Dear Al Franken,
Why did you support the Iraq war at the beginning? Why did you trust Colin Powell on the weapons question and not Hans Blix? And when did you change your mind? And why? And what U.S. policy do you favor now?
I ask you these question in an open letter because you have declined my request for an interview. I regret that. But one way or the other, given the centrality of the Iraq issue and the muddled state of your past comments, I believe you must answer these questions before you can ask anti-war DFLers to get comfortable with the idea of you as their candidate, or as their senator.
On Almanac last month, Eric Eskola asked you about the evolution of your views on the war:
Franken: I was very torn in the leadup to the war. I really didn’t believe that an administration would deliberately mislead us into a war. And when that became clear, I became a very vocal critic against it. DFLers have heard me for years and years speak not only against the Bush policy but against what Norm Coleman did and didn’t do.
Eskola: Is there a year when you decided you were against it.
Franken: Yes, 2003.
I’ve reviewed dozens of statements you’ve made about Iraq since 2002. And I will gladly look at more if you believe that those I saw are not representative of your evolving views. But from what I’ve seen, a more accurate version of your answer would have been something like this:
Franken: I supported the war at first. I had my doubts. But on balance, I believed that Saddam had the WMD and I favored the decision to use military force to remove him. In 2003 and 2004, I put in a lot of work at documenting and popularizing the evidence of the lies the administration had told to get us into the war, and the corruption and incompetence of the conduct of the war. I also hit back hard at the right wing noise machine for trying to put a rosy spin on how it was going in Iraq. And I made several USO trips to entertain the troops.
But until 2005, I never really recanted my original support for the war. Now I agree that we shouldn’t have gone in. Until recently, I opposed deadlines for troop withdrawals. Now I favor a deadline for starting to withdraw and a non-binding deadline for getting all the combat troops out, changing the mission to training and other limited purposes, and encouraging regional diplomacy.
Again, if I’ve read you wrong, please correct me. If you provide a statement answering some of my questions, I will post it unedited on Black Ink.
Most of the transcripts of interviews you have given are no longer available online, so I cannot provide many links. In the interest of avoiding a humongous-long post, and unless you or readers of Black Ink ask that I show more of the backup in a follow-up, this summarizes what I take to be the evolution of your Iraq views, interspersed with some questions I would like to ask you.
Overview
In 2002, on “Donahue” you endorsed the idea of going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, although in this particular transcript it’s hard to tell when you’re kidding. You haven’t said much about the pros and cons that made you feel that way. But you have said more than once, in explaining your views at this stage, that you “believed Colin Powell.”
I take it, in this context, “I believed Colin Powell” means that you were convinced by Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations in which he claimed that Saddam was concealing ongoing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons development programs.
But Hans Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei, the U.N.’s top weapons inspectors, specifically contradicted Powell’s claims. Before the U.S. invaded, Blix’s inspectors had looked in the places where U.S. intelligence told them to look. (It is not true, as often suggested, that the U.N. had to give Saddam advance notice of their inspection plans. In the last weeks before the bombing started, the U.N. inspectors demanded, and achieved, total access to all sites with no notice.)
Blix stated that he was able to look everywhere in Iraq and could find no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons nor facilities to develop WMD. He specifically disputed Powell’s claims of mobile weapons labs.
So why didn’t you trust Hans Blix, who, after all, didn’t work for the Bush administration, and may have been freer than Powell to go where the evidence took him.
If you supported the war during, the run-up, the question arises:
If you had been in the Senate in October of 2002, would you have voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq?
Your friend and political hero, Sen. Paul Wellstone, was the only senator up for reelection that year to vote “no.” He based his vote largely on the absence of U.N. backing. Norm Coleman didn’t vote, but he was running against Wellstone at the time and made clear that he would have voted “yes.” How would you have voted?
2003-2004
On Almanac last month, you said that you turned against the war in 2003. In your statements of 2003, you became steadily more critical of Iraq-related administration dishonesty, incompetence and corruption. You had taken to accusing President Bush of lying to get the country into the war.
But I don’t see where you stated in 2003 that the war was a mistake and that you were wrong to have supported it at the beginning.
