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."
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.
Ike is my favorite President! He actually could run the federal government like a well oiled machine, because he had so much experience running such large organizations. Most Presidents their ideas simply get lost in the bureaucracy a few levels down from them.
I know ideologically Ike wasn't a conventional conservative but he was pragmatic. The standard of living increase in the 50's was phenomenal.
I had the same reaction.
Thank you, Lord, it was “Franks.”
That was the point, tapping Franks Shinseki or Clark is just about equally as bad.
Franks had been an outspoken critic of the Bush White House while he was active duty, and after he retired he has cranked it up a notch, though he has taken on the language of a slick politico since then.
Perhaps Hillary might consider him as a running mate that way she wouldn't have to worry about him messing around with the young female interns.
Ford was House Minority Leader. Quayle was Congress (IN) from 1977-81 and Senate (IN) from 1981-89.
Nixon was a Senator, too, prior to V.P.
You’re summary of the possibilities at #58 is a thing of beauty.
When Gen. Franks retired, I suggested to friends that he’d be a contender in ‘08.
I’m glad to see his name out there, however it goes.
The Dems keep searching for their Chamberlain (with inevitable success, cuz Surrender Monkeys are the only kind in their barrel).
The GOP keeps searching for our Churchill and/or Reagan ... we’ll find him ... or her.
“General Franks as a lightning rod?”
YES..(wink). What better way for the democrats to show how they truly hate our military and everything it stands for?
I can hear the democrat roar now and the average red blooded American would get to see their true colors!
But... what do I know?....lol
Seems to me that whoever our ultimate candidate chooses, they will become an instant ‘lightening rod’!!
Might be pretty hard for the Clintonistas to have much of a negative dossier on a man who has spent the last 40 years in the military too.
“The GOP VP candidate should be someone who has been a congressman, since that usually worked, during the past 55 years. Five of the last six republican VPs were U.S. reps. Those five were Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon. The exception is Spiro Agnew.”
You have a point, but I am all for stirring up the pot this go round. We need proven leaders as our President and Vice President. Franks has certainly proven that he is a leader.
They don't need to roar. All they have to do is ask questions. "General Franks, why didn't you push for more troops?" "General Franks, why wasn't more thought given to what happens when Saddam was defeated?" "General Franks, why didn't you oppose the total disbanding of the Iraqi army instead of retaining it to keep order?" "General Franks, the surge is working. Why didn't you think to try the same tactics when you were in command?" "General Franks, how many casualties do you think could have been avoided if you had only done things differently?" Franks would be a constant reminder that the occupation of Iraq went badly for a long while under his command and Abizad's, before Petraeus came and pulled their chestnuts out of the fire. And if the surge can't be sustained and the situation in Iraq grows worse again then he's a connection with the war that the Republican presidential candidate won't need.
I don’t agree with your premise and so don’t know how to answer your observations. Sorry, but I have not yet bought into the media and left winged line that things have been going ‘badly’ in Iraq.....IT’S WAR!!
Perhaps some mistakes here and there, but no war plan survives the first encounter with the enemy. This is going to be a long struggle and we had better be ready to step up to the reality of our enemy.
I understand what you are saying and perhaps I am not facing the reality of our ‘enemies’ at home and their ability to shape the sheeple’s minds, but I’d rather go down fighting for what is right than for what is politically expedient.
Have no fear though...I am not running any republican campaigns.....lol
“She cant function well in debates and she ought to limit herself to one debate only.”
Yeah, Rick Lazio smoked her, huh.
How about both of them? Forget the professional politicians. (Although Generals know how to play that game too, or they wouldn't *be* Generals). They can flip a coin as to which leads the ticket. BTW, that was Lieutenant General Russell Honore.
He'd make a good one. He'd store up the electrons and return them, with prejudice.
He didn't say a General had no right to disagree, and to make that disagreement known. In fact, it he must. But it must be done respectfully, and once the POTUS issues the order, shut up and soldier.
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.