Tommy Franks helped ‘F’-rated vets charity.
By on Jan 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Tommy Franks helped ‘F’-rated vets charity.
In a House Oversight Committee hearing today, it was revealed that retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks “was paid $100,000 to endorse a veterans charity that watchdog groups say is ripping off donors and wounded veterans by using only a small portion of the money raised for veterans services.” The charities were graded “F” by the American Institute of Philanthropy because so little of the money is used for actual charity projects or services.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
jesus, please come back ASAP and wipe the slate clean…
thanks!
January 17th, 2008 at 8:06 pmpathetic. just pathetic.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm“General Franks endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election on August 31, 2004″
’nuff said…
January 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pmBased on the link provided, I’m not ready to fault Franks as much as this TP post implies. Unless you are a part of the charity it would be hard to know what the dollar figures are until some time passed. He did withdraw his name and backing when he became aware that they were not doing all they were supposed to be doing.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm“Army Gen. Tommy Franks “was paid $100,000 to endorse a veterans charity”
This however, is very questionable morally and ethically. However, I expect this is par for the course for all those involved in politics. And of course the top military brass are up to their brown eyeballs in politics. So, although wrong (in my view) it really should surprise no one.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pmGotta agree with Merlin. I suspect all Franks saw was “veterans charity” and went with it. I work with a bunch of retired 3- and 4-star guys and they get this stuff all the time. The bonehead is his staff guy, who should have checked it some more. This is about the level of the Chinese contribution silliness from the 92 (or was it 94) Clinton campaign.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:15 pmThe root of the issue. He took $100,000 for his endorsement.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pmWhy wouldn’t he endorse a good one for free if he really gave a f_cling damn.
I just saw a report on the news about this and the guy, who got a 17,000 golf membership, said if people knew how much the troops got [25cents of each dollar donated] they wouldn’t donate.
Well Duh.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pmDangit. TP won’t let me post a humorous comment referring to how Franks characterized Douglas Feith. If you’re clued in, you know where I was going.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pmTP – you missed reporting the one and only important item:
Did the check to franks clear ?
January 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pmjesus, please come back ASAP and wipe the slate clean…
thanks!
Comment by Fan of Man — January 17, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Or for us fellow atheists, I’m hoping for a 10-mile wide meteor strike. That baby would certainly reboot the earth, wouldn’t it! After a few hundred thousand years, we would be back to normal. I know I’ve had just about enough of the mess we’ve made of our planet and our forseable future. The ensuing futile chaos, just before the hit, might actually be entertaining.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pmRegardless of what Franks knew, or didn’t know about the charity, the fact that he accepted payment to endorse them is damning in itself. Any person in government who accepts payment from any institution to endorse it is guilty of corruption. Even it were an upstanding charity, it is still unethical for a government employee to accept payment to endorse it.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pmThe Bush admin and its cronies motto including military like Franks which I find particularly disgusting.
MONEY OVER COUNTRY
These people should be tarred and feathered then kicked out of the USA !
January 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pmIf it’s a “veteran’s charity”, why the hell is he getting paid for an endorsement?
What a dick.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pmWhat a clown. Selling out the vets to line his own pockets- c’mon, there’s greed and then there’s shameless greed.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:25 pmI agree, $100,000 from contributions to (supposedly) benefit veterans is obscene. If the organization is ligitimate, an ex-general with integrity should be paying them for the priviledge of endorsing them.
But then, we already knew he was a Bushie. So, anyone paying attention would “consider the source” before contributing. Otherwise, it’s “caveat emptor”.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pmCapital “P” proud of Capital “U”, Tommy.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:39 pmHow long have people known that these ‘collectors’ get 70% to 85% of the money. Frank should not have taken this money,I give him enough brains to KNOW what he was doing. Shame.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm#12 Comment by Snowball — January 17, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Any person in government who accepts payment from any institution to endorse it is guilty of corruption. Even it were an upstanding charity, it is still unethical for a government employee to accept payment to endorse it.
