Gen. Tommy Franks says Kerry is "absolutly Qualified" for president
 

Gen. Franks: Kerry 'absolutely' qualifiedThe Associated Press
Updated: 11:57 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2004WASHINGTON - Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, producer of the early military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Sunday that criticism of John Kerry’s war record is political hyperbole and Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.

advertisement

A year into retirement, Franks also said he has not decided whether to endorse President Bush for re-election. “I don’t know yet. I’m leaning in that direction,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Franks, whose hometown is Midland, Texas — where the president and first lady Laura Bush grew up — has been making television appearances in recent days to publicize his just-published memoirs, “American Soldier.”

“Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief?” Franks was asked.

“Absolutely!” he said.

But like the criticism of Kerry, the retired general said the Democratic nominee’s recent harsh words about the war plan Franks created in Afghanistan was motivated by politics and his failure to capture al-Qaida network leader Osama bin Laden.

“I think a presidential election year is a marvelous thing. I think Senator Kerry is a patriot. And I think what ... what we’re doing is, we’re seeing an attempt to sort of draw the lines between the two parties in this country. And I wouldn’t have it any other way,” Franks said.

The characterization of Kerry as a coward and liar who did not earn the medals awarded him for his Vietnam service came in a television ad sponsored by a group that fashions calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry was skipper of one of the small Mekong River boats and received the Silver Star and Bronze Star for valor and three Purple Hearts for wounds.

“I really work hard to stay away from hyperbole,” Franks said. “People ask me all the time about ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ and then others will ask me about some equally vitriolic view at the end of the continuum on the conservative side.”

“I believe that life really is someplace between the two,” Franks said, “and so I am not a fan of hyperbole, whether it is for or against Senator Kerry or George W. Bush.”

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is the anti-Bush film by documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

Franks said he also has not decided whether he would want to speak at the Republican National Convention.

“I’m a fiercely independent kind of guy and rather proud of it,” Franks said.

Of course Kerry is qualified. He's over 35 and a US citizen. Is he the right man for the job? I say no.

I give you some credit, you're very good at spinning the facts.

What facts did he spin? I saw absolutely no spinning of any facts. He listed two factual reasons why Kerry is qualified and gave an opinion. There is no possible way you can bash his post, or say he is spinning anything.

Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, producer of the early military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Sunday that criticism of John Kerry’s war record is political hyperbole and Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.

It goes without saying that General Franks has more credibility than Sleaze Boat Veterans for Bush.

Look you dimwit. Your own crap says he is leaning in that direction. I think Franks is an idiot from point zero, and said so from over a year ago. First, he ran from the damn war. If your a General, you don't do that. You finish it.

So I don't give a crap what Franks says or does, but I do take exception to your crap when Franks says he's leaning to endorsing Bush, like I even care.

I'm on record for hating Tommy Franks as a total idiot for over a year.

Gen. Franks wasn't referring to his age & citizenship when he said that.

Franks and Bush blew it, they knew were Osama was, and somehow, the two of them allowed him to get out of Afghanistan. How did that happen?

They should have had more troops on the ground.

How would 45,000 boots on the ground helped in capturing Osama?? Well obviously what we had out there to do the job was insufficient, another 45000 troops would have tripled the amount of boots on the ground to go after Osama.

Assuming that the command felt it had enough troops on the ground to capture those Al Qaeda members fleeing Tora Bora, but was incorrect, it is therefore totally logical that trippling that force would have actually accomplished the mission.

But again, Bush would not commit the Marines to killing our TRUE AND REAL KNOWN ENEMY in the war on terror, because he was already sidetracked in planning his inept war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Again, Bush is a fool, he was not qualified to be president, and has proven time and time again he needs to be replaced for the safety of our planet.

Whether you look at his terrible enviromental policies, his lack of funding of no-child left behind to pat the pockets of the rich, his pathetic attempts at being a War president, his inaction in the face of threats to our nations sanctity (august 6th PDB and constant warnings from the CIA and FBI), his terrible tax cuts that the OBD has said is the #1 cause of our record deficit, his assignments of lobbyists to positions of power in our government who have made mistake after ethical mistake, cutting veterans benefits, medicare budget gaff and his pandering to big pharmaceutical companies, it is unbelievable that you or anyone else would try to defend the worst president in history.

