General Tommy R. Franks

by freedom96 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • freedom96
    freedom96

    I attended a seminar this weekend, in which retired 4 Star General Tommy R. Franks was the keynote speaker.

    What a fine job he did. He loves this country; there was no doubt about it. I think without question we were very fortunate to have him running our military.

    One of the most interesting things he talked about, was his relationship with the White House. He told us stories about the men that run our country now, and how they act behind the scenes.

    He talked about the national press media, and how they bend stories, and flat out lie to the public. ( I heard the same thing a couple of days ago in person by a well known news anchor.)

    For those who love to bash our President, and suggest that the war with Iraq was decided long before 9/11, that is simply not true. General Franks made that very clear. There were discussions in the White House specifically about the war, and how they did in fact delay it, and allow Saddam many opportunities to avoid the conflict.

    Whether you agree with the policies of the Bush administration, they genuinely feel that they are doing the right thing, to protect the United States and stand up for what is right, and do what must be done. Not always easy, but neccessary.

    Thanks again for your service, General Franks!

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002
    For those who love to bash our President, and suggest that the war with Iraq was decided long before 9/11, that is simply not true. General Franks made that very clear. There were discussions in the White House specifically about the war, and how they did in fact delay it, and allow Saddam many opportunities to avoid the conflict.

    Nice to know that just because Tommy Franks told you something, it must be true!

    I am amused at how quickly people accept as indisputable fact whatever political and military leaders tell them. The United States has a long history of lies perpetrated on it's own citizens, yet people lap up whatever the media spins to them or whatever the politicians proclaim as truth.

    Let's see.

    Watergate.

    The Tuskegee Experiment.

    The numerous Clinton scandals including Vince Foster's very strange suicide and MonicaGate.

    George Bush telling the world that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa and possessed WMD that posed an imminent threat to the United States and it's allies.

    Tony Blair emphasizing the 45 minute window.

    Politicians lie. This is true of all political parties. It is the nature of the beast.

    The fact remains that to date no WMD have been found, and Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay (whom Bush proudly cited in his 2004 State of the Union regarding WMD) has now come forward stating he believes no WMD were there. Paul O'Neill, a member of Bush's own Cabinet, stated that this war was being planned pre 9/11. Let's look at facts. Bush's father was President when the US last went to war with Saddam Hussein. Bush 1 did not finish the job and took egg on the face for his incompetency and lost his reelection bid. Hussein tried to assassinate George H. W. Bush. Dubya goes after the attempted murderer of his father and finishes what his father started. Hell, I predicted in 2001 when Dubya was inaugurated that the economy would tank and we would go to war with somebody. Wanna know why? Because Republicans pass laws and cozy up to heavy political contributors and lobbyists, which means giving breaks to corporations at the expense of the average American. And also because Bush has a background in oil and Cheney and Ashcroft among others have backgrounds in weapons. War means profit for the powers that be. But you go on believing whatever Tommy Franks tells you. After all, if he says it, it must be true.

  • freedom96
    freedom96

    I don't believe anything just one person says. But when numerous accounts are given, and they add up, then I look at all the facts, and not certain spins.

    Funny, those who don't want to believe the White House accounts will look for every reason not to believe.

    And, Paul O Neil, who has an axe to grind, already backed down from his statements the day after it was released. And again, even he said the media was spinning and not completely accurate.

    Perhaps if you heard his speach you would feel different, though you probably would not agree with him.

    Not everyone agrees with their policies, but at least they are doing something. I would sure rather have Bush in office again than any of the democratic runners this time around.

    What I heard the General say, is very similar to what I have heard in other circles. I don't know President Bush himself, but I know people who do know him. The stories are consistant.

    I guess you just had to be there.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Whether you agree with the policies of the Bush administration, they genuinely feel that they are doing the right thing, to protect the United States and stand up for what is right, and do what must be done. Not always easy, but neccessary. Thanks again for your service, General Franks!

