Has Senator Obama ever criticized Hillary for supporting the IRG terror designation?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Has Senator Obama ever criticized Hillary for supporting the step of the State department designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization?

No. Because he openly supports that designation, and always has. He supported it in S970 and he supported it the day Condi Rice made the actual designation. He pretends he's against K/L, and has made up a laughable sub-objection to a tangential aspect of K/L (itself something he has supported before it became convenient not to)

But Barack Obama has NEVER opposed designating the IRG a terror organization.

His objection to K/L is a clever fraud. And effective too, because his own strongest anti-war supporters seem to be utterly convinced against all evidence that Obama's objections to K/L are similar to Jim Webb and Joe Biden's objections. Webb and Biden objected strongly to the IRG designation, which neither man supported in S970, K/L or after the designation was made by the State Department. Unlike Biden and Webb, Obama supports that designation.

...The new sanctions target Iran's Revolutionary Guard, its Quds force and a number of Iranian banks and people the U.S. accuses of backing nuclear proliferation and terror-related activities.

"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."

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed 76-22 in the Senate last month. It calls, in part, for the Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. While Obama opposes the legislation, he was campaigning when the full Senate took up the bill and missed the vote.

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

[BeyondGeography]

1. No...been there done that many times

His objection to Kyl-Lieberman was on the portion of the bill that made force structuring in Iraq contingent on the "threat" from Iran. He also, like Biden and Dodd, saw the potential for Bush to use K/L as authorization to go to war with Iran. He is hawkish toward the IRG's support of Hamas and other entities that engage in terror. His position is outlined in this op-ed piece written in the 10/11 edition of the NH Union-Leader:

http://www.unionleader.com/pda-article.aspx?articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. And, just because it never gets old, the S970 text: and K/L text:

S970 Senator Obama co-sponsoring (Along with Clinton, Dodd and sixty some odd others, but not Biden or Webb)

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://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110ZE4a8N
________________

Note how different ( a term of art meaning 'the same') what Obama co-sponsored was from the IRG language in Kyl/Lieberman:

SA 3017. amendment to the bill H.R. 1585
SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN. (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
...
(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://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s3017

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. an eerie silence descended...

[Windy]

4. You may want to post the entire text....

b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(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; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.



(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Sep 20, 2007.)




The highlighted section is practically a green light to launch military strikes agains Iran from Iraq. Hence the reason why Bush/cheney (Clinton) want to keep combat troops in Iraq. Thank goodness someone in the CIA had the balls to leak the NIE on Iran or, based on the language of this amendment, we would be at war with Iran before the end of Bush's term! The administration is already trying to debunk the NIE so that they can still make a move. And Mrs. Clinton will have NOTHING to say about it because she SUPPORTED this amendment. He attempt to characterize K/L as a diplomatic move is spin to the extreme. She made a mistake. And it cost her votes.

Read the entire text of the earlier measure...it is not at all similar!

There is NO defense for Clinton in this one. Poor judgment.

[creeksneakers2]

7. It doesn't say attack Iran

It says Iranian assets can be attacked within Iraq.

[Windy]

9. using military assets from inside iraq to deal with iran

The amendment clearly gives the us military the authority to launch attacks from Iraq and use our military assets to deal with the alleged more "unsavory" aspects of Iran and its government as described in the previous paragraphs of the amendment. Launching missles, flying military sorties from military bases in Iraq etc... that's all it would take to start a war. Wake up.

[creeksneakers2]

12. It passed, nothing bad happened.

It didn't authorize war. There is no war. There won't be war. Iran pulled back, if they were there at all in the first place. Even General BetrayUs says so.

Kyl-Lieberman leading us to war is nothing more than Internet folklore.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Are you certain your bold print language was in the final version that passed?

Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment Passes By Huge Margin
By Greg Sargent - September 26, 2007, 1:15PM


...The bill's backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

Also removed from the measure was a provision "to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments" in support of the above.

Late Update: You can read a copy of the actual legislation here in our TPM Document Collection.

Also added to the final version was this conciliatory-sounding language:

"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 the preferable approach. That 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."


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php



Photo Copies of changes in the final version links:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=9&

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Sadly, fake versions of K/L language are all over the internet, so

Thanks for posting those links

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Corrected Link to important changes in final wording of K-L Amendment

Unfortunately though I copied the same link to the "cover story" twice rather than include a correct link to the fist photo doc page of changes to the final Kyle-Lieberman Amendment.

Here then are those links again as they should have been:

TPM coverage/story about the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment Vote:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php

First photodoc of literal changes in the K-L final wording showing what was removed:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=8&

Second photodoc of literal changes in the K-L final wording showing what was addeed:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=9&

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. thanks!

[Skip Intro]

5. In fact, he argued FOR using our troops in Iraq to counter Iran:

We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.

snip

Make no mistake - if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to drawdown forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us.

----------------------

from his own website, no less:

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php

[Windy]

10. Keeping limited forces in place to guard the embassy and staff .

Doing what is necessary to prevent the collapse of the Iraqi goverment does't mean further longstanding agressive miltary action. There are other measures that would be employed through diplomatic means.

Obama clearly says NO permanent bases and increased involvment with allies.

and, what your talking about is troop withdraw and not engagement with iran.
Hillary supports K/L and the use of military force against iran from iraq. Not the same thing.

[Skip Intro]

11. He speaks of using our troops, our "presence" as a deterrent to Iran.

Which is what he claims is the big problem with Kyl-Lieberman.

Can't have it both ways.

[Tom Joad]

6. I think he ain't that much different than Hillary. But that sure ain't a compliment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I would not advise anyone who doesn't like Iran hawks to support either candidate.

I am not much troubled by K/L one way or the other. But I would not argue with who doesn't want to vote for Clinton as the peace candidate. There are much better peace candidates.

It's just that, on Iran, Obama really isn't one of them.

Of course one can argue that Obama only took all these stances for narrow political reasons. But then, so did Clinton. it's a dog-shit vs. cat-shit kind of argument.

In any event, Biden's my guy, and he's been consistent on the matter.

[Gman]

8. He missed the vote...

Is that better than voting "Present"?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. It doesn't matter that he missed the vote. What matters is that he supports the designation

There is no mystery on that point.

[goldcanyonaz]

19. Actually it does matter that he missed the vote. nm