Gen. Tommy Franks chooses a canidate...

[stretch-d]

He endorses President Bush.

Who saw his interview with Sean Hannity? What he said made a lot of sense. I've had a couple of chances to hear him speak, and all I can say is that this is a man that I can respect...and not because he chose Bush.

[juanschwartz]

He endorses President Bush.

Who saw his interview with Sean Hannity? What he said made a lot of sense. I've had a couple of chances to hear him speak, and all I can say is that this is a man that I can respect...and not because he chose Bush.
You're right... He is a wise man...

Franks says his biggest surprise of the Iraq war was the failure to find weapons of mass destruction which he flatly adds was "the reason we went to war."

--Parade Magazine 08/01/04

[Mobil1]

You're right... He is a wise man...

Franks says his biggest surprise of the Iraq war was the failure to find weapons of mass destruction which he flatly adds was "the reason we went to war."

--Parade Magazine 08/01/04
yeah...id say that was a suprise. a big one.

[stretch-d]

By your own admittion Juan, he's a very wise man....

But you know what? He still believes it was the right thing to do...and he's not only voting for Bush, he's endorsing him. Something that he has never done for any canidate that he was voting for in the past.

It kind of makes you think that there might be some pretty good reasons to support Bush doesn't it?

[juanschwartz]

By your own admittion Juan, he's a very wise man....

But you know what? He still believes it was the right thing to do...and he's not only voting for Bush, he's endorsing him. Something that he has never done for any canidate that he was voting for in the past.

It kind of makes you think that there might be some pretty good reasons to support Bush doesn't it?
Yeah. Because John Kerry is a traitor and a flip-flopper, right? Waiting to see Bush's productive work...

[stretch-d]

Yeah. Because John Kerry is a traitor and a flip-flopper, right? Waiting to see Bush's productive work...

I didn't write that, but those are great reasons....plus all the others like his total anti-defense voting record--where, ironicly--he was quite consistent.

Here is a link to Bush's productive work list...Pick it apart if you can...Enjoy.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=bush+list+of+achievements+as+p resident&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Df 06a0bcbaa117904%26clickedItemRank%3D14%26userQuery %3Dbush%2Blist%2Bof%2Bachievements%2Bas%2Bpresiden t%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.angelf ire.com%252Fok%252Ffunwithunclejim%252Fbush.html%2 6invocationType%3Dnext%26fromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev%2 6amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Fok%2Ff unwithunclejim%2Fbush.html

[juanschwartz]

I didn't write that, but those are great reasons....plus all the others like his total anti-defense voting record--where, ironicly--he was quite consistent.

Here is a link to Bush's productive work list...Pick it apart if you can...Enjoy.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=bush+list+of+achievements+as+p resident&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Df 06a0bcbaa117904%26clickedItemRank%3D14%26userQuery %3Dbush%2Blist%2Bof%2Bachievements%2Bas%2Bpresiden t%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.angelf ire.com%252Fok%252Ffunwithunclejim%252Fbush.html%2 6invocationType%3Dnext%26fromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev%2 6amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Fok%2Ff unwithunclejim%2Fbush.html

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Haha! Yeah, like his pal "Kenny Boy" at Enron...

I thought I covered his defense record already. Cheney's is quite similar. I don't even like John Kerry and I don't hate George Bush, but you talk about Kerry like he's satan and Bush like he's got a golden cock that makes him infallible. He's a politician just like Kerry. Here is how his campaign advisors planted the "bad defense record" idea in your head.

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Bush Ad: National Version
"Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.
Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did.

As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:
Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric
Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"
McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

McCain is heading Bush's re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same Bush ad.

Bush Ad: State Version
"Arizona Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer: As our troops defend
America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and components of F-18 Fighter Jets all built here in Arizona.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."

The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added a similar pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false impression of Kerry's actual voting record.