On the contrary, on Sept. 10, 2003, on “Topic A with Tina Brown,” while accusing the president of lying in his 2003 State of the Union address, and ripping Brit Hume for an “absolutely disgusting” suggestion that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were in less danger than ordinary people were in California because you said:
“There were reasons to go to war against Iraq and I–I was very ambivalent about it and I still don’t know if it was necessarily wrong.”
In 2004, you said you
“certainly support the mission that we’ve been backed into, which is to make Iraq secure enough to become as Western style a democracy as it can be.” (”Fresh Air,” Jan. 6, 2004).
You said you opposed a U.S. withdrawal and in April of 2004, on CNN (”Wolf Blitzer Reports,” Apr. 6), you said the U.S. “had to” win in Iraq, but you also blamed the administration for spoiling the chances of getting international cooperation by lying about WMD.
2005
In the statements I have seen, the “Today” show, in October of 2005 is the first time you said plainly that:
“First of all, we shouldn’t have gone in.”
Perhaps you had been saying this for a quite a while on your radio show (I don’t have transcripts of those.)
Your current position
In your latest book, “The Truth (with jokes)” (publication date: 10/25/2005) you write several chapters on Iraq, detailing the administration’s lies, incompetence and corruption with precision. But in the only section I could find about your own position, you take a pass (this is on page 288 of the hardcover):
“I don’t know what to do in Iraq. I don’t trust [the Bush crowd] to stay, and I don’t trust them to leave… I want us to succeed in Iraq, but I don’t know if it’s possible…Some people think that our presence there creates more chaos and that we should leave. Other people think leaving will cause a civil war…”
During 2006, you continued say you opposed U.S. troops leaving Iraq, at least “precipitously.”
On your campaign website’s Iraq issue piece, you say “it’s time to leave Iraq,” then you say “I support immediately beginning the process of bringing our troops home.” And you said, on Almanac, that you would have voted for the Levin-Reid amendment.
Levin-Reid, which was blocked by a Republican filibuster in July, would have mandated a date for the first withdrawals of an unspecified number of U.S. troops with no consequences if Pres. Bush ignored the date, set a target date for withdrawing the last combat troops, and envisioned the continued presence of substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq for specified missions.
I hope I haven’t come across as overly tendentious. I was going for tough-but-fair-and-accurate. I would be happy to know whether you think I’ve misinterpreted you. Certainly, you’re not the only American whose views on the war have changed. I do believe that Minnesota voters will want to understand your evolution on Iraq.
Why did you trust Powell and not Blix? When is it necessary for the U.S. to have U.N. backing for a war? Would you have voted for the 2002 authorization of the war? When exactly did you decide the Iraq war was a mistake? How far would you go now to force a change in Bush’s policy.
Sincerely,
Eric Black
[…] Black, writing at his new(er) environs Black Ink, asks some tough questions of reclusive Senate candidate Al Franken. Franken’s unwillingness to answer such questions […]
That’s a good question Eric. I wondered about it at the time of Powell’s speech to the U.N. MANY people knew that the case was bull - millions marched in the streets across the globe. In an ideal world we would have politicians who have some insight. Maybe we’ll have to settle for some who at least have their feet pointed in the right direction.
I’m sorry you didn’t get your interview, Eric, but Franken answers these questions almost every time he makes an appearance.
Obviously I don’t speak for Mr. Franken, but I think you’re wrong to conflate ‘trust’ in Powell for ‘belief’ in the merits of 2003 speech. He didn’t have access to the intelligence any more than you did. His trust for the administration was on the basis of the personalities - and a great many of us clung to Powell as the trustworhty face of the US government long after Bush had proven that he wasn’t it.
His position evolved since then, but has been consistant on one key point - his support for the troops. His support for the troops isn’t a bumper sticker. He goes to the war zone and cheers them up, and meets with them personally, and he personally cares about the troops.
I don’t want to say that people in the anti-war camp don’t care about the troops, but sometimes when they’re speaking and when they’re listening for what they want to hear, they have other priorities than supporting the troops in mind.
