Skip to comments.Vice President Franks?
Posted on 08/31/2007 9:59:36 AM PDT by ZGuy
In today's Washington Times "Inside The Ring" column Bill Gertz reports three Republican presidential candidates are considering retired Army General Tommy Franks as a vice presidential running mate.
General Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command from June 2000 until he retired in 2003, led American and Coalition troops in two strategically unprecedented campaigns in two years Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
Franks would boost Republican prospects in the South and provide an articulate spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism and a counter to the Democrats' current defeatism:
"All Democratic candidates overtly oppose the Iraq war and most favor ending the Bush administration's military and paramilitary emphasis on fighting global terrorism. A Democratic administration in 2009 likely would restore the approach of the Clinton administration, which favored law enforcement and diplomacy over military action.
Reviving those failed Clinton policies will only bring us more terrorist attacks such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1995 bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the 1996 bobming of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemen, and 9/11."
I’ll take your word for that. Still, I’d like to know his stance on other issues.
OH, wait, different Franks!
Never mind, disregard, stuned beeber, etc.
If Republican prospects in the South need boosting then we're really in trouble to begin with.
That would be a good ticket but the Dems would try to scare the public by claiming that the Republicans are attempting a “military takeover” of the country.
an actual military takeover is still far more preferable to a liberal democratic / socialist takeover
I agree with you on that one.
Quayle was a U.S. rep., 1977-’81, and a U.S. senator, 1981-’89.
And to think that we could be on the verge of saluting President Hillary and Speaker Pelosi!!!!!!!!!
The president rates a salute because of their position as Commander-in-Chief. The speaker rates nothing (and even less than that in the current case).
When Hillary steps off the Presidential Helo, WILL the Marine guard salute her? I wonder.
Petraeus and Franks would be the first to disagree with you on that.
They will. Out of respect for the position if not the person filling it.
Shew! I was afraid it was Barney Frank.
I know since I voted for him twice for US Senate. However, he was a Senator when selected to be VP, which distinguishes him from others on your list of recent VPs.
Good question. It seems that no one knows.
The interesting thing about this scenario....is having Thompson / Franks at the debate session between Hillary / Richardson.
I think Thompson could literally clean Hillary out and offer knock-down blows on 80 percent of the topics. She can’t function well in debates and she ought to limit herself to one debate only.
But when we come to Franks and Richardson...it gets into a league where “Babe Ruth” meets some Triple-A minor league pitcher. Richardson can give good precise answers but he can’t answer off the cuff. Franks...could be tossed into a gator pit, with a dozen anacondas....and coolly answer every question with barely any sweat.
Debate-wise...this would limit us to one match each at best. Maybe thats enough to ensure everyone feels happy with the selection.
“A general has no right...”
You’re right. I’d much rather have a top-down organization staffed by yes-men.
Everyone on the list that I mentioned was a U.S. rep. sometime before becoming VP. I didn’t say that they were congressmen when they became VP’s. Nixon was also a senator between being a rep. and a VP, but you didn’t mention him.