posted June 07, 2008 02:17 PM            

By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, June 06, 2008
OPPORTUNISM KNOCKS
By Paul Mirengoff

Earlier this year, three-fourths of the Senate voted in favor of a resoution designating the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. Among those who voted for the resolution were Hillary Clinton, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer. Obama voted against it.

Yesterday, however, Obama told the AIPAC convention that the Iranian National Guard is, in fact, a terrorist organization. He attempted to explain his recent vote to the contrary by claiming that the resolution contained language about military action. But this is false, and transparently so -- if it had contained such language Clinton, Durbin, Reid, and Schumer would have opposed it.

Obama's change in position on the Iranian National Guard is mirrored in other flip-flops, with more likely to come. On the vital issue of the Iraq war, for example, Obama spoke out against it as a state legislator. But when running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, he declared that there is little difference between his position on Iraq and that of President Bush. After his election, differences quickly reappeared, and Obama's position continued to evolve over the next several years. When it comes to Iraq, Obama makes the John Kerry of 2004 look constant.

There's not much mystery any more about what Obama is. He's a default hard-leftist with a streak of opportunism as big as all outdoors. When he's competing in a general election, the opportunist mode naturally prevails. But if he 's elected president, especially assuming (as I do) a solid working majority in Congress, we can expect Obama to default to his hard-leftism.

THE FRIENDS OF BARACK OBAMA
By Scott Johnson

Among Barack Obama's most intimate spiritual mentors and closest friends are Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and Tony Rezko. He has known each of them for more than fifteen years. Over the past few weeks, Obama has made public statements suggesting that over the years he failed to discern the offensive qualities that have made them notorious. He somehow really didn't know them very well.

The Chicago Tribune interviewed Obama about Rezko this past March. In the interview Obama admitted that Rezko had raised more money for him than had been previously known (as much as $250,000) for the first three offices he sought. As late as 2005 when Rezko was already under investigation, Rezko purchased the lot adjoining the house the Obamas purchased on the same day. Rather, Rita Rezko purchased the lot: "Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey."

Obama bought his house for $300,000 less than the asking price when Rezko bought the adjoining lot for the asking price. "Frankly I don't think he was doing me a favor," Obama said. "There was simply no connection between our purchase of the house, the price of the house and the purchase of the lot." After the reports of Rezko's questionable political dealings first emerged in 2005, the Tribune reports, Obama said he asked Rezko about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.

Yesterday Rezko was convicted in federal court on 16 felony corruption counts including fraud, money laundering and abetting bribery. Obama's comment on Rezko's conviction reaches a new height of absurdity:

posted June 07, 2008 02:24 PM            

Barack Obama had to backtrack on foreign policy yet again today, this time on Jerusalem. He tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC yesterday by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The US has no official position on the status of Jerusalem other than to insist that the two parties work it out between themselves. It is considered one of the most sensitive points in negotiations between the PA and Israel, and most diplomats avoid mentioning it at all to avoid unnecessary provocations while trying to get the two parties to talk.

Obama apparently doesn’t know that — because he hasn’t any experience at it. Today he tried extracting his foot from his mouth, without much success:

Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN.

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Yes, obviously. Unfortunately, in learning a lesson on foreign policy, Obama managed to anger both parties and forced them into making public demands that only make diplomacy more difficult later. This is what happens when candidates with no experience in diplomacy and foreign policy think themselves experts in both.

How many of these can we expect to see with Obama in the White House?

posted June 07, 2008 02:37 PM            

McCain misrepresents Obama's stand on naming Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.

Summary

John McCain is attacking Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which (among other things) called for labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. McCain claims that Obama's opposition means that he also opposed calling the IRGC terrorists. We find otherwise.

• Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

• The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rattling."

• McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama's Web site doesn't say anything about the IRGC. McCain's argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
  

For the past two weeks, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic front-runner (and now presumptive nominee) Barack Obama have engaged in a war of words over their respective positions on Iran. In a June 2 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, McCain upped the ante, criticizing Obama's failure to support an amendment that called for designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, a charge that McCain repeats on his Web site. It's true that Obama opposed the amendment in question. But McCain is wrong to suggest that Obama's opposition had anything to do with the IRGC's designation. And McCain fails to mention that Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that would have named the IRGC a terrorist organization.

