Coleman Attacks Franken on Iraq

The Norm Coleman reelection campaign this morning unveiled a web video designed to portray Al Franken’s position on Iraq over the years as a mess of contradictions. You can view the video here.

At first glance, it has a strong impact. Of course, it is a series of statements taken out of context to create a particular impression. And it’s ironic that Coleman is gigging Franken, for example, for a statement that he would have voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq (since that was Coleman’s position as well) and for opposing the setting of a timetable for withdrawal (likewise, a Coleman position). But obviously, the intent of the Coleman piece is to show Franken as inconsistent.As regular readers know, Franken has been all over the map on his Iraq position. I don’t think he has straightforwardly presented a narrative to explain his many positions. In my previous piece, I identified the questions I believe he should address. I still think he should do so and am continuing to request an interview for that purpose. I’m particularly hung up on Franken’s I-believed-Colin-Powell 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 WMD.

The state Republican Party had a ball several months ago with the Talking Points Memo video of Franken saying: “I think you make the president cut off funding for the troops.” Now the Coleman campaign is picking it up. I’m not getting any help from the Franken campaign on this, but it has always struck me as making too much of an unfortunate phrasing.

Republicans love to equate funding for the continuation of the war with “funding for the troops.” This is silly and misleading and seems a transparent effort to make us think that those who are against the war are against the troops and wish them harm. The majority of Democrats in Congress have a difference of opinion with Bush over the continuation of the war, not over whether U.S. troops in Iraq should have everything they need to defend themselves while they are there.

There isn’t enough context available on the TPM video, but it seems clear to me that what Franken was saying is that Democrats should appropriate funds for the military operations in Iraq tied to a deadline for withdrawal (as they have done). If Bush vetoes it, Democrats should point out that they passed “funding for the troops” but the president won’t let the “troops” be funded because he won’t agree to a timetable for bringing them home.

If I’m right about what Franken meant, it’s a very defensible position. But he blew it by adopting the Republican language about “cutting off funding for the troops” and this new video is the latest attempt to make him wear that poor word choice.