DNC Day 2

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
DNC Day 2
31
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:42am
Zowie! Sorry folks--that should be RNC Day 2. I'm obviously up past my bedtime. ;-)
General Tommy Franks announced today that he will support George Bush for president at our blog conference at the Republican National Convention. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002383.php

Q: General, do you support George Bush for President?


A: Yes.


Q: With regards to consistency, did George Bush hurt himself with his remarks on Matt Lauer that maybe we can't win a war on terror?


A: Absolutely not. We won a Cold War, didn't we? And we didn't do that in 15 minutes.


Q: Did Ronald Reagan show that kind of doubt in his effort to win the Cold War?


A: I don't know that there was any doubt shown at all. I think that we're talking about consistency, and persistency, and anybody who looks at this thing over the last three and a half years is going to have a heck of a hard time trying to point out when he was not consistent or persistent. You got a lot of people who look at the other side, see, and they'll say, well, my goodness, he shouldn't have been so persistent. By gosh, he should have changed his mind. Well, absolutely not.


Q: He did clarify himself on Rush Limbaugh.


A: I didn't see that. I didn't hear that.


Q: He did clarify his Matt Lauer comments.


A: What'd he say?


Q: He basically said that he misstated it. Well, he clarified his point that it is a winnable war, it's not going to have an official end. It won't --


A: Well, yeah.


Q: It won't end in a treaty.


A: Yeah, and I think that it's one of those kind of things where you have to look real hard to find a parade after the Cold War. You know when the wall came down? The greatest standoff of our time. A nuclear standoff crisis that went on for decades. I believe if you had asked any president, during that time, and asked, "What do you think? Is it winnable?", he might well have said, "Well, I don't know, it's kind of standoffish." But the fact of the matter is that the war on terrorism is winnable. But it's not winnable in 15 minutes or in 12 months. It's going to go for a while.


Q: Do you think John Kerry can fight an effective war on terror?


A: Well, I support George W. Bush. You know what? I know what John Kerry is against. I'm having a little trouble figuring out what he's for.


Q: Is our successful fight against Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf diverting us from the more important effort in Ramadi and Fallujah and the rest of Western Iraq?


A: No, I don't think so. I think what you have to do in Iraq is you have to play each day at a time. You know, we can criticize ourselves for not having the perfect plan, at any juncture we want to criticize ouselves. We can break out the sackcloth and the chains and all that sort of stuff, but the fact of the matter is when we were talking about 25, 28 million people, and they have been in the circumstances they've been in for the last three decades, then what you're going to find is that fractious behavior by the al-Sadrs, you're going to find situations like Fallujah, you're going to find situations in Mosul or Tikrit on a given day. We rise to them as they come up.


Q: General Franks, there has been a lot of criticism with some people saying that President Bush did not have a plan to win the peace. Can you address that?


A: Sure. Of course he had a plan to win the peace. Of course he did. Of course the United States had a plan to build the largest coalition the world has ever seen. And did it. Of course the United States had a plan to lead a coalition to remove one of the most despotic regimes we've seen in the last 100 years. Of course the United States of America has a plan to lead the coalition that will permit and assist the Iraqi people in claiming a new Iraq for themselves, a free Iraq. And all of that is going to take longer than a flash in the pan associated with popping a balloon.


You guys OK now?


Q: On the Swiftboat controversy, when you were first asked about it --


A: Yes. I'm still not -- I'm still not a big guy into hyperbole. I mean, I'm not a big guy into hyperbole, on either end of the continuum. I think he had two issues, and I think Senator McCain has pointed them out very well. You have situations that went on where the Swiftboat guys were on down in Vietnam, I was in Vietnam, John McCain was in Vietnam, John Kerry was in Vietnam, and the vets were in Vietnam. And I don't have anything to say about that. On the other hand, my concern is what happened after Vietnam, after Senator Kerry returned from Vietnam, and I may well have something to say about that.


Q: They said that if Kerry would apologize for his 1971 testimony, they would drop all future Swiftboat ads from the campaign. Do you think that's fair?


A: Oh, in my personal view, it's not a matter of dropping something. I've said right from the start --


Q: That's what the Swiftvets said today. They offered it to Kerry if he would apologize.