    Yes I truly believe that George W, Bush loves his country and doing what he thinks is in his best interests -- even if many do not agree with what he is doing - -surely they must believe he loves his country and does what is in its best interests

  • Steve Lowry
    Steve Lowry

    And he smokes cigars, which is just fine in MY book!

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    god bless the war criminals.

  • Navigator
    Navigator

    So Reborn 2002 thinks the war was being pre-planned prior to 9/11. God, I hope so! It is the duty of the military to have contingency plans for all sorts of possible scenarios. One does not wait for the event to start planning an operation. There are a great many loose ends to tie up in an operation of that size and that takes time. I'm sure we have a contingency plan to take out Syria. Does that mean we are likely to do so? Certainly not! But to not have a plan would be a dereliction of duty on someone's part. I recall doing a plan as an exercise in Squadron Officer School in the early '60s to move into Thailand should it become necessary to expand the war in Vietnam. It consisted of identifying resources, estimating construction and manpower needs, figuring time schedules, planning entry points and transport, etc.. Ten years later I wound up flying out of one of those Thai bases interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It looked a lot like we had planned it. It wasn't the military who decided to expand that conflict. It was Lyndon Johnson and his phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    God, I hope so! It is the duty of the military to have contingency plans for all sorts of possible scenarios. One does not wait for the event to start planning an operation.

    I have to think that Navigator knows this isn't Reborn's problem with the war? The problem those of us who have a problem with this war (which should be everyone who has a problem with war fought w/o proper cause), is that it was preplanned politically and idealogically, and piggy-backed, dishonestly (what a filthy disgusting thing to do with others lives and children) onto 9/11. Perhaps the worst part of this is that by doing so, the Iraq war diverted valuable resources from the true war on terrorism, and has in fact made Iraq a gathering place for terrorist to come and take guerilla warfare to American soldiers.

    This worthless GW Bush, who was on vacation more than any other president before him in the year before 9/11, who failed to heed warnings about Al Quida's focus on attacking America (and using planes to do it), has now left American soldiers in a mish-mash of holy-land/Vietnam style conflict of his own making.

    That's what you get when you elect a man of low character (who admits to propping up his character with his 'relationship with god') and moderate-at-best intelligence to the most important position of power on earth.

    surely they must believe he loves his country and does what is in its best interests

    He seems to love his closest friends far more than he loves this country. The country is now getting f****d analy by him, and his closest friends are getting billions of dollars in "rebuilding" contracts. No stillajwexelder, he does not, by any stretch of the imagination, do what is in the best interest of America. Might he be partially sincere? Naively wrong? Sure, but why should I care?

    As for Tommy Franks, he was doing his job (and probably doing it very well), in the past, when I've seen him commanding portions of America's amazing military. But lately, when he's out stumping for GW Bush, well, that is his choice. I think he's a lesser man for it.

    Not everyone agrees with their policies, but at least they are doing something.

    Yes, at every turn, they're putting their own interest ahead of the country's interest. They are, in almost every way, making America less safe from (inevitable) terrorism. And some people think they're cool cuz they say things like "bring em on".

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    I don't doubt his love for his country, however, look back at this...

    In five weeks it is likely that United States soldiers will be fighting and dying in Iraq. While there is no doubt that we can defeat Sadam Hussein there is much debate on whether we should go to war and what will be the ultimate costs to Iraq and the United States.

    Americans want to believe that our government officials tell the truth and don't intentionally mislead us. Other governments manipulate the truth not ours.

    It is hard for Americans to accept that at times we are lied to or intentionally misled in order to build support for a foreign policy decision. While this may be disturbing it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to be open to this reality. We are the strongest military in the world and ultimately decide which governments will fall or stand.

    Gulf War I

    If you followed the first Gulf War you remember the infamous story of how Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators in Kuwait city; left them to die and shipped the incubators back to Iraq. This was front page news in every newspaper in the U.S. and the lead story on every major news station as the public was deciding whether to support going to war.

    This story was repeated by President Bush senior in a number of speeches saying that such "ghastly atrocities," were like "Hitler revisited."

