Senator Obama has one big issue moving votes right now, and it's a fraud

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Senator Obama is a long time supporter of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. That's not a supposition or interpretation... it is his policy. He has supported the designation in legislation. He supports it in all the debates. On the day Secretary of State Rice make the formal designation he issued a statement approving of it.

Yet, I would wager that the majority of Obama supporters around the nation are sure that Senator Obama opposes the IRG designation. This despite the fact that Senator Obama has never said any such thing. So where does this idea come from, that Senator Obama has ever opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization?

Here's how it went down... Clinton voted "yes" on Kyl/Lieberman. Jim Webb, a respected figure on military and peace matters, said that, designating the IRG a terrorist organization is "tantamount to a declaration of war." Hillary started getting major flak from the netroots. It was an obvious issue to attack on because she was isolated from the pack.

Senator Obama happened to be absent from the Senate the day Kyl/Lieberman was voted on. He never, to my knowledge, opposed Kyl/Lieberman before the vote. But at some point AFTER the vote, he seized on Clinton's vote as a key policy difference.

So Obama undertook a process of railing against Kyl/Lieberman at every appearance without volunteering the inconvenient fact that he supports the most objectionable portion of Kyl/Lieberman. Webb and most of the netroots say the IRG designation in Kyl/Lieberman is a rush to war. Obama says Hillary's vote on Kyl/Lieberman is a rush to war.

What audiences would never guess from this spectacle is that Senator Obama supports precisely the provision of K/L that Webb and so many net roots folks identify as tantamount to a declaration of war. (Obama claims, out of necessity, that he bitterly objects to Kyl/Lieberman, but based on peripheral aspects of K/L other than the IRG designation.)

So magically Obama, who has spent a year styling himself as and Iran hawk matching positions with Senator Clinton (or visa-versa) transforms himself into an Iran dove based entirely on his audiences' assumptions... what they imagine him to be, or hope he is.

He says, "Kyl/Lieberman sure is terrible!" The audience says, "Yeah, that IRG designation is a rush to war!" And Obama nods sympathetically and changes the subject.

But you will never hear him criticize the IRG designation. This exercise is mass psychology reminds me of all those people who could swear Bush told them that Saddam was in on 9/11, though it was always merely implied. (That is not to equate Obama with Bush, it's just a recent example of of people being told one thing in a way calclated so that they hear something else entirely.) In today's NPR Democratic debate, for instance, one candidate was railing against the fact that K/L urged designating the IRG a terror organization. The question then went to Obama, who said, "Another problem with Kyl/Lieberman..." He then went on to criticize an unrelated aspect of K/L, having implied that he opposed the IRG designation he actually supports. I have to admit it was pretty slick.

It's a lie by omission and implication that just keeps giving. Just today I have seen four different news shows describe Obama's difference with Clinton as that she supported designating the IRG a terror organization! It's amazing. It's not like determining Obama's position on the IRG designation requires any investigative journalism. (I'm sure anyone here can settle it for themselves with 30 seconds on google.)

Anyway... anyone who looking for a candidate that was right on Iran ought to consider Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich.


Here is the legislative language on the IRG that Senator Obama co-sponsored in April, 2007:

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Senator Obama on of 68 co-sponsors)

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

The following is the sense of Congress: ...(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

Here is Senator Obama's reaction when Sectretary of State Rice designated the IRG as a terrorist supporting entity, in October, 2007:

"It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism," Barack Obama said. "But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran." The senator from Illinois added that "unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran -- a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.campaign

Extra reading: A selection of pre-K/L Obama Iran rhetoric: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3789491&mesg_id=3789491

[Occam Bandage]

1. I don't think that's a "big issue that moves votes" anywhere but on the netroots.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. The DesMoines Register article about the recent poll cited this issue speciffically as accounting

for his move into first over Hillary in the poll.

That's what I was basing my assessment on.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Well, I'm no pollster, so I won't challenge that. So, let's say that

drove the 2-3% required to sling him over the top (or whatever the exact figure was). There's still 25%+ that were voting for him for other issues, and in those figures are still more people coming and going (and canceling each other out), each for their own issues. I agree Obama's K-L opposition is bogus, but I don't think it's fair to say he's got "one issue" that drives votes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Agreed that it's only driving votes *today*

I changed the headline to include "right now" so as not to imply that this has anything to do with his established core support, since that support was established long before this side issue existed.

But it seems (based on what I've read) to be important to his recent movement in Iowa, and particularly to some anti-war switches from HC to BO in Iowa. (A very anti-war state!)

[Occam Bandage]

9. Yeah, I agree he's overplaying his hand here.

[Cameron27]

3. Well it's an issue that moves her rivals to attack her.

[Occam Bandage]

5. I agree, and I don't think Obama has a leg to stand on here.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Your post is total bullshit, and here's why

The most objectionable portion of K/L for Obama has never been the IRG designation. Language in the amendment that makes force structuring in Iraq contingent on the "threat" from Iran is the issue for him.

Obama says this over and over and over again in debates (including today's) and in this op-ed piece:

==The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.

...I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our "military presence in Iraq." Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible."==

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Sen.+Barack+Obama%3a+Five+years+after+Iraq+war+vote%2c+we%27re+still+foolishly+rattling+our+sabers&articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236

[Lucinda]

27. The problem with Obama's statemnt is the K/L explicitly states diplomacy should be the

vehicle used to work towards resolution. And that was the content upon which Sen Clinton voted. Perhaps if Obama been there on the day of the vote, he might be more familiar with all of the content of K/L.

