« Beldar's take on the third presidential debate | Main | Koppel vs. O'Neill: Nightline goes to Vietnam »

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Best line I've heard today

"I know a commander in chief when I see one and there's only one on the ballot."

Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, campaigning for Dubya.

Posted by Beldar at 12:45 AM in Global War on Terror, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Best line I've heard today and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» Gen.Franks Criticizes Kerry... from EagleSpeak

Tracked on Oct 14, 2004 9:47:32 PM


(1) Steel Turman made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 1:35:14 AM | Permalink

You are doing great work, the work that shines
the light on our world. I have my sunglasses
handy ... burn on. Sear ... sear that light in
to the eyes of the unknowing.

(2) Stan made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 1:41:22 AM | Permalink

I know you guys have been over this before, but this stuff from Kerry is still going down like a lead balloon amongst your allies. (I'm Australian)

“I believe that this president, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away. [...]”

“But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of the armed forces is frankly to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, [...]”

“[...] He said he would work through a real alliance. [...]”

(Transcript via CurrencyLad)

I swear if he gets in and a French division doesn't materialise, you'd have grounds to impeach.

(3) Dan S made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 9:48:57 AM | Permalink

French divisions are the gulfs between their words and their deeds.

Tommy can sling words.

(4) PKillur made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 11:16:43 AM | Permalink

I think that it's fair to point out that to be a leader you need to be realistic and optimistic. I've believed that even before Bush pointed it out a couple of weeks ago when Iraqi PM Allawi was at the Whitehouse . Leaders need to have a good attitude and a positive disposition. You don't create positive movement when all you say is that the world sucks and you can fix it. You tell them that the world has problems, and we can make it better. I hear some of that from Kerry, but mostly just attacks saying how terrible president bush is. Leaders don't inspire greatness when they are unsure and wavering. It sure as heck makes me feel a whole lot better when President Bush says "I don't know", than when Kerry can't even answer a question about his wife. His WIFE! The person he LIVES with! Come on now, that's nuts!

Another thing that I would like to point out is that 75% of the armed forces are voting for bush according to a chart posted on SayAnything . So how is he going to lead people who don't like him whilest being a fidgety man who does not make a decision. On top of this, how many times have I heard on talk radio that people will not stay in the military if Kerry gets elected? A LOT! And look at Clinton, he reduced the ranks of the soldiers a lot as time progressed. Some of this was just the realization of better weaponry, but also the fact that people respected the office, but not the leader.

(5) LazyMF made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 1:55:18 PM | Permalink

You can find a slew of (ex)generals that will say the same things about Bush as Franks infers about Kerry.

Despite his auto-hagiography, Franks is not without his critics for the way he handled Afghanistan.

Sometimes the sunglasses work as blinders instead of shades.

(6) Jim Bender made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 8:46:13 PM | Permalink

Despite our Democrat friends comments, I am still glad that Tommy Franks is on our side. Anyone who won two wars with so few losses has something going for him. Perhaps Wesley Clark and his lefty, retired general buddies don't like Tommy Franks' methods, but I like them. Perhaps our Democrat buddy and Wes Clark wanted us to assemble a half-million man army before going in and to carpet bomb Iraqi cities?

(7) goober made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 8:51:57 PM | Permalink

Its obvious that the LA Times has ridiculously biased reporting, but what about this latest deal? Their front page headline on Oct 11 yelled: "Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote"!

Now for 3 days in a row there have been big, if not "major" assaults in Iraq. That they don't retract this accusation of some huge election strategy military conspiracy is amazing.

This paper is pornography for Democrats and Bush-haters.


(8) Chads made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 9:39:30 PM | Permalink

Yeah it's funny. Some of the "retired" Generals seem to be for Kerry. However, it seems a great many of the active duty, and recently serving variety seem to be solidly in the Bush camp. Funny how they would be the ones in the know as to facts on the ground. I think I'll stick with them.

Remember, a lot of the "retired" guys saw, basically, their whole careers work evaporate. That is, we turned a way from "containment" and went cowboy on some Islamiscists. I think they took it personally. After all, it means they were wrong if Bush is right.


(9) geezer made the following comment | Oct 14, 2004 11:53:17 PM | Permalink

Just like with the majority of the French and Germans -- they resented us before 9-11, and now majorities say they hate us, well before Afghanistan, and well before Iraq.

We'll do what we've got to do, and to hell with the whiners.

God bless our troops, our country, and Dubya.

(10) holdfast made the following comment | Oct 15, 2004 4:44:49 PM | Permalink

Kerry has managed to assemble a couple of dozen former flag officers who support him. Not too surprising, really, since there is a significant faction within the US military who don't like doing "little wars". They opposed US participation in the FRY and they don't like the present Iraq war. There are also the 1990s era poltical generals who came of rank under Clinton, played the game and internalized the politics. Shinsecki was one of those - he wanted to turn the US Army into a giant peacekeeping force - all light but no fight (and yes, he retired on schedule, he wasn't fired).

(11) kent made the following comment | Oct 15, 2004 11:15:02 PM | Permalink

It seems reasonable to suppose that the ranking officers are the most likely to reflect the politics of the administration. Hence, I am inclined not to put too much significance on the remarks either of top commanders who served under Bush or previous top commanders who served under Clinton.

The views of the rank and file, whose careers are less vulnerable to political considerations, seem much more significant. And it's clear where they stand.

(12) Al made the following comment | Oct 16, 2004 12:07:02 AM | Permalink

Another fraction of the flag officers were completely teed off by Rumsfeld. The man ran around the military gutting sacred cows, he had to have made a long list of permanent enemies.

It makes sense that the military hadn't reformed into a post-Cold War posture, and who knows how well Rumsfeld has been doing it - but rocking the boat makes enemies.

The comments to this entry are closed.