    There is only one problem with this story. It never happened! It was a complete fabrication!

    Months after the war ended TV Guide reported in Feb., 1992 that both 20/20 and Sixty Minutes interviewed doctors in Kuwait and determined no such incident ever happened.

    Another example from the first Gulf war, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor was a report by Pentagon officials, citing top-secret satellite images. Pentagon officials estimated that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border of Saudi Arabia, threatening the major supplier of oil for the US.

    The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time which showed no Iraqi troops visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.

    Jean Heller, the Times Journalist who broke the story asked Secretary of Defense Cheney (now Vice President) for evidence refuting the Times photos, offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust Us." To this day the photos cited by Pentagon officials remain classified.

    Hill & Knowlton

    When the invasion of Kuwait took place in August, 1990 US public opinion was not predisposed to the government of Kuwait. Only a few weeks before Amnesty International accused the government of Kuwait of jailing dozens of dissidents and torturing them without trial.

    To help build support for the war "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," which was the Kuwait government in exile, hired the Washington based public relations of Hill and Knowlton for $10.7 million to devise a campaign to win support for the war. The CEO of H & K at the time, Craig Fuller, had access to the power elite in Washington, as he had served as the President's chief of staff when Bush was Vice President under President Reagan.

    One aspect of their campaign was to coach a young woman Nayirah, who appeared Oct. 10, 1990 in front of a Congressional committee. She testified to the committee that she saw Iraqi soldiers come into a hospital, remove babies from incubators and leave them "on the cold floor to die."

    It later came out long after the war was over that she was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States and hadn't actually seen the incident she described taking place - an incident which was later proven to be a fabrication. Hill & Knowlton also coached a team of witnesses who appeared a few weeks later at the United Nations about atrocities in Iraq.

    Gulf War II

    In a September 7, 2002 news conference President Bush said that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon citing a report from The International Atomic Energy Agency.

    On Friday, Sept. 27, in a news interview Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman said, "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency."

    When questioned, the White House said the President was referring to a 1991 IAEA report.

    Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by IAEA in 1991. "I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December 1998 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.

    Civic Responsibility

    It would be cynical to believe that every statement by our government leaders is a lie or distortion. It would be just as foolish however, to blindly accept every statement our government leaders make.

    As citizens of the world's most powerful country we have an obligation to critically examine the position of our government regarding the merits of going to war and each come to our own conclusion.

    If we are to be true to those who die defending our freedom this is our patriotic responsibility.

    Peter Wirth
    CEO of GW Associates, a Syracuse public relations firm

    http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2577

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    I don't believe anything just one person says. But when numerous accounts are given, and they add up, then I look at all the facts, and not certain spins.

    Ok, I will give you one example in this post and let you search for evidence yourself of it's accuracy because it has been widely reported and even verified from a government agency under the Bush Administration.

    Funny, those who don't want to believe the White House accounts will look for every reason not to believe.

    And, Paul O Neil, who has an axe to grind, already backed down from his statements the day after it was released. And again, even he said the media was spinning and not completely accurate.

    Perhaps if you heard his speach you would feel different, though you probably would not agree with him.

    Not everyone agrees with their policies, but at least they are doing something. I would sure rather have Bush in office again than any of the democratic runners this time around.

    What I heard the General say, is very similar to what I have heard in other circles. I don't know President Bush himself, but I know people who do know him. The stories are consistant.

    I guess you just had to be there.

    Ok.

    Whether you agree with the policies of the Bush administration, they genuinely feel that they are doing the right thing, to protect the United States and stand up for what is right, and do what must be done.

    How about the Bush Administration forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to issue misleading information about the air quality of lower Manhattan near Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks? The White House told September 11th survivors and rescue workers it was safe to go back to work, deliberately misrepresented the truth about environmental threats to New Yorker's health and safety, and put them in peril. According to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, 78% of the Ground Zero workers they examined suffered from lung ailments. In August 2003, the EPA's Inspector General reported that the White House instructed EPA to give the public misleading information about the air quality in lower Manhattan after the September 11 attacks. As a result of the White House influence, guidance for cleaning indoor air spaces and information about potential health affects from the World Trade Center debris were not included in the EPA's press releases.

    http://www.epa.gov/wtc/

    Do a search on the topic. You will find numerous reports on this one issue. But I suppose George W. Bush is doing something about things, and always acting in our best interest.