A: Wouldn't that be great? You know why it would be great? Because the people of the United States of America could focus on what's important, and that's our children and our grandchildren and the next four years of leadership for America, where we are faced every day with one of the most serious threats we've faced in 100 years and that's terrorism. We're going to have to display consistency, character, be persistent in the face of the difficulty. And that's what America's going to have to draw from her President. Where are we going to get that kind of leadership? It's one thing to know what a man is against; it's an entirely different thing to know what a man is for.


Q: Thank you, General Franks.


It appears that George Bush has the fresh troops ready for the final push. Having a man with the credibility of General Tommy Franks on the trail pushing George Bush will raise confidence in Bush's leadership on national-security issues at the moment when Kerry already sees his support eroding on this critical quality. And it sounds like the former General has plenty to say, now that his retirement allows him to speak out.


AUDIO http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001867.html#001867



Renee ~~~




Edited 9/1/2004 1:48 am ET ET by cl-wrhen

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 11:00am
Or the almost 1,000 dead soldiers, and over 6,000 other soldiers MAIMED for life.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 11:02am
I was thinking of those as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 11:31am
To be fair, she did mention the firemen and police officers as well. I just had a problem with the "businessmen" part.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 11:46am
Hahaha!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:17pm
He can't be any worse than Gray Davis.
Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 1:10pm
"... The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me."

<< One glaring problem in the speech....Nixon and Humphrey never debated each other >>

You are right, Nixon & Humphrey never debated, but Arnie does not say he was watching a debate between the two. They were on the TV. That doesn't mean they were debating with each other. eg. Kerry & Bush are constantly on TV & are not debating with each other...yet.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 1:53pm

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 5:12pm
Sorry, missed it!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 7:41pm

Dick Morris agrees with you about Laura.


FIRST LADY: FIRST PRIZE


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27860.htm


September 1, 2004 -- LAURA Bush's speech last night delivered ex actly what President Bush needed. Her incredible speech reached women voters in a way that other speakers at either convention have failed to do.


Unlike her husband, the first lady drew explicitly the connection between the offensive operations in the War on Terror and the work to defend our families from the threats that haunt them.

Her speech was almost a female state of the union address — taking each of the administration's policies and relating them to the concerns of the half of the electorate that the male political establishment doesn't understand and rarely appeals to.

Like presidents do in state of the union addresses, she brought Bush's policies home to each of us by naming real people, real families and real soldiers working for our freedom.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech explained the case for the Republican Party institutionally. Laura's address articulated the reason to re-elect Bush as a person.

George W. Bush needs voters to see him as America's protector, shielding our families and sheltering their children against terror abroad. Laura Bush communicated this reality in a way that no politician, in or out of the administration, has managed to do.

George needed to relate his education reforms to the average parents worrying about their children in school. Laura did it.








George had to explain why sending troops to Baghdad protected our families at home. Laura did it.

George required a speech that would wrap up the need to defeat al Qaeda in the umbrella of American values. Laura did it.

George had been unable to communicate the essentially feminist bent of his policies aimed at defeating Islamic fundamentalist terror. Laura did that.

Theresa Heinz Kerry's speech last month was about herself — explaining her values to an apprehensive America.

Elizabeth Dole's excellent 1996 speech talked about Bob. She told us about her husband's background and humanity.

Hillary Clinton's speech was about her own political career and agenda, in effect, running for first lady . . . and beyond.

But Laura Bush's speech last night was about us. She showed how her husband's policies affect our daily lives.

Her speech brought a Clintonesque feel for our pain and a grasp of what we need from a president to the Republican convention. She did more in half an hour to humanize President Bush and make his policies relevant to our families than Dubya has done in dozens of speeches over the past three years.

Indeed, so important was her address that it sets a new standard in the speeches of first ladies. Unlike the shrill sloganeering of Hillary Clinton and the ritualized comments of other wives of presidents, Laura Bush explained her husband's policies with a clarity and simplicity that reached everyone who watched it — except for the shortsighted and self-involved male commentators who didn't get it and put her down after it was over.

I have no doubt that Laura's speech will provide George with a bump and a bounce that will last for a very, very long time.



Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 10:03pm
Actually I said it was a good speech but that it had nothing to do with the issues. Morris says she explained the issues more clearly than her husband. Faint praise, huh.