This sounds good but it does not apply to Franks in this case. This from Wiki:
Franks succeeded General Anthony Zinni to this position on July 6, 2000 and served until his retirement on July 7, 2003.
And this from the linked article:
Chapin testified he approached Gen. Franks in 2005…
Franks was a civilian when he agreed to the deal. Do read the linked material and do your homework before jumping to wrong and embarrassing conclusions and posting them.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pmFranks is a true american hero – greed above integrity.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pmPerhaps a good candidate for a nice award/reward from Dubya.
Why is it that General Tommy Franks is a rich man?
How did he become rich?
Why was it that his wife is flown on private jets every week to shopping sprees?
Where did the money come from?
What service was performed, and rewarded?
Why are US taxpayers footing the bill?
Tommy and Cathy Franks confirmed this week that they have settled on Harbour Island after zeroing in on South Tampa. They were due to close on a home Friday, Cathy Franks said.
Cathy Franks said security on the island clinched the decision.
And they are not alone. The Franks family joins a host of Tampa Bay sports and political celebrities.
The roll call includes Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive back John Lynch, his teammate Kenyatta Walker, their bosses Bryan and Joel Glazer, former Buc Chidi Ahanotu and current Tampa Bay Lightning hockey player Vinny Lecavalier.
Former Tampa Mayor Dick Greco feeds the ducks at a pond near his home on the island. City Attorney Fred Karl can be seen there, as can the daughter of one of Franks’ predecessors, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/03/Tampabay/A_homeland_security_h.sh...
Where did the money come from?
Was it from the money stolen by Rumsfeld and Zakheim?
Payments by Israel perhaps?
What possible motive might Tommy Franks have to rush to Rumsfeld’s defense? Can you say Quid Pro Quo?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/franks.wife/...
2/5/2003
Sources have told CNN that Franks, the man who would lead U.S. forces in the event of a military strike on Iraq, faces several allegations — including one that he allowed his wife, Cathy, to be present during discussions of highly classified material.
The sources also said questions have been raised about whether Franks properly repaid the U.S. government for his wife’s travel on military aircraft.
Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, has been under investigation for weeks by the Pentagon inspector general’s office.
“I am aware of the investigation and am cooperating with it,” Franks said in a brief written statement. “It would not be appropriate to comment on the investigation until it is complete.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — who would decide what, if any, disciplinary action Franks would face if any wrongdoing is found — has taken the unusual step of expressing support for the general before the investigation was completed.
Why is Great Britain Awarding Honors to General Tommy Franks?
http://www.ruthgroup.org/2006/06/01/september-11-2001-and-ambitous-...
Thursday, June 1, 2006
September 11, 2001 and Ambitous Men
There may be other, more damning indictments of Rumsfeld, his war ghouls and their plans but none more succinct than this review by West Point graduate Andrew Bacevich of Cobra II, Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon’s dissection of the folly and the horror.
The events of 11 September 2001 killed thousands, left many thousands more bereft, and horrified countless millions who merely bore witness. But for a few, 9/11 suggested an opportunity. In the inner circles of the United States government men of ambition seized on that opportunity with alacrity. Far from fearing a ‘global war on terror’, they welcomed it, certain of their ability to bend war to their purposes.
As Bush’s more bellicose lieutenants saw it, the principal constraints on the use of American power lay within the US government itself. In a speech to Defense Department employees only a day before 9/11, Rumsfeld had warned of ‘an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America’. Who was this adversary? Some evil tyrant or murderous terrorist? No, Rumsfeld announced: ‘The adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.’ But the internal threat was not confined to this single bureaucracy. It included Congress and the Supreme Court, each of which could circumscribe presidential freedom of action. It extended to the CIA and the State Department, which the hawks viewed as obstructive and hidebound. It even took in the senior leadership of the US military, especially the unimaginative and excessively risk-averse Joint Chiefs of Staff. All these were capable of impeding the greater assertiveness that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had yearned for well before the events of 9/11. Everyone had to be neutralised.