(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

So he says he agrees with the diplomatic measures, that Hillary mentions, and are IN K/L and then implies, in the last sentence of your post, that she does not support them.

[BeyondGeography]

32. That sentence refers to the "naive and irresponsible" flap over talking directly to dictators

That is unrelated political point-scoring by Obama. As for this amendment, there is a real difference of opinion between the two on its advisability. The OP's emphasis on the IRG designation is NOT THE ISSUE; Obama and Clinton actually agree on this matter and Obama has been straightforward about that.

The disagreement between the two, and it is substantial and legitimate, is over the portion of the bill that creates contingencies between our military presence in Iraq and the so-called threat from Iran. Those who oppose the amendment say this language can be used by Bush to prolong the stay of the military on Iraq and/or launch an attack on Iran from Iraq. Obama agrees with Biden and Dodd that this portion of the bill could potentially give Bush legal cover to begin another war.

The most charitable interpretation of Hillary's position is that she is comfortable that the amendment can not legally be interpreted as authorizing an invasion of Iraq so she voted for it. The more cynical view is that she's just striking the hawk pose again and figures she can escape without much harm if Bush misbehaves (after all, IWR doesn't seem to be a big issue anymore, at least, I'm sure, not to her).

[geek tragedy]

36. K-L does NOT say that. It nowhere states that diplomacy

should be used.

[ruggerson]

7. Great point

I trust the man less and less. I hope I don't have to reluctantly support him in the general. I believe he's far more megalomaniacal than Hillary. Which is saying something. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. I jumped Edwards over him into my top three. If you've ever seen me comment on Edwards you'll

know the implications of that! I can't stand Edwards and I used to like Obama pretty well.

Still can't stand Edwards, but in relative terms my problems with him don't seem so bad any more.

[ruggerson]

13. I think we have the same top three

At this point, I probably have Biden up top. But unfortunately I don't think I'll get a chance to vote for him.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. I don't recall your Hillary stance

I'm Biden by a mile, then a dispiriting Hillary second and then Edwards even further back.

Biden's the only one I like, though. The others are pragmatic electability considerations.

[ruggerson]

25. I'm fine with her

I probably feel a bit more favorably towards her than you. I think she'd make a very good POTUS and I admire her political skills. Right now, she's my second choice, though I'd be more than happy with Edwards as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. A Lot Of Research There

They're all politicians...Expecting a pure one is like going to craigslist and looking for a virgin in the Escort section but there's always a sucker or two who thinks he found one...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I do not really disgree with Obama's position. I disagree with him disagreeing with his position!

[AtomicKitten]

12. Massaging the truth again?

Anything to mitigate Hillary's YES vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

Hillary is special in that she stands alone on what Jim Webb rightfully called Cheney's fondest dream.

Keep banging away at it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. some people absolutely refuse to see what is right before their eyes

With well researched evidence right there in black and white.

[AtomicKitten]

15. A compilation of selective quotes to support an existing POV isn't research

It's propaganda.

[ruggerson]

16. lol

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. There's Lots Of Statements Of Obama's Hawkishness Toward Iran

I don't see the need to elevate him or any candidate to demigod status...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. And a good thing, too. The national security innoculation process is not dumb politics.

[AtomicKitten]

22. well, at least he had the good sense not to vote YES on Kyl-Lieberman

And, no, I don't give a rat's ass that he didn't vote because (1) he didn't vote yes and (2) if not voting was strategy, I approve (see #1).

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. This is scary.

Because it is through-the-looking-glass where up is down and black is white and research that does not comport with your opinion is propaganda.

It is not democracy. It is us-versus-them. Where "us" is right and all that is good in the world, and "them" are evil and ugly and liars.

There is no common ground and no inch of reasoned thought. It is very scary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. A Lot Of Big Words There, Pardner

I saw it put more succinctly on a bumper sticker; "God said it...I Believe It...That Settles It..."


Scary...

[1corona4u]

19. So, maybe you should email it to Yepsen...

sounds plausible to me..
[e-mail]

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. Nah... the media narrative is fixed in place. It's like Gore "inventing the internet"

[durrrty libby]

26. K for later

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. .

[Cameron27]

28. Thanks Kurt,

K&R

[sandnsea]

29. I've debunked that numerous times

and you just keep posting this garbage over and over.

It's about using the designation to justify the war in Iraq or invasion based on activities in Iraq - not the designation itself.

How many times does it take for you to get the correct information before you stop posting this drivel.

[Lord Helmet]

31. I notice they regurgitate this stuff like bad clams.

[Lord Helmet]

30. if your o.k. with Hilary voting yes, why do you care about this?

I get the idea some of you are just trying to run down other candidates.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. I support Biden, and he didn't support any of this stuff

I'm not real worked up over K/L one way or another, but on overall foreign policy I like Biden a lot. I would prefer that people who don't like Clinton on K/L not jump from her to Obama based on an erroneous assumption, but take a look at Biden instead. He never supported the IRG designation in any form.

(Dodd did. Clinton and Obama did. Edwards did, rhetorically. I don't know about Richardson. And, of course, DK is on a whole 'nother plane of peacefulness.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Added to OP: NPR quote

In the OP I described an Obama response in the NPR debate from memory. Since I came accross a transcript of it, thought I should post it for reference.


"There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea."

[geek tragedy]

37. And that fraud is named Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Well, she ain't helping matters much, so I'll give that a partial agree

[quinnox]

40. It appears Obama has the same position

as Hillary does on Iran.