Wait, What Are We Fighting About Again?

Let's start with that whole Revolutionary Guard business. Here's McCain at AIPAC:

McCain (June 2): We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region."

On his Web site, McCain makes the point even more bluntly:

McCain Web site: The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps A Terrorist Organization - But Senator Obama Opposed It.

McCain implies that Obama doesn't think Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization. That's wrong. Before the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was introduced, Obama cosponsored a bill that called for the IRGC to be designated as "a Foreign Terrorist Operation." Obama was one of 72 cosponsors of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which states (in part):

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.

The McCain campaign notes that the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act has yet to come to the floor for a vote. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's sponsorship put him on record in favor of labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, contrary to McCain's insinuation.

As for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, it too called for the executive branch to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The amendment, which passed the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007, by a vote of 76 to 22, is not as bold a step as it might sound, considering the White House had announced a month earlier that it was debating naming either the entire IRGC or the Quds Force, an elite wing of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment expressed "the sense of the senate" that the IRGC as a whole ought to be so designated. Proponents argued that the designation would pressure Iran to change its behavior in Iraq.

But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

The 19 Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent who voted against the amendment included many of the Senate's leading voices on foreign relations. Joseph Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment, as did Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the same committee. In fact, nine of the 23 senators who opposed the amendment sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. (Bold added by me in this instance.)

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

McCain's Web site offers another curious – and convoluted – argument about Obama and the IRGC:

McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.

The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.

We take no position on the wisdom of the Kyl-Lieberman act. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly, and our colleagues at PolitiFact found that experts were divided over the implications of the amendment. We do know that McCain's claim that Obama's opposition to the bill was based on an unwillingness to label the IRGC as terrorists is false.

Also worth noting: For all the time McCain and Obama have spent arguing about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, they were the only two members of the Senate who failed to show up for the vote.

posted June 07, 2008 03:09 PM            

So, we have leftists once again screeching, howling and shrieking in unison. They say the The Kyl-Lieberman amendment would open a back door to military action against these terrorists.

Now just to be clear here; these are the very groups who attempted to touch off a civil war in Iraq. The very groups who armed both Shia and Sunni militias. The very groups who have transported explosive devices to Iraq to kill American military forces and who have and are participating in combat operations against both the Iraqi military and US military forces.

But, O'Bomber voted against naming them as terrorist groups.

Stuff the spin.

posted June 07, 2008 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

But, O'Bomber voted against naming them as terrorist groups.

---

Read before you respond.

"Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization."

posted June 07, 2008 04:19 PM            

O'Bomber is an empty headed little testosterone challenged wimp. Saber rattling indeed. That saber should be used to behead every one of those bast@rds...pronto.

The fact is that O'Bomber DID oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the amendment did name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Quds Force groups as terrorist groups.

Another fact acoustic is the the Senate leadership wouldn't even bring O'Bombers bill to the Senate floor for a vote.

Now acoustic, here's some spin for you from the article you posted.

"McCain implies that Obama doesn't think Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization."

posted June 11, 2008 11:30 AM            

Well, not so far.

June 11, 2008
George Soros and Obama's veep
Thomas Lifson

Soren Dayton of RedState notices that Barack Obama's choice of Jim Johnson to vet vice presidential choices is worse than previously understood:

...there is more on Johnson. In 2001, he joined Persueus LLC as a Vice Chairman. Perseus has a number of funds. Among them:

PERSEUS-SOROS BIOPHARMACEUTICAL FUND, L.P., which Perseus co-manages, was formed in 2000 with capital commitments totaling $449 million to make investments in life sciences companies

So Perseus is a business partner with George Soros. And Johnson is the Vice Chairman ...

Incidentally, as Say Anything Blog notes, Perseus also seems to own the publisher of the Scott McClellan book

posted June 11, 2008 01:22 PM            

The bill Obama co-sponsored did name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, and you're going on about how he voted against naming them as such? In what bizarro world does that make any sense?

quote:

---

Notice the spin acoustic? "McCain implies" but McCain didn't say that.

---

No. As a matter of fact I don't.

McCain upped the ante, criticizing Obama's failure to support an amendment that called for designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, a charge that McCain repeats on his Web site.