Rumsfeld’s chosen military interlocutor was General Tommy Franks, the commander of United States Central Command. In a bestselling memoir published after his retirement, Franks portrays himself as a ‘good old boy’ from west Texas who also happens to be a military genius.
In Cobra II, he comes across as Rumsfeld’s useful idiot: a coarse, not especially bright, kiss-up, kick-down martinet who mistreats his subordinates but keeps his boss happy. Franks knew that he wasn’t in charge, but he pretended otherwise.
Out of this arrogance, incompetence and sheer stupidity came a policy failure that may yet beggar the debacle of Vietnam.
Because the Iraq war was good for “The Crown’s†investments.
US military honored in secret by Britain
Antony Barnett, investigations editor
Sunday June 18, 2006
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1800267,00.html
The government has been secretly awarding honors to senior figures in the US military and foreign businessmen with lucrative public sector contracts. The Observer has obtained a Foreign Office list detailing all non-British citizens who have been awarded honours since 2003 – the first time the complete three-year dossier has been released.
The list shows that under Straw the Foreign Office awarded honors to several senior US military personnel involved in the Iraq invasion. These included the US military commander General Tommy Franks, known as ‘Mr Shock and Awe’ for his role in devising the battle plan for the 2003 invasion.
Others include Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, who was in charge of all maritime forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom; Rear Admiral Barry Costello, commander of the Third Fleet and Task Force 55 during the Iraq invasion; Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Childress; and General Tad Moseley, chief of staff to the US Air Force.
It has emerged that Riley Bechtel, billionaire boss of the US-based Bechtel Corporation, which has won big transport and nuclear contracts in Britain and made a fortune from the Iraq war, was secretly awarded a CBE in 2003.
Bechtel’s contracts for US reconstruction work in Iraq have caused the most controversy. One of the firm’s key board members is George Schultz, who was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and who, as chairman of the Committee to Liberate Iraq, was one of the loudest cheerleaders for regime change.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pmWhat possible motive might Tommy Franks have to rush to Rumsfeld’s defense? Can you say Quid Pro Quo?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/franks.wife/
2/5/2003
Sources have told CNN that Franks, the man who would lead U.S. forces in the event of a military strike on Iraq, faces several allegations — including one that he allowed his wife, Cathy, to be present during discussions of highly classified material.
The sources also said questions have been raised about whether Franks properly repaid the U.S. government for his wife’s travel on military aircraft.
Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, has been under investigation for weeks by the Pentagon inspector general’s office.
“I am aware of the investigation and am cooperating with it,” Franks said in a brief written statement. “It would not be appropriate to comment on the investigation until it is complete.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — who would decide what, if any, disciplinary action Franks would face if any wrongdoing is found — has taken the unusual step of expressing support for the general before the investigation was completed.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pmFranks was a civilian when he agreed to the deal. Do read the linked material and do your homework before jumping to wrong and embarrassing conclusions and posting them.
Comment by Merlin — January 17, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
You still do not get it Merlin.
I am a veteran active in veteran issues.
There are alot of good veteran support groups that have been actually helping veterans.
Bottom line, if Franks gave a damn about the veterans and the wounded he would be endorsing the groups that actually do something, for FREE, and not profiting as well as helping con(fidence) men rip off the public ( as well as those who have bled for this country ) that were thinking they are helping.
The man is a greedy pig and a traitor to the men and women he sent into battle.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pmWayne, perhaps Merlin does get your point. It is a good point, after all.
What Merlin was saying to Snowball was that the accusation of corruption wasn’t true of Franks, because he wasn’t an active military official when the deal was proposed.
Greedy? Yes. Shameful? I’d say so. Just not officially corrupt. In this case.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:03 pmWhat do you expect from the man who thought he could run a war in both Pakistan and Iraq from his comfy Florida HQ?
