Barack Obama supports designating the IRG a terror organization (straight fact, not interpretation)

You won't find instances of Senator Obama objecting to designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds force a terror organization because he supports the designation. (That is a testable assertion. Citing a clear statement of specific opposition to the IRG designation would disprove the statement.)

He supported it nine months ago.
He supported it the day Kyl/Lieberman was voted on.
He supported it the day Condi Rice announced that the State Department had made the designation.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any difference between Senators Clinton and Obama on the IRG terror designation.

The illusion of opposition to the IRG designation is built on the assumption that audiences will fall for a false syllogism.

1) The entire progressive left says Kyl/Lieberman is insane because of the IRG designation.

2) Obama spends a lot of time saying he disagrees with Senator Clinton on Kyl/Lieberman.

3) Voters conclude that a key difference between Obama and Clinton is the IRG designation, though Obama actually supports that aspect of Kyl/Lieberman.

This is how politics works... you seek to deceive people without actually saying the false phrase. It's a pretty common form of political lying-by-intentional implication. Obama's Iran campaign strategy has been very good. It just happens to involve elements of intentional deception.


In addition to the fact that Senator Obama has spoken in favor of the designation, and NEVER spoken against it, there is the supporting evidence that he co-sponsored S970, which was itself the source of the K/L section on the IRG designation. Every time I have posted on Obama's official and consistent support for designating the IRG a terrorist organization, someone "explains" that S970 (the bill he co-sponsored) and Amendment 3017 (K/L) are "completely different bills." This is, itself, a clever lie by insinuation.

Of course the two different bills are different. That's why they are two different bills. But the K/L section on the IRG designation was taken word-for-word from the earlier bill Obama co-sponsored. So to those who say "read the bills," I have. As it relates to the IRG designation they are the same. (I have also read a claim that S970 merely called for retaining the State Department sanction against Iran, not urging a new designation for the IRG. This is what is called "a lie," as you can ascertain by reading what S970 says.
__________________

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Senator Obama one 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

___________________

Kyl/Lieberman Amendment No. 3017 to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act.

...(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224

http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/ARM07R69_xml.pdf

It... is... his... official... position.

on video tape saying shit, all of a sudden he makes it sound like he didn't say it. He knows that the only way you have him dead to rights is by a vote, everything else is subject to interpretation with him.

And his public comments were not too ambiguous:

"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."

In fact, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy also were among 68 co-sponsors of S. 970 in the Senate. I think there must have been something in the water.

Boxer apparently changed her mind about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard because she voted against Kyl Lieberman, as did Ted Kennedy. I'm not sure why they would co-sponsor S. 970 and not vote in favor of Kyl Lieberman. Perhaps there's something we don't know about what they learned the Bush Administration might do with legislation branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. At any rate, Biden and Dodd neither co-sponsored S. 970 nor voted for Kyl - Lieberman, I'm happy to say. I miss their presence in the debates.

The reason some sponsors of S970 didn't vote for K/L is because they decided, for some reason or another, that it wasn't a good idea.

I am not suggesting that it WAS a good idea. I would have voted for it. But it's bizarre that people cite this as a difference between Clinton and Obama, since they have always had exactly the same position on the IRG.

Since K/L is universally described in terms of the IRG designation, it needs to be noted that Senator Obama has never objected to that part of K/L, and his comments (in the OP) about the designation are his position on the matter.

The ticks me off because the AtlantaJ-C endorsement of Obama cited his opposition to the IRG designation as a key factor in the endorsement, though if you ask him today he will continue to say he supports the designation.

I did a little googling on the subject of the differences between S. 970 and the Kyl Lieberman Senate bill. There was one major provision in S. 970 that contained explicit language prohibiting the President from using the declaration proclaiming the Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization as a pretext for the use of military force against Iran. The bill (S. 970) contained the following statement:

"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran."

That same provision was nowhere to be found in Kyl Lieberman. There was no explicit prohibition in Kyl Lieberman that I can find that prohibited the President from using the pretext of terrorism in going to war against Iran. Perhaps that's why strong anti-war liberals like Boxer and Kennedy could co-sponsor one bill but vote against the other. In fact, the Iraq War Resolution for which Hillary Clinton voted has references to the "international war on terrorism" in addition to specific references to the nation of Iraq. The Bush Administration is primed to use that same IWR resolution to pursue international terrorism wherever it can be found and I think that Boxer and Kennedy may very likely have been concerned that in branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, it would have provided the President with a justification for military action against Iran. Therefore, the provision prohibiting military action in one bill but not the other may have explained their votes.

As far as Obama is concerned, I'm not sure what his position is on Iran. I think he criticized Hillary Clinton for her Kyl Lieberman vote in a debate in November, 2007, but has remained silent ever since. You may very well be right in that both Clinton's and Obama's positions are the same in this regard. Could it be, however, that Obama has no problem branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization (which I think is a bad decision on his part if he does) but that he does not want any legislation on that issue to in any way be construed as an authorization for the President to go to war? Could this explain why he would co-sponsor S. 970 but not support Kyl Lieberman? Just asking, as I don't know.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not supporting Clinton or Obama. I'm trying to stay above all of the sniping. I'm still searching for a candidate. I'm just seeking the truth among all of the posturing and spin.

it bears Lieberman's name.

And I can understand anyone who supported S970 and did not support K/L. There had been a lot of Bush saber-rattling in the time between the two bills, which created a somewhat different political climate.

So criticism of Clinton for voting for K/L was, in my opinion, quite valid coming from Biden and Dodd.

But Obama didn't seem to have a strong position on K/L until it became apparent that the net roots were really upset about Clinton voting for it, largely based on the mass dissemination of inflammatory language that had been stricken from the final bill she voted for. (Senator Obama didn't mention it in the Democratic debate held that evening after Clinton's vote, which is odd.)

I don't look to S970 for Obama's view on the IRG designation because a lot had happened in between. I look to his assessment of the IRG designation after Condi Rice made it official, where he took pains to stress that the IRG needs to be strongly sanctioned, is a supporter of terrorism, and that his objection to K/L "has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

I don't think I'm uncovering anything here... more just stating the fact that it's his position.

And I do not condemn him for that position at all. My complaint is that he has managed to disguise his position and thereby fool a lot of very strong anti-war progressives, not with the position itself.