I don’t think that these particular people are going to get what they want to hear from Mr. Franken, because sincerely, his first allegence is to the brave people fighting in our armed forces.
And I think he has a bit more compassion for the Iraqi people than some in the anti-war camp, too. I think he really wants to support whatever policy will best protect our troops and will best allow for the security of the Iraqi people.
And I think, perhaps, given the tone of these questions, your request for an interview seemed like a request for Mr. Franken to throw some sand in the eyes of this part of the anti-war crowd, so I see why he would decline.
I have absolutely nothing against Al Franken, although I would prefer Mike Ciresi as the DFL candidate. I’ve seen them both in action, and I believe that Ciresi is closer to the model of a Minnesota Senator. He is articulate, bright, and a hard worker. His career is a testament to his reputation for being the one of the consistiently best prepared lawyers in America. If it comes down to a debate, Ciresi is more than a match to anyone in politics.
Al Franken is also a bright, thoughtful liberal who brings a lot to the campaign. His positions on the war are a little tough for me to take, but he saw the light long before some others that I support who are running for high office. He should be forgiven for wanting to believe the President and the rest of our leaders when they told us why we were going to war. He would certainly be better than Norm on the war.
But to select a senator, it’s the other issues that we need to be looking at. The difference between Ciresi and Franken on the war are not distinct enough to spend much time on. Health care, infrastructure, trade, jobs, education, security, corporate malfesance, the environment, and so many other issues are going to relegated to the back burner if we continue to concentrate only on who opposed the war first, and who will get the troops home quicker.
If followed the careers of both men closely for many years. Minnesota should be proud that two men of such caliber are willing to stand for election.
Justin:
While you’re making the case that Franken supports the troops, don’t forget that Franken suggestion to Democrats that they “…cut off funding for the troops.” I applaud Franken for visting the troops in Iraq, but I don’t applaud him for suggestion that their funding needs to be cut off.
These are questions that Franken really does need to answer. And in case you are wondering, Franken does not remotely begin to answer these questions every time he makes an appearance.
Justin, what do you think is wrong with the tone of the questions? The letter is largely made up of Franken quotes that demonstrate the inconsistencies in his positions over the years.
And how exactly does Franken show more compassion toward Iraqis? He supported an invasion of their country that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions. And you think Franken is a bigger supporter of the troops than the anti-war crowd? Franken supported a pre-emptive and unnecessary war that has cost the lives of thousands of soldiers, resulted in tens of thousands more being wounded, and has taken hundreds of thousands of men and women away from their families for long periods of time. Oh, and he also goes there to tell them jokes.
Isn’t this question a bit late in the game? Many Senators and Congressmen/women believed Powell back in 2003, some were even foolish enough to believe Dick Cheney. Those are the people that should be asked why they voted to allow Bush to premptivily attack Iraq not Franken who didn’t have any intelligence information as they did. Also, what is wrong with Franken becoming educated about the pre war intelligence and changing his view of this war?
A bigger question is why did Amy Klobuchar and Tim Walz vote to give the Bush Administration and Alberto Gonzalez further powers to spy on Americans? Why do they keep voting to fund this war?
The recent votes by Klobuchar and Walz are actually the main reason why Franken needs to answer these questions. If I had known prior to the election that Klobuchar was going to vote for the wiretapping bill, that likely would have affected my decision to support her. It will be 2012 before I have a chance to express my displeasure with that vote at the voting booth. If anything, it is questions about Klobuchar’s votes that are “a bit late in the game.”
Franken, on the other hand, is running in 2008, and Franken’s positions on the war are very relevant now. There is nothing necessarily wrong about becoming educated about pre-war intelligence and changing his view of the war. But as Eric’s letter points out, there are a lot of inconsistencies in Franken’s “education.” Further, a lot of people did consider the ample evidence provided by Hans Blix and others and reached the (ultimately correct) conclusion that Colin Powell’s claims were false. We just had another presentation about the status of Iraq by General Petraeus, which like Powell’s presentation, was sorely lacking in documentation and inconsistent with other available evidence. Is Franken going to take Petraeus at his word like he did with Powell?
