Yes, I think we are in agreement. If the law were respected, then the IA, the Wayback Machine, Abandonware Archive, and all of the benefits we get from them would not exist. It sounds like you think the law should be respected, so you think it's good for the IA to be destroyed by this lawsuit. Yes?
I think it's terrible that the Internet Archive is very likely destroyed, or at best, we have to donate a large sum of money to pay off Hachette.
But I think it was reckless to engage in uncontrolled ebook lending. Controlled lending (one copy lent for one copy on the shelf) is not a legal right (in the US), but it's got a much better chance of avoiding a lawsuit.
Uncontrolled lending was foolish. It was inviting a lawsuit, and it has far less chance of popular support than the intuitively more reasonable model of controlled lending.
I agree with the sentiment behind the NEL program: it's a lovely gesture. But to invite destruction of the Archive like that was a terrible mistake, in my view.
Clearly you aren't paying attention so allow me to reiterate:
Regardless of one's opinion on the IA or their mission, they objectively did a stupid when they decided to fuck around with copyright law. Publishers (and judges) have demonstrated repeatedly over the last two and a half decades that from a business perspective this is the equivalent of standing on railroad tracks giving an oncoming train the bird. 10/10 for balls, 2/10 for judgement.