Has he done anything right that has benefitted anyone in this country besides the rich??

I often wonder what shape we would be in right now if we would have continued to contain Saddam, but committed all our forces in Afghanistan, killed OBL and Zawahiri and crushed Al Queda before it had a chance to spread like a virus across the world. At least the example would have been made. As of now, the example is one of "You can hit the U.S. and get away with it."

what a line of crap. We should of just been able to take out Hitler then shouldn't we. Your an idiot. Franks ran away to write a book and is an idiot. You bring nothing to bear about knowing where Usama is, and can't even spell the name. Fact is he was in the Sudan and we knew damn well where he was dimwit.

Your an idiot. Your quoting Kerry and it's about Iraq you moron.

Exactly why is that totally logical? It's totally ignorant. Listen to this fools logic. "We had enough troops on the ground".

Gee wiz, since your humping Kerry calling for 45,000 more troops you better get on board there son. Your such an idiot. We overturned the Taliban in 30 days. You don't even have a clue where forces are to be placed under Kerry.

A bunch of hillarious assertions.

Here we go with the real agenda. Isn't this what you were getting to all along dimwit? And why are his environmental policies terrible? Bush doesn't Build SUV's or air conditioners. You must be from California, where they had to throw out a certified idiot. ]

I strongly dissagree with your assumption of no child left behind. There is opportunity for every child in these states. Not only are there laws to protect minorities, but there are multiple avenues to gain funding thru student loans regardless of race, color or creed. Your an idiot.

Has he done anything right that has benefitted anyone in this country besides the rich??[/QUOTE]

Terrible Tax Cuts. Dogs and Cats living together. Your so clueless it's amusing. Taxes stymie growth. Kennedy lowered taxes. Reagan lowered taxed.

We may have to raise taxes, but taxes isn't the fundamental problem dimwit.

I wonder if the bush family likes their $130k worth of jewlery from the haus of saud

lmmfao @ watermock

The 45,000 troops I am talking about is a hypothetical number of troops that SHOULD have been committed to Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda. I wasn't quoting Kerry, the 45k number is a coincidence, I just pulled that number out of my ass.

And OBL was not in Sudan after 9/11, he was in Tora Bora, the lack of troops on the ground allowed him to escape to northern Pakistan. Knowledge.

Gee wiz, since your humping Kerry calling for 45,000 more troops you better get on board there son.

Well gee wiz, since I am a United States Marine I guess I am on board.

Your such an idiot.

You need to reread my post clown. Who is the idiot? Can you read. Try to disprove anything I said....

I strongly dissagree with your assumption of no child left behind. There is opportunity for every child in these states.

Bush promised to fund No Child Left Behind, but he broke that promise, and under funded the money by 5 billion dollars, 1/5 of the money he gave in his tax break to the top 1% of income earners in the United States. Priorities for Bush are the rich, and not poor kids that need after school programs that keep them out of trouble. And programs for early development to give kids a HEADSTART.

Not only are there laws to protect minorities, but there are multiple avenues to gain funding thru student loans regardless of race, color or creed.

Whose talking about loans, and college programs, that has nothing to do with No Child Left Behind, seek KNOWLEDGE, then speak.

And why are his environmental policies terrible?

Your right, putting the lobbyists of energy companies, pharmaceuticals, and other Bush backers in charge of our governmental regulation departments, makes great sense, since they then passed laws that allowed the energy companies to make up thier own regulation standards etc... Brilliant.

That is why so many have been forced to resign, and are under heavy scrutiny by ethics oversee committees, because they are making up thier own rules. Its putting the foxes in charge of the hen house. Again, seek knowledge, you dont even know a thing about Bush, yet you try to defend him.

lmmfao

LMMFAO @ this one CLASSIC take from watermock!!!!!!!

Reagan lowered taxes.

