«  
  »

Say it ain’t so, Al

Bob Morris, on Jan 12, 2006, 8:32 am

Al Franken with attack dog at Abu Ghraib 

Yes, that’s "Antiwar Lite" Al Franken posing with an attack dog – at Abu Ghraib, no less. Could there be a more perfect example of the conflicted, muddled ‘response’ to the war by psuedo-liberals than this?

From Body & Soul

But I’m always wary of how fine the line is between supporting soldiers and supporting militarism

When you’re posing with military dogs at Abu Ghraib, you’ve crossed way over the line.

RedStateOn weighs in:

I really don’t see a positive side to this. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s a bit like posing with Bull Connor’s dogs in Selma. They might be nice mutts off the clock, but when working, they’re not engaged in the noblest of efforts.

Category: Anti-war | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)

  • http://lefti.blogspot.com Eli Stephens

    How many times is it necessary to say that Al Franken is not antiwar, not even antiwar “lite”? He supported the invasion of Iraq and even spoke at pre-invasion, pro-war rallies. He is not for withdrawal. The only think Franken is “anti” is anti-Bush, like so many other Democrats like Hillary Clinton etc.

  • http://polizeros.com Bob

    And he just moved back to Minnesota so he can run for Senate in 2008. Imagine my excitement.

    While I could certainly support Bluto Blutarsky for Senate (see ‘Animal House’) I could never support Franken! Where is John Belushi, now that we need him?

    But Jeez, Eli, just because Franken supported the war, he’s now kind of sort of against it except when he isn’t, but golly it’s really complicated and stuff, and besides, the Republicans are Horrible and Nasty, and he tells you this every day on his tedious radio show. Truly, he is an inspiration for progressives everywhere.

  • Patrick Dowling

    I must respectfully disagree with your characterization here. Franken was for the war in the beginning because he naively believed Bush’s lies about WMD. As he dug deeper into the facts, he clearly saw the truth and was opposed to Bush’s war. However, he believes that now that we’re in there, we have an obligation to fix what we broke. He believes that America’s credibility with the Arab world is on the line. This is a valid position in my opinion. He is violently opposed to the thoughtless and arrogant way the administration has conducted the war.

    This photo was taken during his recent trip to Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq over the Christmas holiday when his sole intention was to bring comfort and support to the troops. I think it is quite admirable that Mr. Franken can separate his dislike from the war from his support of our troops. I don’t see any contradiction in that. I admire his courage. Not many people are willing to risk their safety and leave their families behind during the holidays to brighten the lives of soldiers far from home and in harms’ way.

  • http://polizeros.com Bob

    The best way to fix what’s broken is to get out, and stop to invading countries based on lies. Saying the US must fix what it broke is more of the same imperialist mindset that caused the war in the first place. Plus it perpetuates the war by saying the US must stay. An odd position to take for someone claiming to oppose the war.

    Except Franken isn’t really antiwar. In your own words, he dislikes the war now because the US is losing. Were the US winning, he’d still probably be cheerleading it.