My 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 opponent.
Trouble is, he didn’t answer the questions I raised, nor many of the questions Pat raised.
As I previously documented, Franken has moved around quite a bit on the war. He supported it during the run-up and after it started. He told Pat (and this did answer one of the questions I had raised) that if he had been in the Senate in the fall of 2002, he would have voted for the resolution to authorize the president to use force in Iraq. But, Franken explained that’s not because he favored the use of force ( although the resolution was officially titled “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”)
He told Lopez “I didn’t 100 percent say we gotta go to war. I would have voted for the resolution to get the weapons inspectors in.”
Okay sir, so you wanted to pressure Saddam to allow the U.N. inspectors back in, so they could verify whether there really were weapons of mass destruction. And they did get back in. And they were allowed to look everywhere, including where the U.S. intelligence suggested they look. And they found no weapons. But you still favored the war as it started. Why?
You have half-answered that one in the past. It’s because you believed Colin Powell when he said U.S. intelligence showed there were weapons. And you believed President Bush, whom you didn’t believe on much else, because you didn’t think a president would lie us into a war.
Which brings us back to one of the questions you didn’t answer: Why did you believe Colin Powell and Pres. Bush, who had no inspectors in Iraq, and not believe Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq and were perhaps a bit more objective on the question?
And, to add a new question based on your previous answer:
Why did you want to get the inspectors in if you weren’t going to believe them when they said they couldn’t find any weapons?
During 2003, Franken became a skeptic, then a critic of the conduct of the war, and over the next few years became a very outspoken and satirical critic. But not until 2005, did he say that it was a mistake to go into Iraq.
During 2006, he took the position while it was a mistake to have sent the troops in, it would be a mistake to withdraw them. According to Lopez, Franken said on his radio show in 2006, he feared a breakdown of what little civil order remained in Iraq if U.S. troops left.
One of the other questions I had raised was what, specifically did he propose now for U.S. policy in Iraq. See if this answer is precise enough for you:
Now, he says, “I am for starting to leave now.” He told Lopez that he’s “for a timeline” for withdrawal, but declined to specify any of the dates that should be on the timeline. “I want us to get out of there as quickly as possible, but as responsibly as possible.”
I guess if I could follow up on that one (and I have, by the way,renewed my request for an interview with Franken to go over these questions): If the killing continues in Iraq, how would you try to mediate between the desire get out quickly and the desire to get out responsibly.
I fully acknowledge that that’s a very difficult question, with no easy answer. But as you seek a Senate seat you, and all of your opponents, are obliged to describe your answer.
I’m not a Franken supporter, but…
I don’t get what’s so hard here. Let’s start with the fact that an enormous percentage of the opinion of both public official and the public have “moved left” with regard to the situation in Iraq. And with the debacle the invasion has become, if “moving left” means thinking that “we’ve poo’d the bed”, how could opinion move anywhere else? That’s nothing special.
How was Franken able to support the resolution to authorize war, while not believing Blix and the UN Inspection team? Were you in the United States in 2002? There was an unstoppable media and political machine convincing everyone that the inspection team was fooled, that we were in danger from a Middle Eastern threat located in Iraq, that we needed immediate action to stop the threat, that war was a last resort, that any military strike would secure the area, that we’d be welcomed as liberators, that America’s involvement would be quick, decisive, and limited. At the time, such was the pitch of the President and his cabinet, our elected leadership, and Franken, like everyone else, took a step back and went with it.
And it turns out that’s essentially the *exact* opposite of what’s taken place over the last five years. There’s many different ways, to borrow the President’s folksy vernacular, to git a job done. And it’s not that hard to be in favor of a job, see the job constantly go awry over and over, and then come out and say we need to do a better job.
With every Mission we’ve supposedly accomplished, every corner that we’ve supposedly turned, and every bit of peace and democracy that we’ve supposedly instilled, it’s clear that voting for the war resolution now means one of two things. It means either starting out as an unquestioning supporter of what’s now a total debacle, as you unfairly suggest of Franken, or it means also wanting a solution with a military component.
We’re drowning in candidates with pat answers to softball questions and threats of “flip-flopping”, and instead of condemning the legitimate gray areas of a developing political position, you and the rest of us should be glad that Franken’s being as open as he is with the events of the war, as well as with his changing opinions. Billions of wasted tax dollars, years of ethnic cleansing, impending domestic catastrophes, etc., has changed many people’s minds about the occupation, and more and more people will recognize that the question of whether or not to stay an occupying power is now, more than ever, secondary to how to stay an occupying power. Which is the point Franken’s now on.