Franken is in the awkward position of all Democrats and Republicans that voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but now call for some type of withdrawal strategy: They have no principled reason for going into Iraq in the first place.
A vote to authorize force in Iraq had to accept three fundamental premises.
First, it relied on Bush administration characterization and evidence that Saddam Hussein was an evil and dangerous man, who had or would soon have weapons of mass destruction that he had or would provide terrorists. Throw in the theory that he was involved in 9/11.
Second, one had to accept that regime change is a valid U.S. policy. Anytime we can make a prima fascia case that a world leader is evil and dangerous, the U.S. has the moral authority to remove that leader.
Third, preemptive war is a legitimate U.S. policy. If we think another nation may pose a danger to us, then the U.S. is morally justified in a first strike against that nation.
Most members of congress that voted for the war authorization did so based on the first premise – and they want to pull out now on the grounds that “Bush lied,” or that he has bungled the war, or some other fact-based reason. The problem for Franken and the others is that in the rush to appear tough on terror (which was the tenor of times in 2001) they never, or only superficially considered the second and third premises, which are far more important to ongoing U.S. policy.
If Eric’s quotes are correct, Franken may very well want out of Iraq, but it appears he still supports regime change and preemptive war – it is only in the case of Iraq that it is wrong.
Who knows, at another time, in another country will preemptive war and regime change be okay?
I’d much rather have Franken and all the other candidates address that question than dance around the issue of when they decided to bail on Iraq.
Well, MBB,
I don’t know the particular context of the Franken statement, but I presume you are being somewhat two faced in criticizing Mr. Franken on this front. I guess I’m not sure, but it seems to me that you and I agree that congress has no power to set a timetable legislatively - all this talk about the levin Amendment in Eric’s piece is a red herring as the Senators and Congressmen lack the constitutional authority to enact such laws, so even if the language were binding, the President would be required to disregard it’s unconstitutional checks on his power. As Congress has only one power as regards the war, and as control of congress changed on the basis of the war, I think, as apparently does Franken, that the congress should use what power it has, the power of the purse.
Dan,
Where I was brought up, when you break something, you fix it. Do we need to get into a whole argument over whether the troops are helping or hurting the situation on the ground? Certainly we can agree that they ought to be helping. You are an example, it seems, of the less compasionate for the Iraqi’s type I mean.
Yes, he made the mistake of supporting the invasion in the first place. But that happened years ago. How are you going to undo the invasion, at this point? You can’t. You can only evaluate what is the best thing to do from now going forward. And it’s a hard calculation. Senators don’t get the information they need to determine the answers to this kind of problem - that is why they advise and consent on foreign policy and why it is so necessary for the president to be trustworthy.
Your answer would seem to be we should precipitously withdraw, get our boys out of harms way, regardless of what would happen to the Iraqis. My point is that I don’t think you’ll be appeased by Franken. Though, according to MBB, he said that congress should cut the funding, thereby requring the president to precipitously withdraw the forces.
In general, I don’t know your political affiliation, Dan, and it seems like it is germain to the discussion, but putting blame for the invasion at the feet of a commedian who had a radio show is just silly. Who is to blame has been long established. Bush, Cheney, Pearle, Wolfy, Rummy, direct your ire at theses people. Throwing it at Franken is just shallow political manuvering, something we have had plenty of in so far as this war is concerned, if you ask me.
Craig,
Statemanship is a subtle art. US Policy for the best part of the last century has endorsed regime change and pre-emptive war as an option for furthering our national interest. I wouldn’t have supported the efforts to oust Castro any more than I did the effort to overthrow Sadam - I personally think national soverignty (and state’s rights, for that matter) deserve more respect than the reality of the modern world have delegated to them.
I wouldn’t expect anyone running for the US senate to unequivically say that the US should not engage in regieme change under any circumstances, or that the US could not strike first in a situation where they thought there was an imminent threat.
Just because Franken might not rule out those options, were a trustworhty threat of the nature the administration sold us (a mushroom cloud) to materialize does not mean that he “supports” pre-emptive war. Again, to you, I say, lay that blame where it belongs - it’s not worth it to obscure the facts over a Democratic primary alliance.
