argue they nonetheless they should have waited but arguing that is arguing not a month or so wait but a wait of say 5 plus years which would have substantially different consequences.