Ha ha haaaa!!!!!

your right he did, then he raised them over and over and over again, and ran our deficit out of control!!!

Not to mention that Bush was running the show in his Shadow Government aka Iran/Contra breaking the law set forth from Congress.

reagan did lower taxes...look it up.

running up taxes wouldn't raise the deficit...lets do basic math

if you take in more money than you spend (more taxes) you won't have a deficit

if you taxes less and spend more (less taxes) then you'll have a deficit.

how can he do both? LOL...dude, seriously...don't look like an idiot on your first few posts.

You're probably right about that. Matter of fact, I'll say that you are right. But, there are alot of people qualified to run for President. It's actually a pretty stupid question. The majority of the country is qualified to run for president. Just because they don't have the money or the clout to do so doesn't take away from that. The question that should have been asked is this. "Would John Kerry make a good President?"

Because he had to raise taxes, you need to look at his record. Again, if you would, you would see that he raised taxes over and over and over again, but it wasnt enough and we also had to borrow billions to pay for how much we spent. He promised to lower taxes to stimulate the company, he did, and it didn't work, then he had to go back on that promise and raise the over and over again.

We spent so much that even raising taxes couldnt cover our deficits. Your math is correct, but your facts are not.

We spent more than we had.

Under Bush II, we spend way more, but he didnt even raise taxes, he wants to make his tax cuts permanent........lmfao

Now who is the idiot.

HA HAAAAAAAAAAA

It's known as deficit spending the Speaker of the House explained all this on Meet the Press, not that I agree with him, but it is what happened.

August 6th 2001 PDB - Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Action Taken by Bush- None

Who=Al Qaeda
Where=NY
How=Hijackings and other types of attacks
When=irrellevent, it is from the time this memo is read until threat is eliminated

Action Taken by Bush - None

dude seriously...check your facts

Reagan lowered taxes from Carter years

Bush promised he wouldn't raise taxes but had to.......duh

and your still the idiot.

give it up shack, trying to explain simple economics to those bone heads is impossible. Some people just don't have that capability.

I guess your right any guy that refers to Jake as a "pimp" b/c he hit on his fat waitress friend can't be taken too seriously.

youngins........ :saywhat:

He can't help it, it's what he has. You play with what you have.
In his case, it's idiocy and ranting.

You are truly a moron. When did all this wrong doing occur? Under the Clinton Administration. Bush had nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, Bush's Justice Department is prosecuting these guys. You need to educate yourself before questioning others.

You clowns are out of control, to funny.

"Reagan lowered taxes from Carter years"
Yes, I know, I said this, then he raised taxes over and over and over again. Can you read. His economic policy of lowering taxes FAILED.

"Bush promised he wouldn't raise taxes but had to.......duh"

The only thing I said about Bush was about BUSH II------- as in the SECOND BUSH.

If you knew your facts, you would know that Reagan RAISED taxes, and still ran record deficits. The reason your math is WRONG, is because the spending was NOT STATIC.

If your spend more than you tax, then you have to borrow, that is what Reagan did, then Bush tried to promise, no new taxes, but he broke that promise just like Reagan did.

I have said this 3 times, when will you comprehend basic math. If you spend more than you tax, even if you raise taxes, but your spending which is NOT STATIC, but INCREASING, then you run deficits. Just like Bush II is doing, except he is actually trying to push permanent tax cuts when we are running record deficits.......

THAT MATH makes no sense at all. DUH. lmao @ you.

Here is the story on the Bush scandalious lobbyists btw.

SEEK KNOWLEDGE

http://www.rense.com/general53/wehn.htm

here ya go numb nuts....Reagan's record on taxes....check it out if you know how to click on a link

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm
http://reagan.webteamone.com/income_and_ss_taxes.cfm
http://www.therant.info/archive/000363.html - this one shows how he increased taxes on business actually, but not on personal tax........
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060704e.cfm

I think what your confused about is...he cut taxes in 1981 then rolled back some of his cuts he made, but they were still below the levels they were before 1981......on top of that, most of the taxes he raised were on business.