Sources

Richard Cheney "Hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal 1990 Defense Budget" 13 July 1989

Fred Kaplan "Bush's 1992 Budget: Plan includes a $ 3.7b military cut" Boston Globe, 5 Feb 1991.

Nancy Benac, "McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense," The Associated Press 18 March 2004.

National Journal's Congress Daily, "McCain, Differing From GOP Leaders, Defends Kerry On Defense," 18 March 2004.

[Demosthenes]

A little off subject but isn't THE WAR ON TERROR a bit overdramatic? It makes it sound like we are the utlimate good fighting some holy war against the ultimate evil. It's easy to accept hearing something that glorifies us to some biblical extreme. This evangelical shit could come out of a fantasy book talking about knights in shining armor.... :eyesjack:

[PissYellowGTi]

A little off subject but isn't THE WAR ON TERROR a bit overdramatic? It makes it sound like we are the utlimate good fighting some holy war against the ultimate evil. It's easy to accept hearing something that glorifies us to some biblical extreme. This evangelical shit could come out of a fantasy book talking about knights in shining armor.... :eyesjack:

We are technically defending ourselves from a holy war (the Jihad) so that's pretty much right. If Bin Ladin pulled off another major attack, or had an aire to do so in future years, than he could be touted as the anti-christ by christians, it would have be a lot bigger than 9/11 though.

[Mobil1]

A little off subject but isn't THE WAR ON TERROR a bit overdramatic? It makes it sound like we are the utlimate good fighting some holy war against the ultimate evil. It's easy to accept hearing something that glorifies us to some biblical extreme. This evangelical shit could come out of a fantasy book talking about knights in shining armor.... :eyesjack:what would you prefer it to be called?

we are at war with terrorists.

when we go to war with a country its "The (insert country's name here) War". since terrorists do not have a country, its the war on terror.

[juanschwartz]

what would you prefer it to be called?

we are at war with terrorists.

when we go to war with a country its "The (insert country's name here) War". since terrorists do not have a country, its the war on terror.
They have Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

[CovertPenguin]

I dont know about u guys, but im waiting for john paul to rise on up from his chair and yell out he wants a crusade... and scary enough, im sure he would get a few thousand if not more willing to do it...

[stretch-d]

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Haha! Yeah, like his pal "Kenny Boy" at Enron...

I thought I covered his defense record already. Cheney's is quite similar. I don't even like John Kerry and I don't hate George Bush, but you talk about Kerry like he's satan and Bush like he's got a golden cock that makes him infallible. He's a politician just like Kerry. Here is how his campaign advisors planted the "bad defense record" idea in your head.

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Bush Ad: National Version
"Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.
Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did.

As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:
Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric
Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"
McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

McCain is heading Bush's re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same Bush ad.

Bush Ad: State Version
"Arizona Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer: As our troops defend
America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and components of F-18 Fighter Jets all built here in Arizona.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."

The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added a similar pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false impression of Kerry's actual voting record.

Sources

Richard Cheney "Hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal 1990 Defense Budget" 13 July 1989

Fred Kaplan "Bush's 1992 Budget: Plan includes a $ 3.7b military cut" Boston Globe, 5 Feb 1991.

Nancy Benac, "McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense," The Associated Press 18 March 2004.

National Journal's Congress Daily, "McCain, Differing From GOP Leaders, Defends Kerry On Defense," 18 March 2004.


But Cheney isn't running for President....

[stretch-d]

They have Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

Obviously not true with all of the arrests now being made in those countries....They were reluctant to come to terms with a problem of their own--a problem that they believed that was only ours.

You must understand that those governments are walking a tightrope when it comes to fighting terror and being overthrown for doing so...but now they see the light..because they realize that they will be overthrown regardless if they don't extinguish the problem.

Without the Saudi and Pakistani governments remaining in power, our fight on terror becomes exponentialy more difficult...not to mention how that would de-stablize the domestic and world economy--which is a major goal of our enemies.

...but back to the topic: Did anyone hear Frank's speech at the RNC?