Franken’s opponents attack his views on a Syria strike
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
President Barack Obama talks to the nation tonight about possible military action against Syria over its use of chemical weapons. But no matter how that drama plays out in the coming weeks, the call for military strikes could become a big issue in next year’s Senate election.
DFL Sen. Al Franken was clear from the start in saying he favored limited military strikes and believed the White House had authority to act without congressional approval.
He walked back a bit from that Tuesday, saying he thinks the resolution for military action against Syria the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed is “too broad” and that he will urge Obama to explain how the country will deal with unintended consequences of a possible attack. He still thinks the use of chemical weapons warrants a response.
Here's a look at how some of the Republican challengers to Franken view his position on Syria.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
State Sen. Julianne E. Ortman, R-Chanhassen
Ortman says Franken was wrong for his early backing of “limited” air strikes.
“I don’t know whether it will become an election issue or not, but I would challenge Sen. Franken for being so willing to do whatever President Obama asked him to do. I absolutely think that he was way too willing a partner and should have been acting as a member of a separate and distinct branch of government.”
“Make no mistake, it is an act of war, and I think they failed in explaining how they could limit the intervention in the way that they have proposed.”
Ortman also says she disagrees with Franken’s early assessment that President Obama had authority to strike Syria without first seeking approval from Congress.
State Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka
Abeler says he also disagrees with Franken that Obama would not have needed congressional approval for air strikes against Syria.
While saying he hasn't received the kind of classified briefings that Franken has, Abeler says it's shortsighted to discount an attack of Syria as a "limited strike."
“Those who think you can go drop and bomb, make your point and go home and then business will be as usual are walking on very thin ice and they’re at risk of making a very grave error.”
St. Louis County Commissioner Chris Dahlberg
Unlike Abeler and Ortman, St. Louis County Commissioner Chris Dahlberg of Duluth sides with Franken in his belief that the military needs to be used against Syria.
“We have the ability, and I think the moral authority to go in and stop genocide.”
And while Dahlberg has no dispute with the way Franken has approached military action, the Iraq war veteran says if he were a U.S. senator he would be better positioned to make decisions about military action than Franken.
“I bring credibility to the table when I question the issues with the generals or with the state department saying, hey, what’s going to happen in these cases? What’s going to happen in the second effect, the third effect and that’s the important thing we’re going to need.”
Businessman Mike McFadden
The fourth announced Republican candidate, Mike McFadden, didn't respond to two telephone requests seeking comment about his position on military action against Syria.
Read:
Syria update: Kline says no to attack; Franken says Senate plan ‘too broad’