“Franken is in the awkward position of all Democrats and Republicans that voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but now call for some type of withdrawal strategy: They have no principled reason for going into Iraq in the first place.”
Not to side with a vote that I disagreed with, but rather to point out a silly statement: While it may sound quaint now-a-days, there was a time when people trusted Mr. Bush. Point 1 was pretty easy to swallow; Mr. Bush and his gang were talking about mushroom clouds in Manhattan after 9/11. Point 2: Regime change had already been on the books with Saddam for quite some time. (Big distinction for likely follow-up: Mr. Clinton’s reasons weren’t for threat to homeland.) Point 3: Preemptive war has always been a big canard with Mr. Bush’s policy towards Iraq. The Bush Doctrine in general is that we should not allow the world’s most dangerous men to have the world’s most dangerous weapons and that in a post 9/11 climate we need to get these guys before they get us with the bomb, but the war in Iraq was also framed in his opposition to already existing UN sanctions. In fact, if you go read the war resolution, this point becomes very clear.
It’s perfectly understandable to say “Look, I was duped by the intel and in hindsight it was a terrible decision for me to have supported the war.” There’s not some sort of nonsensical pre-determined three-step process by which people have to prove their regret or put their vote into context. While those points may exist as a necessary crossing bar in Craig Westover’s mind, I suspect that his formula’s application does not keep the rest of the population up at night.
Justin,
When you say “[d]o we need to get into a whole argument over whether the troops are helping or hurting the situation on the ground?,” are you saying that there is no argument? Because I think it is fairly debatable whether our presence is helping or hurting the situation. Maybe Al Franken is less compassionate toward Iraqis than I am because he supports maintaining the destablizing U.S. occupation of that country.
As I stated previously, my point (and I think Eric’s point) in examining Franken’s evolving positions on the war is not to assign blame or to engage in political maneuvering. The point is to evaluate Franken’s worthiness as a senate candidate. Past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. And Franken’s past behavior with regard to the Iraq war shows very poor analysis of the situation and horrible judgment. And while it is true that numerous other politicians demonstrated the same poor analysis and bad judgment, many others (like Franken’s hero, Paul Wellstone) did not.
So, in choosing a senate candidate, if I can’t get one that doesn’t have a record of really bad judgment, is it too much to ask for a better explanation of how the candidate arrived at the bad judgment?
Justin:
With all due respect, the “statesmanship is an art” argument begs the question. Jumping immediately to the notion of “unequivocally” jumps immediately to a crisis situation. I, too, would not expect a candidate for the senate to “unequivocally” say the United States should not engage in regime change under “any circumstances” or that the United States would not strike first in the face of “imminent threat.” But we do not live in perpetual crisis, and a senator will have to make policy decisions with regime change and preemptive war on the table in situations well short of the threat of “a mushroom cloud.”
Elections may indeed be a referendum on the past, but the winners must function in the future. I would expect a “politician” to duck discussions that might look like future commitments, but I would expect a statesman to be able and willing to layout the principles that guide his decision-making.
Gump:
I agree most people don’t make such distinctions, which is probably why there hasn’t been a statesman in the senate since Daniel Patrick Moyinhan.
OK, because we finally stood up to terrorists you haven’t seen another strike on our home land. According to most of you maybe we should have another Clinton or two in charge to bring the world back to before 9/ll. Give me a break! I can just see that winner/s functioning AGAIN in their leadership role. And lets not forget the wonderful decision making! The Clintons have proven what wonderful decision making skills and principles. Its easy to put down a leader and his decisions without all actual knowledge. But I bet you sound smart,…..to yourself!
[…] esteemed former colleague Pat Lopez of the Strib got Al Franken to do what he wouldn’t do for me — talk about his “evolution” from Iraq war supporter to critic to […]
[…] has been on the attack lately against his chief rival for the DFL endorsement, Al Franken, over Franken’s early support for the decision to invade Iraq. Ciresi has said that he opposed the war from the […]
[…] regular Black Ink readers know, Franken has been all over the map on his Iraq position. I don’t think he has […]