General Tommy Franks is retired, why not "draft" him for the nomination?

[lib 4 all]

He has an even more "honorable" war record than General Clark.
This would really make Karl Rove turd his drawers!

[Cat Atomic]

Wasn't Franks the one that said one more terrorist attack

and we'd be ready to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law? I could swear that was him.

[lib 4 all]

16. sounds like he would make a wonderful Attorney General in the Clark Admin.

:eyes:

[retyred]

44. Rumor has it

Franks is dean's Hugh Shelton, I just heard it from a friend who had her hair done in a salon near McDill AFB. /sarcasm


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[SahaleArm]

1. I'm suprised the Republicans haven't...

He does want marshal law.

[mouse7]

2. Because Franks does stupid shit like this...

US jet drops bomb in Britain


LONDON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The United States Air Force is investigating how one of its fighter jets dropped an unarmed bomb onto the countryside in northern England last week, a spokesman said on Monday.

There were no injuries and only "limited property damage" in the incident, which happened near the town of Market Weighton in Yorkshire at around 1715 GMT on Thursday, the air force spokesman said.

The 25 lb (11 kg) practice bomb was dropped by a F-15E Strike Eagle on a routine training run from a base in eastern England.

"Trained and experienced base personnel including Ministry of Defence, and local constabulary authorities responded to the scene and an investigation team is determining the cause the incident," the spokesman said.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20040112/130476498.htm&photoid=20031215KIL04D_KIL04D

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoppin_Mad]

5. Boffo ! 2 Generals on the same ticket ! The DU Clark supporters would go

WILD and bet the farm on the election ! In thier eyes it would be an assured victory !

Maybe Clark should pick that General who wants to convert all the Muslims. :-)

[lib 4 all]

6. Clark's old pal General Haig can get another shot as Secretary of State!

:puke:

[oasis]

3. A little late in the game for that. Who would finance such a fiasco ?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lib 4 all]

8. so you are catching on...

so why all the stupid talk hailing General Clark around here?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lib 4 all]

10. I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion

is it "flamebait" to make relevant observations that Clark is no different than Franks?

Remember, when Clark was "drafted" he was not a Democrat, so why would drafting Franks be any less absurd?

[LiberalBushFan]

11. observation with 0 supporting points = flamebait

you might as well say let's nominate George W. Bush, he's a retired governor just like Dean

[lib 4 all]

12. the point is that Clark has no more Democratic credentials than Franks

He was "drafted" by Democrats who can't see past the election and care only about what they wrongly percieve as a winning résumé, not the future of the Democratic party. He was drafted by Democrats who have lost faith in the Democratic party. Why else would they draft a non-Democrat to be our party leader?

I believe the Republicans want to blur the lines as much as possible between the two parties, and nominating General Clark will be doing the devil's work.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

19. What do you have against General Hoar?

[kayleybeth]

20. I have nothing against him

I think that's a great endorsement for Dean and I congratulate him for it. But y'all can't slam Clark for being a general on the one hand and then hail the endorsement of a general who endorses Dean on the other. Sorry. Y'all can't have it both ways.

[JVS]

21. The requirements for a candidate are higher than the requirements....

for being a good endorsement.

[kayleybeth]

26. Obviously in the case of some Dean supporters that is true

else y'all would never have been able to reconcile the endorsements of those icky Washington insider "cockroaches" like Harkin and Bradley.

[JVS]

27. Madonna endorses Clark, would you want her as a candidate in his place?

[kayleybeth]

31. No

But if General Clark had been going around for months before Madonna's endorsement saying, "We need to take our country back from all those icky blonde pop singers," well... let's just say I wouldn't exactly be bragging about Madonna's endorsement.

[JVS]

37. Dean is not saying we must take the country back from Generals

It is disheatening that you appear to view the conflict between Dean and Clark as bigger than the conflict between either of them and Bush.

[kayleybeth]

40. That's not what I was referring to

Dean has been saying for months that we have to take our country back from the shadowy, sinister "Washington Insiders". Hence, my reference to Harkin and Bradley upthread. Pay attention.

[lib 4 all]

24. I never asked to have it "both ways", so leave me out of this

[lib 4 all]

22. The General endorsing Dean isn't running for the nomination of my party

And what makes you think I support Dean instead?

[lib 4 all]

23. how is it "bullshit"? What Democratic credentials were Clark drafted on?

He wasn't even a registered Democrat, nor had he ever been particularly supportive of the Democratic party. Most of his public praise was reserved for the Republicans.