January 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pmThat is the difference between Bush 1 and 2. Bush 1 had Powell running the war, while Bush 2 put Powell on the bench and let Franks run the show. What a miserable general. He made Westmoreland look like U.S. Grant.
I agree with the majority of posters so far. Since when does anyone require $100,000 to endorse a charity???
If is smells like *hit, watch where you step…
January 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pmGood to see the Generals are being paid off to support the corrupt actions of the Bush Administration. No wonder all the Generals lied under oath about the Pat Tillman murder. I guess our troops don’t have anyone to support them even the American people could care less. At lease Rummy got his 5 million dollars for the fake flu shots. Talk about being robbed. The GOP and the friends of the White House and even the Generals are all robbing the taxpayers blind. This says alot about the American people. Now the Saudis will have no problem taking over as they see hope stupid Americans have become.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:51 pmGreedy, but not officially corrupt? In this case?
You must be joking. Franks is in this up to his eyeballs, right along with Rumsfeld, Tenet, and every other war criminal Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom for destroying our country for the last seven years. He got his chance, he won Bush’s war, he got out quick.
And now he’s cashing in. As Wayne has already pointed out, as is obvious to anyone reading this story, can’t Franks make it on a general’s pension? I’ll go out on a limb and trust my memory, and declare that a general in the U.S., especially a four or five star general, makes a pension in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
I have to wonder why someone would go so far out of his way to defend this. Trolls abound.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:59 pmIf I’m going to accept 100 large, you better be damned sure I’m gonna check them out, and make sure they’re on the up and up.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:21 amMy reputation just got hitched to their wagon.
Yes, but once he found out about them he asked for his name to be taken off.
Small detail….
January 18th, 2008 at 12:36 amComment by Wayne — January 17, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Comment by Merlin — January 17, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
You still do not get it Merlin.
No Wayne, it is you that don’t get my point. I agree with you about Franks. I was addressing the point that Ralph in #24 notes. Snowball simply read the TP article and assumed that the implications were true. Spouting opinions without thought or without checking the info given is not helpful to anyone. I see this frequently here on TP and find it annoying. TP is not neutral in its article writing and often states things out of context. You have been here a while and know this, I’m sure. It is incumbent upon all of us to “engage brain before operating mouth” (or keyboard).
In my post #4 I was giving Franks a bit of leeway, in not being aware when he signed on (because he signed off later,) and I don’t know the real story.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:47 amHowever in my post #5, I fault him for his lack of ethics and morals in accepting the cash when it should have been done free and from the heart. To find someone berift of ethics and morals is a serious statement. It goes to the basis of his philosophy and psychological makeup as a person.
#27 Comment by Daddy-O — January 17, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
I have to wonder why someone would go so far out of his way to defend this. Trolls abound.
Do you know what the definition of a troll is? And which posters here are you calling a troll?
January 18th, 2008 at 12:54 amFranks loves the beltway cocktail weenies.
-GSD
January 18th, 2008 at 1:00 am#28 Comment by RUCerious — January 18, 2008 @ 12:21 am
If I’m going to accept 100 large, you better be damned sure I’m gonna check them out, and make sure they’re on the up and up.
My reputation just got hitched to their wagon.
I’m sure you would! But neocon tools and enablers might not bother. After all, BushCo can say and do whatever they want without paying any price, so why not them? And besides, they believe they are owed it. This is pure capitalism, and that is good. Right?… just making a little pocket change here…OK?… I’m a business man.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:01 amWith Generals like Tommy Franks betraying our troops, who needs enemies like Osama bin Laden.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:02 amlook up The Panama Deception, Franks is dirty for more than this and the War on Iraq.
Re: http://www.samliquidation.com/falsechrist.htm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/ailing-gis-deployed-to-wa_n_81984.html
Ailing GIs Deployed To War Zones
Denver Post | Erin Emery | January 17, 2008 11:29 AM
Fort Carson sent soldiers who were not medically fit to war zones last month to meet “deployable strength” goals, according to e-mails obtained by The Denver Post.