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=epa+%2B+september+11th&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

    and while we are sitting here praising the integrity of the Bush Administration, look what popped up on the news wire from the AP as I composed this post.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/intelligence_cia_21

    CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat AP
    53 minutes ago
    Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

    By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - In his first public defense in the growing controversy over intelligence, CIA ( news - web sites) Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq ( news - web sites) was an imminent threat. The urgency of such a threat was the main argument used by President Bush ( news - web sites) for going to war.

    In a speech clearly aimed at protecting the CIA from becoming a scapegoat, Tenet said analysts held varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before the war. Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House, he said.

    "They never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said of the analysts. "Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

    "No one told us what to say or how to say it," Tenet said.

    In the months before the war, Bush and his top aides repeatedly stressed the urgency of stopping Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites ). In a Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations ( news - web sites ), the president called Saddam's regime "a grave and gathering danger." The next day, he told reporters that Saddam was "a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

    In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Ohio, Bush said "the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time."

    On Thursday, Bush repeated that "America confronted a gathering threat in Iraq. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal, corrupt and dangerous regimes in the world. For years the dictator funded terrorists, and gave reward money for suicide bombings."

    Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush said Saddam is today "sitting in a prison cell, and he will be sitting in a courtroom to answer for his crimes." But, he conceded, "As the chief weapons inspector has said, we have not yet found the weapons we thought were there." Bush added that inspectors have found possible evidence of weapons programs.

    "Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq," he said, in a line that drew long applause from an audience of military personnel and cadets.

    The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is turning into a major political issue ahead of the presidential election, calling into question Bush's justification for the war as U.S. casualties mount.

    Tenet said U.S. intelligence accurately reported to Bush before the war that Saddam's regime posed a danger. He revealed that two sources with high-level access to Saddam's regime told the CIA in the fall of 2002, shortly before the war, that production of biological and chemical weapons was going on inside Iraq.

    Those sources "solidified and reinforced ... my own view of the danger posed by Saddam's regime," Tenet said, taking direct responsibility for what was passed on to Bush.

    Yet he acknowledged no such weapons have been found, and that many of the agency's prewar estimates of weapons of mass destruction have not been borne out so far. He insisted the search isn't over.

    "We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.

    Tenet spoke a day before Bush was expected to name a commission to examine intelligence problems.

    On specific matters, Tenet acknowledged that U.S. analysts believed that Saddam's regime was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program but have found no evidence of that.

    On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed that Saddam had ongoing programs and perhaps stockpiles and have found no evidence of such weapons production.

    Tenet outlined the sources of the CIA's prewar estimates with a public detail that intelligence agencies usually shy from. He said they were based on years of U.N. weapons inspections. Once the inspectors left in the late 1990s, the estimates were based mostly on informants ? some he acknowledged as suspect ? and on technical intelligence, he said.

    On one key point that is befuddling weapons inspectors, Tenet said he did not know at this point whether it was possible Saddam's own officials had lied to the Iraqi leader about what his regime had in the way of weapons.

    Republicans in Congress have increasingly been citing poor intelligence and Tenet, who was appointed by President Clinton ( news - web sites), in the growing controversy over why no weapons have been found. Democrats have said intelligence agencies deserved only part of the blame and have accused the White House of cherrypicking intelligence that bolstered the case for war, while ignoring dissenting opinions.

    Even as Tenet acknowledged some intelligence shortcomings in Iraq, he cited other work that he said represented great successes. He credited U.S. intelligence on Iran and Libya's nuclear programs, for example, with recent decisions by those countries to cooperate with international arms inspectors.

    Tenet also said CIA spies provided the tips that led to the arrests of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and of Asia's leading terror suspect, Hambali.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit