Al Franken, Chickenhawk
By Anthony Gregory on Jul 6, 2009 in Afghanistan, American History, Iraq, Middle East, Military, War
I used to love Franken on Saturday Night Live. Although his Stuart Smally character got old very quickly, he did a wonderful Paul Tsongas impression. I’d link to an example on YouTube, but NBC takes its intellectual property very seriously and therefore hundreds of the most humorous bits ever to air on late night television have been tragically withheld from us.
I enjoyed his 2003 book Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Well, I enjoyed the first half, much of which was a trenchant critique of modern, Fox-style conservatism. Some of the worst distortions of the Bush-era right were properly put in their place. The second half was just left-liberal boilerplate.
But this is what has always stuck in my mind about Franken’s book. It includes an illustrated chapter called “Operation Chickenhawk: Episode One” in which he characterizes many modern war advocates as hypocrites for their effortless success in dodging “service” in Vietnam. The chapter discusses such prominent hawks as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill O’Reilly, and Bill Bennett. But one big problem with this humorous chapter is it includes Pat Buchanan, who, although we might all agree holds many bad positions, including on the Cold War, did not support the Iraq War. But do you know who did? Al Franken.
In chapter 41 of Liars, Franken discusses how he was among the many deceived about the war, convinced by Bush of its necessity because, after all, “the world changed” on 9/11, and the U.S. government needed to deal with Saddam’s infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction. Franken cites the uranium-from-Niger lie as the piece of evidence that clinched it for him. When it became politically correct to point out that Bush had lied the country into war, Franken felt so betrayed.
But actually, that uranium lie was discredited before the war even began. Given that he had so many researchers helping him with his book, he should have known that.
Besides, even if he did believe every single piece of propaganda about Saddam’s non-existent weapons program—and here, by the way, is my Independent Institute article from before the war, explaining why we could not trust the propaganda and why the case for war was so transparently without credibility—he should have still opposed the war. There was never any justifiable reason to support Bush’s plan to wage aggressive war on the people of Iraq, to murder many thousands of them, even if you believed Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is an act of aggression to start a war, even if the enemy has scary weapons. The U.S. has a weapons stockpile that makes all the Middle East countries combined—even including Israel—seem minor in comparison. But that sure didn’t justify 9/11, did it?
Al Franken is a warmonger who turned against Bush only after it became politically correct to do so, and only turned against the war to score partisan points. He is, in principle, no less committed to U.S. imperialism and mass killing than are the neocons, even if his rhetoric isn’t nearly as offensively bloodthirsty as theirs is. In fact, his book also reveres Lincoln, one of the greatest warmongers in U.S. history.
This is all you need to know about the Franken left: They aren’t quite as crazy as the neocon right when they discuss foreign policy, but they are every bit as devoted to U.S. empire and aggressive war. And Iraq, even given Bush’s propaganda, was still, by any measure, an aggressive war, and it still is an aggressive occupation.
Am I being too harsh? I’d be happy to see Franken prove me wrong. Next chance he gets, he can refuse to finance Obama’s bloody exploits in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He can stand by principle and resist the urge to vote with the hordes to continue to appropriate our tax dollars to slaughter abroad. If he turns out to be a consistent critic of the Obama administration on questions of war and peace, I will apologize and praise his principle to the skies. But if he does vote to continue sending Americans to die and kill, he is no better than the lying liars he has made a fortune criticizing. He is no better than the chickenhawks he lambastes, and certainly not nearly as good an opponent of jingoism and aggressive war as the much more thoughtful, if sometimes inconsistent, Pat Buchanan.
Around 1979, I and other members of Students for a Libertarian Society at the University of Minnesota were advertising a rally against Carter’s plan to reimpose draft registration starting with 18- to 20-year olds.
John C. Elmer, one of our members who made up the flier, included a mock draft card with the name “Al S. [standing for S***head] Franken.” He was inspired to do this after reading that Franken, when asked whether he opposed draft registration, said something to this effect: “I don’t care about it because I’m older than 20 and the law doesn’t apply to me.” I probably still have a copy of that flier somewhere.
David T. Beito | Jul 6, 2009 | Reply
I borrowed this from the Institute’s “About Us” page.
“The Institute’s program is pursued to rigorous standards without regard to any political or social biases.”
One wonders if we would have seen such a critique if his whiny opponent had won the election. During the Bush years it was your typical “tail wagging the dog.” We all got wagged! Even Franken! But even with some of his facts in error, you did know where he was coming from.
You sir, wear your politics well! Though you did attempt to inject little tidbits of neutrality in you commentary. You failed at any attempt at hiding you political position.
Oh, and by the way! It was Colin Powell at the U.N. that did it for me! Think maybe he quit because he got played for a sucker?
Brian Alger | Jul 6, 2009 | Reply
Brian,
If you had seen only this post by Anthony, what impression of Anthony’s political position would you have come away with?
Or, how about this one?
Or this one?
S Andrews | Jul 6, 2009 | Reply
This is right on the money.
See my piece in 2005: Al Franken Is a Big Fat Phony.
John Walsh | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
Brian Alger,
It isn’t true that “we all got wagged,” only suckers for the cult of government got wagged. Their ranks include Franken, Powell, and apparently you, which should disqualify both of you as astute political observers.
Nicolas Martin | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
While Anthony Gregory the author wrote an excellent Independent article opposing the war on 2/28/03, he completely failed within it to explore the reasons why Bush was rushing to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Presenting Franken as a “chickenhawk” is a bit of a stretch, and since Gregory references the book published just a few months after that invasion, it’s simply dishonest.
Franken admits that he was taken in by the flood of propaganda generated by Bush and the neocons in the wake of 9/11, but not for long. He documents his substantial misgivings about military action and his soul searching over and just prior to a Clear Channel appearance on April 22, 2002 in the chapter Gregory quotes. Within months, he realized he’d been gulled, though well over 90% of the American public still wholeheartedly supported the insanity.
I can’t pinpoint the day that Franken became completely convinced that he, along with those 90%, had been hoodwinked. However, here’s a clue. Paul Wellstone was the single Senator up for reelection who voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. He was the single senate candidate who refused to be intimidated even into silence about the war. Franken supported him, campaigned alongside him and treasured Paul as his friend. Could one believe Al could do that if he was indeed a “chickenhawk,” and only changed his opinion when it was permissible, “politically correct” to do so?
If Gregory wants to make that claim, he needs to establish at what date “political correctness” allowed such a change of position, and he needs to establish that Franken’s change of mind and heart came afterward. If he cannot, he is simply propagating a calumny.
Here’s one of the clearly tendentious claims that Gregory does make, however. “Franken cites the uranium-from-Niger lie as the piece of evidence that clinched it for him. When it became politically correct to point out that Bush had lied the country into war, Franken felt so betrayed.”
In the chapter he quotes from Franken’s “Lies,” there is no such statement about “clinching it” or anything remotely recognizable as such. Franken mentioned the “Niger yellowcake” three times in it, and there is no hint that that the exposure of that particular Bush lie influenced his change of opinion.
In fact, the yellowcake lie was only debunked when documents were finally provided to the IAEA a week before Bush’s invasion and Mohamed ElBaradei exposed them as crude forgeries in a single day of simple research. Even then, the Bush and Blair’s regimes, possessed of the bully pulpit, persisted in their contention that the forgeries were legitimate, though they had substantial information for over a year that they weren’t. They aggressively submerged the doubts about their veracity because they needed the pretext of “mushroom clouds” for their long-planned invasion. Joseph Wilson’s NY Times Op-Ed, which caused the Pentagon and White House to out Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent, wasn’t in fact published until July 6th, 2003, probably long after the “Lies” galleys had gone to the printer and even then the vast majority of the American public still believed all the propaganda coming out of the White House.
Robert McNamara died yesterday. His memory has been softened by his eventual, grudging and limited admissions that he was wrong about Viet Nam. It came three decades after the policies he promoted had slaughtered a million people and 58,000 Americans. Early on, McNamara knew what the truth was, and persisted in the unwinnable attempt to crush nationalism. He ignored more rational voices such as McGeorge Bundy’s. He signed on to the bombing of Hanoi. He helped at its core to drive that genocidal policy. Bob finally became a critic of a war that was actually in progress, in 2003.
Franken was fooled, back in late 2001 and early 2002, even as were most intelligent Americans. He read the same newspapers, watched the same television as did we all. He was a comedian, after all, and not a foreign policy or defense wonk. But he got the picture long before Bush’s invasion. He seems to have gotten the picture before Bob Byrd’s tenacious opposition to Bush’s imperial adventurism went virtually unseen by those who did not watch C-Span.
I would suggest that if Gregory wants to target the true “chickenhawks” in the Senate, he’s probably got at least sixty better targets, likely a much higher number. I would also suggest that if he purports to be a “research analyst,” he should learn how to do actual research.
Gregory’s was a hit piece, pure and simple, though I can’t imagine what his motivation was. Please don’t pretend it’s scholarship.
Frank | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
Brian, how did you manage to read this piece and miss the point entirely? (Possibly the same way you display your ignorance of what the Independent Institute is all about …)
Franken, like most Democrats AND Republicans, supports war when it suits his purposes. He’s unprincipled. If you’d been reading Anthony Gregory for any length of time at all, you’d know that he has been a harsh critic (but not a crazy one) of the Bush administration policies long before 9/11 and the lies that preceded and followed.
You, and apparently many others, got “wagged.” Principled anti-war people didn’t. There was no cause whatsoever to invade Iraq, even if they had WMDs. Iraq never provoked us—including in the ‘91 invasion of Kuwait. Franken didn’t merely get his facts wrong. He’s just plain wrong, and if he had principles, he’d know it and admit it.
Gregory has been opposed to war regardless of who’s in office from the get-go. Republicans AND Democrats, including Al Franken, support war routinely. His position is consistent. Yours? Not so much.
Some of us didn’t know or care what Colin Powell or anyone else said. Attacking a country that has not attacked your own is immoral and wrong, no matter what.
Sam Gaines | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
Sorry, I meant “Brian,” not “David.”
Sam Gaines | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
Frank: It seems to me that Franken did support the Iraq war into the year 2003, and did not come out officially opposing the invasion until 2005. It was not just in 2002 that he supported the war. As late as 2005, he was still too afraid to call for withdrawal, the only correct position:
http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/09/12/an-open-letter-to-al-franken-why-did-you-support-the-iraq-war/
Here he admits he was wrong about the war (unlike Howard Dean):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGdHm8pWLtg
The war has persisted in large part because the “opposition” party—the liberal Democrats—have refused to call for withdrawal or to strip the administration of funding. John Walsh’s article, which he links to above, is also well worth a read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh05042005.html
Anthony Gregory | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
I have written numerous articles on this subject of “our mainstream news media was duped believing Saddam had WMDs in his arsenal.” The truth is W. Bush, Tony Blair and their entire gang of exuberant war lovers knew the inspectors had effectively disarmed Saddam. By knowing this it guaranteed they would attack Iraq, conquer Iraq and topple Saddam believing it would be “a slam-dunk, cakewalk.” It was at the beginning, until the Iraqis planted the IEDs. But our media should have been aware that WMD-armed North Korea had these weapons loaded and locked at the ready and this resulted in them not being attacked as the attackers knew what the consequences would be. The major lesson in this scenario is any nation needs these weapons so they will not be threatened and intimidated by those possessing them.
Steve | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
Nicolas Martin & Sam Gaines,
People do change their position on issues all the time. Usually because the one becomes enlightened as more facts of the matter come in. Juries do it all the time. The fact that you have leveled an attack on someone only means that you are upset that not everyone views it your way. Thinking you are shrewd, discerning, cannot be fooled by the governing “cult”, means you have no open mind.
I do not agree with the war in Iraq. At the time it seemed that maybe there was reason to remove a potential threat. After all, Saddam had no qualms about gassing his own people or his neighbors. Or even paying tributes to families of suicide bombers for that matter!
It appeared that he was not inhibited from reaching outside his own borders. You see how this all adds up to us less astute common folk! But this all doesn’t matter to you, you’re principled! Sometime Doves need a place to talk to one another. I understand that! But to think everything in the world will be OK if everyone would just think like me, is living in a Fairy Tale. It is not going to happen! Not as long as there are borders, race, religion, ethnicity, the haves, the have-nots, us, against them and a difference of opinion. (Particularly those not open for debate!) OOPS! Sounds like, “The New World Order” is taken shape.
Franken has a right to change his mind. We all do! I hardly think using the pejorative, “Politically Correct.” fits in this instance. I think being as far to the left as he is, it should have been expected.
You point out everything that is wrong and nothing that is right, except of course in your humble, principled opinion. The fact that Franken did come to oppose the war should account for something. But no, he did to be “Politically Correct.”
I personally do not like the man! I do not like his politics! But I only see this as a reason to oppose him when necessary. I’d guess those coming from the far right would oppose him no matter what! So much for the power of reason!
“The Institute’s program is pursued to rigorous standards without regard to any political or social biases.”
In relating to the statement above, I believe I have truly come to understand what this site is all about. (Of course my ignorance not withstanding!) For fear of labeling all, I direct this to the few. You display no standard and as far as social bias, you wear it on your sleeve. You say you are principled. It’s just another way to say “close minded.” You are not open philosophical discussion or difference. As the ignorant common folk would say “it’s my way or the highway.”
You clearly alienate yourselves from everyone else. Pat yourselves on the back for being “principled.” If you want it to be, us and them, keep up the good work. If you want people to understand your ideas you need to learn to communicate! An ability you dearly lack!
Try coming down off your throne and walk amongst the real people for a while. You cannot fix it if your not going to be a part of it. Run for office! Don’t talk, just do! For some reason, I do not believe all this will get through to some “astute political observers.”. (Please define “observer”!) Ignorance, trumped by arrogance.
While I am thinking about it, please remove me from the “Institutes” mailing list. I can’t watch grown “astute political observers” cry. OK, enough of the insults for today. And far as the personal attacks leveled at me, I can forgive you! You have a nice day!
Brian Alger | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
S. Andrews,
I do not see any of these as personal attacks as I viewed the Franken article. Instead he is addressing ill-conceived policies and violation of laws. Which in most part, I happen to agree.
I would see his political position as one of common sense! The “rule of law” should always prevail!
Brian Alger | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
I wrote on my blog a year ago, July 14, 2008, about Franken:
Tricky Al Franklin = Bush = Nixon
Al Franken is a funny man. Part of his schtick in his U.S. Senate campaign is that he’s a good-conscience liberal who makes fun of the evils done by Republicans.
But he’s really just another Neocon clone who has the same policies on Iraq as does his supposed nemesis, President Bush. Franken’s position on the war, from his Web site, goes on about how, “It’s time to start bringing our troops home from Iraq.” But here’s the key phrase:
“I support immediately beginning the process of bringing our troops home. Our withdrawal should not be precipitous, and we should have a national conversation about the best way to complete our disengagement—we should put more thought into how we get out than we did into how we got in. But we should start now.”
Top Franken weasel words: “immediately beginning the process of…”—which could mean anything.
And here’s a news story just yesterday on Bush’s plans for Iraq:
“The Bush administration is considering withdrawal additional combat forces from Iraq, but a time frame will depend on a report from newly-confirmed Central Command leader and Multinational Forces in Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, the Pentagon said Sunday.”
Franken really hasn’t changed since 2006, when he said, “I’m not sure we should set a timetable myself. I may actually, oddly enough, agree with Bush here.” Here’s a YouTube video of his pro-war statements.
So, Franken = Bush.
And given that Franken’s opponent, incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, also favors the Iraq War, Minnesotans have had no choice for the U.S. Senate this past November. This is what goes for “democracy” nowadays in America.
30 years ago, Franken wrote some of the Saturday Night Live skits that skewered Nixon, in particular “The Final Days.” But he and other leftists hated Nixon mainly because Tricky Dick continued the Vietnam War. Now, Franken himself wants to continue today’s version of the Vietnam War, the Iraq War.
Franken has become Nixon.
Franken = Bush = Nixon.
Call him Tricky Al.
John Seiler | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
it is just as well, because if he had opposed the war, even indirectly, he would have been declared “unelectable.” There are many lessons to be learned here.
bachu | Jul 7, 2009 | Reply
We need to add that Franken is a notorious anti-Arab racist. He supports every war Israel wages—and has been outspoken in his support of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and Gaza. Is this the best Minnesota can do?
JC | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Our Daughter lives in Minneapolis but did not vote for Franken. Not because she is Republican, she is not. She isn’t Democrat either. Both parties have become the party of money and influence. It is painfully obvious! I think most of us are sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two EVILS. That is what Franken is to some degree. He isn’t any more principled than any of the other politicians out there. He certainly is not someone on the Far Left.
I’m not sure his run for the Senate was something he actually thought he would win. Ever since winning he has seemed rather subdued. I sort of think he did it as a lark and was totally surprised to win.
I hope that because of this he will put a lot of thought into his responsibility, but I don’t have a lot of faith in him doing so. I believe he can be bought just like all the other politicians. Time will tell!
He’s certainly not a Saint!
Phyllis | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Al Franken is an spineless weasel. When it was politically valuable in the months after 9/11 to approve of killing Arabs he was all for it.
Rational people at the time knew the war was built on bogus claims. Saddam was not connected to 9/11 and had no viable method of threatening the U.S with any WMD he might have had. However, so many Democrats blew their opportunity for political heroism by taking the safe route and voting with the hideous Republicans at the time.
Franken wasn’t in office but of course he would voted for war in October of 2002. Absolutely disgusting.
MIke | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
That bit about yellowcake from Niger with forged signatures was planted to sell the invasion of Iraq. It’s interesting that it’s not being examined more. It was fabricated by the same special-interest corner that is aiming for the next war, Iran.
Can anybody guess who??
Another clue, the same special interest has managed to funnel $1.3 trillion of U.S. taxpayer aid to this country since 1973, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
bruce | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Why should Al Franken be convinced to trash international law simply because of the Bush admin’s WMD gambit? Probably Franken’s “passionate attachment” to a foreign nation clouded his judgment, as it did the neocons. Killing Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel—only when it happened that so many more had to die and the war became unpopular did Franken and his ilk reassess.
Splenderian | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Franken is like Richard Perle who claimed that there was no such thing as neocons, and even if they were they had nothing to do with the Iraq war; it was all George Bush and Tenet’s fault (what is curious here is put the blame on all gentiles).
Franken (and Perle) will pull the same “trick” when it comes to Iran—look, they are getting nukes! It’s real this time! Look! They really want to be free. Then, when it goes awry, they will brazenly put the blame on “others.”
meme | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
We all got wagged!
Brian: As I said above, Franken was “wagged” (more accurately an opportunist) on issues of foreign policy way back in 1979 when he made his cynical statement about not being eligible for draft registration and thus not caring about people who were.
David T. Beito | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Who is going to be the first person to note what everyone knows but is afraid to say:
Al Franken is a Jewish man who wants the U.S. to take out Israel’s enemies.
He and the other Israel-firsters can’t say that of course so they hide behind the WMD angle to support U.S. military action in the Middle East.
Nick Peters | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Anthony,
It is not only Franken. Now that their guy is in, the “progressives” seem to be quite pleased with the status quo. I find it interesting that O has enthusiastically continued the two unconstitutional wars he inherited from Bush, started a third in Pakistan and lets his boy, Joe, tell the I’s they can hit Iran. Let us not forget, in the parlance of the Mafia, O became a “made man” when less than a month into his term he authorized the killing of 34 innocent civilians in Pakistan. Where, oh where, was Kieth Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow? Or any of the other progs? Nowhere to be found. Have any of you noticed that the aforementioned talk a lot about S. Palen, and Jacko, but I haven’t seen John Dean, Scott Ritter, or Jonathon Turley in a while? Much less any real commentators. Listen to MSNBC’s new resident jerk, Ed Schultz. I guess you only get a MSM show if you are actually clueless.
Bob | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
I would put my antiwar energy elsewhere.
Werner Simon | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Ha ha, Brian Alger thinks that the political atheist Anthony Gregory bows to a political alter. That is a classic line. I really don’t understand how grown people (I can’t stomach to call them adults) have not figured out that regardless of the letter next to the name of the crook, (R) or (D), in the end liberty looses and the state wins. We have a one-party system, and it is called the statist party!
Wes Dillard | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
And what exactly is the point S. Andrews tries to make here? Is it that Anthony resists being easily pigeon-holed into a nice little point on the political spectrum, where he can be more easily understood by those with an aversion to subtle distinctions?
Or, is it that S. Andrews cannot conceive of Fox News presenting anything of value? I’ll agree that it’s not all that common, but let’s face it: Napolitano did a good piece of work and Anthony gave credit where due. So what if it’s on Fox? Deal with it.
And it seems that the previous poster, Brian Alger, is on roughly the same wavelength—he urgently needs to know how he can label Anthony. And BTW Brian, we did NOT all get “wagged.” I opposed both Wars on Iraq from the first day—and so did Pat Buchanan.
LTJX | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
We didn’t all get “wagged.”
Use the Wayback machine to search websites of anyone you choose: the Independent Institute is unique in its adherence from Sept. 11, 2001 through today in its a denouncement of a war on terrorism, growth of government powers, and every other action “necessitated” by “everything being different” in the wake of 9/11. Ours was a lone call for peace and sanity on a day and in the months and years following of calls for action and reprisals.
On September 11, 2001, we posted a statement on our homepage which read in part:
Thus, far from being “wagged,” we correctly predicted what Bush’s warbook would be, and declaimed it before he even called it. David Theroux, Bob Higgs, and others of principle would likely claim it’s not hard to do: you just have to understand government’s pathology and refuse to be duped by it.
The Independent Institute didn’t get wagged—by 9/11 or any lie it gave cover for. We have stood firm on principle and seek for others, private and public, to do the same. Utilitarianism—”the ends justifies the means” arguments—makes cogs of us all.
While Sept. 11, 2001 archives are not available on Wayback, you can see the synopsis of our 9/11 Statement on the next-available date’s Wayback archive of our homepage (Sept. 25: here), linking to the original Statement (here), and to Bob Higgs’s prescient “The Cold War Is Over, but U.S. Preparation for It Continues.”
To check our or any other organization’s website’s content, by dates available, and compare actual records of consistency to principle, see Wayback’s archives here.
Mary Theroux | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
I live in Minnesota. I didn’t vote for Franken, nor did I vote for Norm Coleman. They’re both DemoPublican Party scumbags, as far as I’m concerned.
Yes, Franken’s a chickenhawk. (I wonder when his own kids are going to enlist, by the way.) Franken’s a scumbag for his slavish support of Israel.
Orville H. Larson | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Precisely, Phyllis! I associate myself with your remarks.
Orville H. Larson | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply
Back in 2004 I, along with a lot of other Army Reservists, got a letter of invitation from Uncle Sam, which, more or less, said “Hey, we’re all going over to Iraq. Wanna come with?”
I wound up serving as a staff officer on the CENTCOM staff, and spent the end of 2004 and the spring of 2005 in sunny Qatar.
While there I saw a list of USO shows that were “in theater” and noticed that Al Franken was listed. This was not long after he published Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot so I was surprised to see that he was coming over to visit the sandbox. I called the USO rep to verify that this was THE Al Franken.
She said yes it was, and that he “was one of our best performers.” Apparently Al Franken, (unlike Bill O’Reiley, among others) regularly came over to do USO shows, and never refused a request from the USO. He apparently did several shows, and not in Qatar (where I was) but up in Iraq (where the shooting was). This was verified to me by someone who had been at one of his shows. Apparently Al Franken was touring Iraq with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, and he was going to have them all come out on stage wearing burkas as a gag; but the Army vetoed the gag for fear of offending the Iraqis. I did see a video clip of one of his shows though where he came out wearing a trash can lid on his chest; this was at the time we were short of flack vests.
In any case, unlike a lot of other people, many of whom have posted here, Al Franken HAS been to Iraq, several times. No he wasn’t kicking in doors or doing recon patrols; but he’s put himself in harms way, when he didn’t have to, to a degree much greater than most in the media (and most of the people who have posted here).
Brendan Kelly | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply
In reply to Mary T.,
No, not everyone got “wagged”, I can see! Because living in a two dimensional world where there is only black and white, limits a persons ability to see that there are many shades of gray in between. To be steadfast in ones opinion or belief, be it for principle or religious reasons is flat out wrong. Inductive reasoning requires processing all information available. Those who base their principles on a premise that if one political figure is corrupt, than all are, and all politicians are liars is limiting and denying innocent persons their fair shake. Or maybe some are just plain scared that they may get “duped”!