What’s really incredible is that the Ciresi campaign will most likely get some people to believe that Ciresi would’ve opposed the resolution. That’s just laughable.
Everyone else went with it? Sorry, but that simply isn’t true. There was a lot of opposition to the war, and a lot of people who thought the inspectors needed more time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq I certainly didn’t go with it. 23 Senators didn’t go with it. Paul Wellstone, who was facing a tough re-election battle, didn’t go for it. While its easy for Ciresi to now say that he would opposed the war then, I don’t think its laughable to believe that he did.
You say that we should be glad that Franken is as open as he is, but the point Eric is making (and making quite well) is that Franken isn’t open at all - his answers are all over the place. The answers he gives don’t make sense when held up against his previous
statements.
I think that the “hard part” is in the getting the “facts straight.”
Sometimes the facts may come easy but, often there is some digging involved. I think that a good reporter/blogger [or whatever they are called nowadays] has a nose for news and will usually be able to dig out the facts, and on balance present those facts, in a fair manner.
Currently there are [about] four candidates running in the Democratic Party for the Party Endorsement against Republican Norm Coleman.
I listened to Norm Coleman’s [about 45 minute] recorded conference that MN Monitor made available.
I think that Coleman can be defeated.
Currently, two Democratic front runners seem to be Ciresi and Franken.
I listened to all of [about 45 minutes] Coleman’s recorded conference when it was made available on MN Monitor upon his return “visit” from Iraq.
I “lived” in a hostile fire zone as a former member of the the U.S. Military, and heard Coleman’s same kind of semi-dazzle talk from some of the politicans then. If I need another dose of it I can review some of it on YouTube.
It seems to me that Patrica Lopez [StarTribune] helped to loosen-up a fact or two about a War that is not a laughable matter for many people in the State of Minnesota.
Why is it politicians are so good at revisionist history? This reminds me of the “I voted for the war before I voted against it” line of John Kerry. Frankly, I’d prefer that someone stands up and says “I used to think that way, but I have come to change my opinion on the matter.”
I do not know Al Franken as a person, but his persona from his radio show seemed to always be “I am right, everyone else is wrong” and this just plays into that preconceived notion.
Frankly, many, many Americans have had a change of heart about the US involvement in Iraq. Why can’t he just be in that group? Why can’t more politicians just be like many of us, who felt the original idea had merit, but the reality has brought us to a different way of thinking?
I would like a candidate who shows some skepticism and some critical thinking skills. Congress was not created to be a rubber stamp but a deliberative body, and Franken has not shown me that he meets even the minimum requirements for the job (not that Coleman does, either). These days, with a president and a media gone wild, independence, critical thinking, wisdom, etc., are needed more than ever.
A lot of folks were opposed to the war from the beginning, not just worldwide but here in America. Now with Bush itching to attack Iran, we need people in Congress who can analyze issues and stand up to this new drumbeat for war. But where are the candidates who can cut through all the lies and spin? I think Erik’s point is right on the mark: Franken has to show a willingness to discuss these issues openly and honestly and answer these questions without hedging. If he can’t do that, he should stick with comedy.
Eric,
It was great to meet you at my home here in Princeton on Oct. 20th for Blogosphere Divide: A Conversation by Fire. I enjoyed your passion and your linear thinking. Eric, you are a bull dog even going after Franken here and ferreting out his flawed logic. I appretiate your style of writing and even though our core politic is at either end of the spectrum, I respect your approach for truth and justice.
I had to chime in here to urge you to let me know of your impressions of our day in clay and conversation. This may not be the correct forum, but please feel free to email me. You remind me of a dear friend I had as I finished my BFA at UND in Grand Forks. It is refreshing how tenacious you are in trying to discern truth with you specific set of root or core beliefs.
We never were able to deepen our conversation about media bias and history bias. With a need to provide links and documents to buttress any account of an event, it is more difficult with the bias present in any institutional media.
It concerns me as well how the systems and institutions of the current internet environment are producing more of the same, and in some cases reward bias and deception.
I think these conscerns are equal on both sides.
I would like your insight.
I value your friendship.