One e-mail, written Jan. 3 by the surgeon for Fort Carson’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, says: “We have been having issues reaching deployable strength, and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who we would otherwise have left behind for continued treatment.”
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/8402/thumbs/s-AILING-SOLDIERS-large.jpg
I don’t suppose those College Republicans are ready to step up to the plate, huh?
How ’bout the keyboard warriors here who’ve been gung ho for this war from the beginning?
Hello?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:13 am(Crickets)
By taking $100,000 to endorse something he should have done for free, Tommy Franks proves he doesn’t gives a rat’s ass about veterans.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:46 amWhy do Repugs hate our troops?
“He did withdraw his name and backing when he became aware that they were not doing all they were supposed to be doing.”
He should have returned the money or donated it to an effective veteran’s charity.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:39 amHillary’s TP just can’t stop putting down our troops. Today its Franks, tommorrow who will it be? Maybe Hillary needs to stick to trashing Edwards and Obama. Seems like she is good at that recently. This unk won’t get her anywhere.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:56 amRR; I don’t remember ever seeing YOUR sorry ass in the army. So STFU, asswipe!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am#40 You may not have seen me, but I certainly was part of Desert Storm.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:24 amRegardless of what Franks knew, or didn’t know about the charity, the fact that he accepted payment to endorse them is damning in itself.
Comment by Snowball
Merlin you can defend this all you want but it’s just another example of what the bushoviks have brought to America. This lack of charactor and your defense of them for walking along the edge of legality to enrich themselves is now inherent in our society is unacceptable. The doctors are all republicans…..well 98% and the reason is greed…IMHO
Hillary’s TP just can’t stop putting down our troops.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Franks is a fine example for our troops isn’t he? How do you think us vets feel about this whole thing RR. You obviously have a zit on your ass so you don’t have to serve.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:27 am#40 You may not have seen me, but I certainly was part of Desert Storm.
Comment by Roger_Roger
If this franks incident doesn’t make you angry then I’m afraid I don’t believe that. Unless you were there working for halliburton
January 18th, 2008 at 9:29 amFranks endorsement is as good as getting one from Bush. He is one of the initial pushers of missinformation. He dissmissed the reports calling for more troops to maintain the peace after the invasion.
He holds no credibility here.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:22 amFranks endorsement is as good as getting one from Bush. He is one of the initial pushers of missinformation. He dissmissed the reports calling for more troops to maintain the peace after the invasion.
He holds no credibility here.
Comment by hellinabucket
All facts considered he’s about as true to America as Benidict Arnold.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:25 amHey, the military pension for a 4-star general’s only just a little over $10k/month.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:43 amHe needed the money.
RR; What part of Desert Storm… the keyboard commandos?
January 18th, 2008 at 11:00 amBTW: As a Vietnam vet, I find Frank’s behavior deeply offensive.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:03 amWhat a surprise!
January 18th, 2008 at 11:11 amBe wary of those who profess their support for the troops. It seldom takes the form of helping actual people serving in the military or actual veterans in any way whatsoever.
#40 You may not have seen me, but I certainly was part of Desert Storm.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 18, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Yes, there’s no shortage of Roger types…
January 18th, 2008 at 11:49 amMy question to Franks would be: “Why did you accept $100,000 from a charity? If you believed in its cause, why didn’t you “donate†your name?
I understand he has since asked that his name be removed – but that doesn’t change the fact that he accepted $100,000 from a veterans’ charity – where was hhis “esprit de corps”?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pmSome years back this Christian terrorist was captured at a Los Angeles school where parents learned that he was speaking to their children. Parents surrounded and climbed on to the baby killer’s vehicle as he tried to escape and the police had to rescue the terrorist butcher.
Photographs of the attempt to drag the terrorist from his vehicle and lynch him there on the spot were posted to the Los Angeles Indy Media web site at the time.
What parents were pissed about was the fract that the baby killer and the school never noitifed anyone that he would be speaking to their children — for obvious reasons.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm