Posted on 08/08/2004 10:54:18 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Former Iraq war commander Gen. Tommy Franks said Sunday that Sen. John Kerry is qualified to be commander-in-chief, rejecting criticism from more than 200 Vietnam veterans who served with Kerry and say he's unfit for command.
"I'm not a fan of hyperbole whether it is for or against Sen. Kerry," Gen. Franks told ABC's "This Week."
Asked specifically about allegations that Kerry fabricated some of his combat record, Franks said, "Yeah, I think it is hyperbole."
"For some reason we've fallen pray to a notion that says there has to be vitriol on order to simply say, I support Sen. Kerry, I support George W. Bush to remain president for the next four years."
Asked point blank if Kerry was qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, Franks said, "Absolutely."
The Iraq war chief was adressing allegations by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam Veterans who served with Kerry who have chronicled evidence of his misconduct as a swiftboat commander in the new bestselling book, "Unfit for Command."
Gen. Franks said he was proud of being "fiercely independent" in his politics, but he told "This Week" that he's leaning towards supporting President Bush and acknowledged he's in talks with GOP planners for a possible address to the Republican Convention on Aug. 29.
Some of them made them for 30 years. They were ignored.
Depends on how fast your read...and whether you'd rather read than watch TV.
Nope, thought he was done after Afghanistan, and never went to Iraq.
Still, I do not believe the man ought to be held accountable for the Abu Ghraib mess.
Think I'm going to read "Unfit For Command" first.
He said last week he hadn't been invited to the RAT convention and was very disappointed. Also said he hadn't yet been formally invited to the republican convention. A coy boy, our Franks.
They never had any compelling need before now to make those charges. Their goldbricking, hotdogging, loose cannon, highfaluting, temporary comrade in arms, was just sitting quietly in a Senate seat as the junior Senator to Lady Killer Teddy Kennedy, or else jet setting around the globe, hobnobbing with the happy go lucky beautiful people.
Now they see this contemptable creep, running for President of the United States and listing his four months of screw ups in Vietnam as proof of his qualification for being Commander-in-Chief. They rightly presumed that their fellow citizens wanted to hear and deserved to know what they knew about the boastful, self serving and snooty, Kerry.
Thirty years or three thousand years- there is no stature of limitations on spotlighting the truth.
I disagree with Gen Franks, whom I admire very much. Since he never will have to serve under Kerry in any circumstance, are these words hollow? Nothing is goring Gen Franks' ox in this statement.
You're mistaken because you're stereotyping. O'Dell was making those charges on televison back in the '70's
I may do just that.
I had respect for this man...but his statement on Kerry has vanquished that...
TV gets the least of my time.
Increasingly it looks like the Swifty 250 blew it.
"Increasingly it looks like the Swifty 250 blew it."
What does that mean?
Mine too <G>
Blew WHAT, exactly?
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
How can you, or anyone, say that when it's not yet proven whether the Swifties are lying or telling the truth about his VN service?
If Kerry is lying about the matter in dispute he is not qualified to sit in the Oval Office and make life or death decisions affecting 300 million Americans. That's not because of something he may or may not have done 35 years ago and not because of his liberal political views, it's because a liar doesn't have the strength of character needed in a president of the United States.
By your logic Benedict Arnold should have run in 1800, and if he did, his military record was beyond any question. Ri-i-ight.
Still waiting. Blew what??
They blew communicating their message effectively.
They had to know that the mainstream media would come at them with everything they had, obfuscating their story and message. Freom what I saw of the talking heads on TV (the interviewed vets), they came off very unimpressively.
They seemed evasive, hemmed and hawed at the question of if they served on the same boat, and otherwise didn't look polished or impressive.
A big part of that was that the media was circling the wagons for Kerry. But that's no excuse. they should have been prepared for that, coached, and ready to make
Seemed like most just put on a sportcoat and their eyes widened when under combative questioning. It was amateur hour.
So yes, they are not communicating well, which compromises their message. "They are blowing it." Or if the die is cast, "They blew it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.