Chad Everson
~Teddy Bear
Eric, I have a journalism question:
On some of the local blogs, there has been a call for an apology from the Star Tribune not because Lopez misquoted Franken, but because she failed to recognize that he was being satirical. If the reporter can’t tell that someone was kidding, does he/she have to ask? Do you think that an apology is in order in this case?
Thanks Dan. The Strib did publish a “clarification” this morning in which it acknowledges the Franken claim that the material quote was intended satirically. (It’s on page 2A.) Since you ask my opinion of the matter, here it is:
This topic is awkward for Franken because he is unwilling to give a candid, coherent explanation for his evolving Iraq position. Pat Lopez’ story was the latest evidence of that problem and Team Franken didn’t like it. By complaining about one quote on the arguable basis that it amounted to treating a humorous statement as serious, they (and the bloggers who picked up the complaint from them) hope to change the conversation from the other undisputed facts of the story. But that’s all just my surmise.
Al Franken, like Hillary Clinton and most of the DLC Democrats, has a blind spot that prevents any reasoned judgement regarding Middle East policy. Their rigid and one-sided pro-Israel stance is behind their support for the Iraq war, support for Israel as it was bombing Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, and their vehement anti-Iran warmongering rhetoric. We need politicians who understand that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the flashpoint in the Middle East, and that Israel’s illegal 60-year military occupation is about oppression and land theft, not “defense.” Until our politicians have the spine to criticize the occupation–and not just the groups that grew up in opposition to the occupation–the Middle East will remain in flames and people like Franken and Clinton will go along with any AIPAC-dictated policy.
Thanks for the great update on your article on Al Franken’s late opposition to the Iraq War and his shifting explanations of his past positions. I feel that in 2002 it should have been readily evident to any thoughtful person willing to read past the front page that Saddam was no imminent threat to us. Inspectors had been in Iraq after the
Gulf War until 1998, there were trade sanctions, we had control of the skies, and so on. When the weapons inspectors were allowed in, after the 2002 Congressional resolution, they found nothing at any of the sites the Bush Administration directed them to on the basis of intelligence that was then considered reliable enough to warrant an unprecedented pre-emptory attack. Suspiciously, the attack was timed a week or two before the release of the inspectors’ final report concluding they were unable to locate any weapons of mass destruction.
Al Franken made his living as a political commentator/humorist and should have been more informed and critical than most citizens. I feel that his support for war indicates that he was very gullible, did not do the research he should have, or got caught up in, or intimidated by, the Republican attempt to equate opposition to the war with lack of patriotism. Any of these bring into question, for me, Mr. Franken’s viability and desirability as a candidate for the Senate.
Franken’s inconsistent statements and views on the war would be blood in the water for the Republicans during a Sentorial campaign. What’s more, his initial support for the war, and slow and murky transition into opposition, take away the most important issue that a Democratic opponent would otherwise be able to use to defeat Norm Coleman. Coleman is slowly attempting to soften his position on Iraq, and by next summer, might be able to argue that the distinction between his position and Franken’s is only minor. As Bush seems determined to keep this horrific mess going until the bitter end of his Presidency, opposition to it will hopefully be a major motivating factor for the voting public who, according to polls, overwhelmingly want us out now. Coleman is slowly attempting to reinvent and soften his position on Iraq, would argue that Franken’s history on this issue only slightly diverges from his own and, furthermore, that it lends legitimacy to Coleman’s support for war.
Something else about Franken’s candidacy concerns me almost more than Iraq. It is highlighted by the complaint his campaign made to the Star that a statement he meant as humorous was taken as serious. I can vouch, as a faithful listener to Franken’s former radio show, for the fact that his humor was very dry and ironic, and sometimes hard for even me to know whether he was being serious or satirical. I wince when I think of the hundreds of hours of taped statements Coleman will be able to take out of context for anti-Franken commercials. Generally, the American public does not appreciate or understand irony or satire, and Minnesotans will likely be shocked by some of Franken’s radio bits and/or Franken will spend his candidacy trying to explain these away, rather than hitting Coleman on the issues.
I feel that the 2008 election may determine the future of our country and of survival of humans on this planet more than any election in our history and it is desperately important that we get as close to 60 Democrats in the U.S. Senate as possible. There is a very good chance that Coleman could be defeated, but I fear that Al Franken is not the candidate who could do so.
[…] explanation for why he would have voted for the Iraq war resolution. I hope he will someday explain why he didn’t believe Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors when they said before the invasion that they could find no […]