Ted Haggard

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to Fox, I was talking more about their actual news coverage than their shows. I do like some of the shows. I think O'Reilly is alright most of the time. At times, he can be really obnoxious but most of the time he is alright. He is very conseravtive on most issues but he has liberal guests on all the time that he debates. at least the liberal guest's voice is heard and O"Reilly will always give the guest the last word which I like.

With regard to Hannity and Colmes, the show is probably not quite as balanced as it should be beacuse Hannity is really the star of the show and he comes on much stronger than Colmes. I'm not a big fan of Hannity. He's a conservative hack. The guests on the show are usually alright. they usually have a good mix of both liberals and conservatives.

With regard to your question about Bush, I do not think that his job approval has been hurt by media coverage. I think the media has been fair with him overall. I think the only thing that has really hurt him is the war. And the war would not have hurt him at all if it would have gone well. Americans are results oriented. If we would have won the war, everyone would be happy.

I agree with you about Drudge. I like it because it has a good mix of articles from both liberal and conservative papers. It has all the interesting headlines from all the big newpapers.

I think Bush would be doing far better on the public's view of his handling of the war, not to mention that the war itself might go better, if he cut Rumsfeld loose. I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I've felt this for a couple years.

I just do not get Bush's devotion and while I guess I admire Rumsfeld's desire to get the job done, I think we'd all be better off with change there.

It's been 5 years since 9/11 and four years of war. If the country were a corporation, Defense was it's biggest division and Rumsfeld was in charge of that division, there is not much chance he'd still be in the job. Why is this different?

When things go bad, people get stale and you can't replace all of the troops. But you can change the leadership and sometimes change for the sake of change alone is reasonable.

Frankly, this puzzles the hell out if me.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I think Bush would be doing far better on the public's view of his handling of the war, not to mention that the war itself might go better, if he cut Rumsfeld loose. I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I've felt this for a couple years.

I just do not get Bush's devotion and while I guess I admire Rumsfeld's desire to get the job done, I think we'd all be better off with change there.

It's been 5 years since 9/11 and four years of war. If the country were a corporation, Defense was it's biggest division and Rumsfeld was in charge of that division, there is not much chance he'd still be in the job. Why is this different?

When things go bad, people get stale and you can't replace all of the troops. But you can change the leadership and sometimes change for the sake of change alone is reasonable.

Frankly, this puzzles the hell out if me.

I think Rumsfeld is probably a victim of his own success. He's been so successful at everything that he's done in his life that I think it has made him a little stubborn. I heard that he was broguht in as CEO at two different companies and totally turned the companies around. I think he's worth over $100 million. Sometimes guys who are that successful think that they can do anything. They think they can walk on water. I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than all of his generals and he may be, but that doesn't mean that he knows more about fighting a war than they do.

The truth of the matter is that it's a really tough situation over there and I think there would be serious problems no matter who was in charge. But like you said, sometimes it can be better to change things just for the sake of change. Bush probably doesn't have the nerve to fire him. He probably felt lucky to get him in the first place. It would be like if you owned a team and you convinced some legendary coach to come out of retirement and coach your team. If things didn't go well, you still may not have the nerve to fire him. You feel so grateful that he took the job in the first place that you wouldn't feel right about firing him even if you felt that he wasn't getting the job done.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think Rumsfeld is probably a victim of his own success. He's been so successful at everything that he's done in his life that I think it has made him a little stubborn. I heard that he was broguht in as CEO at two different companies and totally turned the companies around. I think he's worth over $100 million. Sometimes guys who are that successful think that they can do anything. They think they can walk on water. I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than all of his generals and he may be, but that doesn't mean that he knows more about fighting a war than they do.

The truth of the matter is that it's a really tough situation over there and I think there would be serious problems no matter who was in charge. But like you said, sometimes it can be better to change things just for the sake of change. Bush probably doesn't have the nerve to fire him. He probably felt lucky to get him in the first place. It would be like if you owned a team and you convinced some legendary coach to come out of retirement and coach your team. If things didn't go well, you still may not have the nerve to fire him. You feel so grateful that the took the job in the first place that you wouldn't feel right about firing him even if you felt that he wasn't getting the job done.

Rumsfeld was CEO of Gen Instrument and Searle. He's a tremendously wealthy and successful man. I think he was also Chairman of two or three other firms as well.

He got elected to Congress very young ...28 or 29 I think.

The most interesting fact I know about him is that while he is now the oldest person to serve as Sec of Defense, he is also the youngest person to have held the position (back with Ford).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Rumsfeld was CEO of Gen Instrument and Searle. He's a tremendously wealthy and successful man. I think he was also Chairman of two or three other firms as well.

He got elected to Congress very young ...28 or 29 I think.

The most interesting fact I know about him is that while he is now the oldest person to serve as Sec of Defense, he is also the youngest person to have held the position (back with Ford).

Yes, that is right. He was both the youngest and oldest Sec of Defense.

I respect the man. How many guys in there 70's wanna be working night and day and constantly being bashed? He is not on a beach with a paper umbrella in his drink. He really thought he could get the job done. And he did. But vastly underestimated the aftermath.

[Downthestretch55]

Rupert,
Here are your words:
"First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said."

First of all, you are making an outrageous assumption that demands an apology. I will not tolerate your lie.
Secondly, your clumsy attempt to refocus the topic of the debate from Haggard to me, like somehow I am the reason for his actions, is also tranparent.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish as am I.
I base mine on truth.

DTS

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Here are your words:
"First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said."

First of all, you are making an outrageous assumption that demands an apology. I will not tolerate your lie.
Secondly, your clumsy attempt to refocus the topic of the debate from Haggard to me, like somehow I am the reason for his actions, is also tranparent.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish as am I.
I base mine on truth.

DTS

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

You can correct me if I was wrong. Would you have been interested in the story and posted the story if it was about a Muslim? If you would have, then my assumption was wrong and I apologize.

Anyway, I'm done debating with you. It's a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

DTS.

We won the war militarily. We wiped the Iraqi military out. Did you miss that? We invaded and removed Iraq as a country we thought was a nuclear and biological threat to us directly.

Now as far as stabilizing the country after wiping out the regime that held so many factions from killing each other with brutal authority, well, that has clearly not gone well.

Our first objective was met with success. We removed what we thought was a threat. (No WMD's but we did not know that. We had people scouring all sites detected as biological and nuclear threats) Clearly should have spent some time thinking about stabilizing the country. After we got rid of the regime and finding no WMD's, then we had an entirely different objective that was not well thought out at all.
Then it was, ok then... well we did get rid of a brutal dictator (excuse for not finding WMD's)... uhhh, lets get this country fixed, uhhhh...

What is incorrect about my analysis and opinion.