I understand the “rule of law”. But for an example, that not all laws are black and white. There are many gray areas. This allows judges and juries elbow room. Plus juries can nullify the law, and have throughout our history. This would be obviously not a black-and-white situation! It would require debate, deliberation and thoughtful reasoning.
Being principled is fine! Being unyielding is not! You could easily be denying someone their liberty.
“Americans seek security, but not as an end in itself. We seek security to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Attempts to ‘trade’ liberty for security can only produce neither. Unleashing the uncontainable violence of war invites further atrocities against innocent people, with the strong likelihood of yet new and even worse reprisals against Americans. Instead, we must achieve security in a manner consistent with a diverse and open society, individual liberty, and the rule of law.”
This quote from the 9/11 home page looks and sound much like a quote out of Poor Richard’s Almanac. Just shuffle the word around a little, remove a phrase, add a phrase, and you got it! I prefer the way Benjamin Franklin wrote it. Though he did write phrase in several different ways, at different times, they all added up to the same conclusion.
By the way, he was a “Hawk”! Without him and others like him, many of us, more than likely, would be having this discussion in the “Queen’s English”.
I have no reason not to believe you as far as prediction go or anything in the Wayback archives. Anyone could have predicted that destroying the Trade Towers would provoke a response. Iraq, we had insufficient reason! Afganhastain, a country without law, except for religious fanaticism, harboring a mass murderer. Now that I can live with!
I don’t know if everyone been watching but we been at war since the Iran hostage situation. People killed in hijackings, blowing up of airplanes with hundreds of innocent people on board, hostage taking, embassies being blown up with innocent people working in them. The previous attempts to blow up the Trade Towers and then their successful destruction. Once again, full of innocent people. Where is their share of “rule of law”?
Forget the damage being done to the world economy. How about areas such as the Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, areas of Indonesia, the suicide bombers walking into shopping malls. Doesn’t any of this mean anything? Do these people not deserve justice?
Some food for thought! Did you know that in the Arab world, talk is seen as weakness! That negotiation is just another way for them to strengthen their position and get something for nothing!
Tell me please, is everyone besides the members of the Institute being “duped”?
Brian Alger | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Hi, Brian, and thank you for your further comment.
I don’t buy moral relativism, and I suspect that when push comes to shove, you don’t either. For example, was it OK for the 9/11 Saudi pilots and accomplices to exact revenge on civilians for actions of the U.S. government and its military that they viewed as aggression? If not, then was it OK for the U.S. government to exact revenge on civilians in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, for the actions of Al Qaeda’s representatives? If not, was there a more appropriate response? The Independent Institute suggested the one provided for in the U.S. Constitution: issuing letters of marque and reprisal to find and eliminate or bring to justice Bin Laden and his cohorts. See our “Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden,” here. Even if one considers this a matter for a Standing military to deal with, considering the untold billions spent on its much touted “Special Forces” by the U.S. government, was it really impossible to simply deploy an elite force to get Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership?
As rational beings, wouldn’t you agree that it is our obligation to observe, study history and political economy and derive lessons and conclusions from such study? Robert Higgs has developed a deep and well-respected body of work studying crises and government’s exploitation of them in deriving greater and greater power. Having that analysis at hand, we were able to immediately foresee and warn against the danger of 9/11 being used as a case-book excuse for such power-grabbing — which it has, in fact, proven to be, extending through today’s unprecedented extension of government into realms once inconceivable for its involvement. What did passing the largest farm bill ever in 2002 (laden with yet more in 2008) have to do with combating terrorism? What does taking over U.S. car manufacturers have to do it, either — yet both are part and parcel of the over 50% increase in the size of the federal government since 2001 — and are a direct result of the very phenomenon Dr. Higgs has observed and documented.
I believe that most people go into government in the misbegotten belief that it is a good way to help people. They are unfortunately completely wrong: individual freedom, coupled with the Rule of Law — not politics — has historically, and can, if allowed to exist, continue to provide the greatest good to the greatest number. The Public Choice school of economics (see, for example, our Beyond Politics: Markets, Welfare and the Failure of Bureaucracy) has well documented that, regardless of individual politicians’ intentions, Lord Acton was right: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I hope this helps clarify the Institute’s insistence on standing on principle, not opinion.
With best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Jul 13, 2009 | Reply