[kayleybeth]

35. Do your homework, lib 4 all

If you really want to know what credentials General Clark was drafted on, here's a good start: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

[lib 4 all]

38. his military credentials - which Franks has no shortage of either

It wasn't for his long-time support of Democratic candidates, because he had none.
It wasn't for his anti-war stance, because he had none.
Nor was it for his experience in elected office, because he still has none.
It wasn't for his criticism for the Bush administration, because he had none. In fact, he had nothing but praise.
It wasn't even for his party affiliation, because at the time he had none.
It wasn't for his positions on the issues, because he had none until his handlers told him what they were.

[kayleybeth]

39. You obviously did not read the info from the URL I just gave you.

That's fine. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. If you don't like Clark don't vote for him. That is certainly your right.

[Printer70]

13. Why not Schwarzkopf or Myers?

And other Republicans. They could probably do better than Clark in the general.

[lib 4 all]

14. there will be room for all of them in the Clark Administration!

All Generals, All the Time!
Generals can win!
Yay! Go Generals!

That will teach those Republicans to wage war!

[HFishbine]

42. And they'd have crossover appeal! (nt)

[lib 4 all]

54. LOL! Good call, HFishbine

:)

[JVS]

15. What happens when Republicans start nominating Generals for electability?

[lib 4 all]

45. Yep. It will become standard fare. America will become a military state

run completely by Generals.

[bowens43]

17. There are probably many republican generals

we can get to run. Hell we can get one for VP spot and promise to put one in every cabinet position! That's what we need! We can throw out bush and bring in a military dictatorship that will prove we're not wimps!

[lib 4 all]

25. kudos mate! Now you're thinking like a good Clark supporter!

:)

[jpgpenn]

28. WOW , Things are that bad for your camp huh?

Look forward to more of your deep inner thinking.

[lib 4 all]

29. no, things are that bad for the direction of my party...

:scared:

[BootinUp]

30. The suggestion is like that of a

child. Who only sees the uniform, look Daddy a General!

I don't even want to discuss it further. We get it, you will do or say anything to insult General Clark and his supporters.

[lib 4 all]

32. Exactly my point. So why are you doing it when it comes to General Clark?

:think:

[BootinUp]

33. The point is that you see it that way

[JNelson6563]

34. Pot meet kettle

Funny stuff.

[BootinUp]

36. I never based my support

merely on the fact he is a General. You can suggest that all you want. You can belittle my efforts to select the best candidate, that is up to you.

OTOH I can tell you what I think of your effort :puke:

[IndianaGreen]

41. Franks is a war criminal

He violated all sorts of international law when he planned and executed a war of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan.

[lib 4 all]

43. Clark certainly traded hats with one

and a Human Rights Watch investigation on the Kosovo mission under General Clark has this to say:
"The investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law."

[mmonk]

46. lib 4 all

What's your purpose for posting other than hating and disparaging Clark and using stereotypes for the purposes of flame bait. I really am curious. I can't even tell what you stand for.

[lib 4 all]

47. simple. I stand for nominating anyone except the dubious General Clark.

I do not think this is the right direction for the party or the country.

I like many of the candidates in the race. I have followed their political careers fondly for many years. They remind me of the Democratic party that I know and love, and they bring me comfort. General Clark does not.

[mmonk]

48. There needs to be a basis for such thoughts.

Which of Clark's positions do you take issue with other than taxing the rich too much?

[lib 4 all]

50. my main issue is he just hasn't earned it yet, baby

He hasn't been a politician or even a Democrat long enough.
I think his supporters are reactionaries - reactionary against Dean, reactionary against the national security issue. Reactionary against what the Democratic party itself has stood for.

I think it is reactionary against a fear of being labeled as "weak on defense" and "unpatriotic".

We have candidates in the race who have been loyal Democrats for over 20 years, working hard to advance Democratic issues and shape the platform we have today. That is where we should be looking.

[mmonk]

52. To me

it's a candidate's positions on the issues, not how long they have been a member. Maybe I think too much. I am not a reactionary by the way. Your posts seem to me to be more in that category. You haven't shown me that you know how Clark stands on the issues.

[BootinUp]

53. An analysis of political history reveals it is not reactionary

Reactionary implies "without careful consideration"

There is simply no sound basis to argue that this country is ready to elect a Northeastern Liberal as POTUS. That being said, I will fight for Dean or any other candidate when the time comes.

[Tatiana]

49. Thjs petty tit for tat is getting old and tiring.

Do you have a legitimate point? Are you convincing anyone of anything?

Or is this just another baseless, unfounded bash on General Clark?

Oh, okay. Well, bash on then.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Why not Richard Perle? Or, Donald Rumsfeld?

Or, Rush Limbaugh? They're all ambitious and certainly not "too liberal".

[Killarney]

55. Every single one of your posts is flamebait.

:hurts:

[Moderator]

56. locked

inflamatory