Wallace let Pawlenty falsely assert Obama has "changed his views" on whether Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist group
SUMMARY: Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace did not challenge Gov. Tim Pawlenty's false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "is somebody who has first said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard isn't a terrorist group, and now he's changed his views on that and several other foreign policy issues." In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do so.
On the June 8 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "is somebody who has first said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard isn't a terrorist group, and now he's changed his views on that and several other foreign policy issues." As Media Matters for America has documented, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 expressing the sense of the Congress that "[t]he 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." Obama said he would have voted against a different bill -- the Kyl-Lieberman resolution -- because it "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran," not because the resolution expressed the sense of the Senate that "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization."
Pawlenty's assertion echoes McCain's own reported accusation during a June 4 blogger conference call that Obama "switched" his position on the issue. The call was transcribed by National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty:
Jen Rubin [Commentary magazine blogger and humanevents.com columnist]: What did you think of Obama saying he felt the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated a terrorist organization, after voting against a bill to do that a few months ago?
McCain: Well, he's switched on several issues, but this one is remarkable. One he was categorical in his statement when he opposed that legislation. Then he goes before AIPAC and supports it. I know he's changing on the surge, he's trying to change on his pledge to negotiate with dictators without preconditions. ... The American people will not buy this. ... He doesn't have the experience or the knowledge to make the judgments that are necessary.
From the June 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
PAWLENTY: And if you're going to be running for president of the United States, it seems like it would be a good idea to have visited Iraq sometime in the last 900 or so days. Senator Obama has not done that. He's not asked for direct meetings with General [David] Petraeus, unfortunately. He is somebody who has first said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard isn't a terrorist group, and now he's changed his views on that and several other foreign policy issues. It reflects an uncertainty in his judgment and perhaps even his knowledge.
But at the very least, he should go visit Iraq with Senator McCain. The two of them together, I think, could learn a lot or continue to learn a lot. Senator McCain has already been there I think over eight times since 2003.
WALLACE: Governor Kaine, I want you to, obviously, respond to that --
GOV. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Absolutely.
WALLACE: -- but doesn't Obama have an experience problem? He keeps changing the parameters for these meetings with foreign adversaries, what constitutes conditions, and just this week, he had to backtrack when he told a pro-Israel group that he supported keeping Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of Israel. And then had to -- as I said -- backtrack from that.
KAINE: Well --
WALLACE: Doesn't he have an issue there?
KAINE: Let me just talk about the Jerusalem issue. He says he believes personally that Jerusalem should be undivided. But, this is a matter of negotiation that's ongoing between Israel and Palestinian leaders right now, and he says he respects that process. They're negotiating that. They're going to decide what the right framework is. He expressed a personal preference and a belief.
The issue of experience is fundamentally -- and Sen. McCain's clip said it so well -- it's about judgment, and this is a stark difference between these candidates. Senator Obama said in '02, "This war would be a big mistake." It's not about whether we win the war, it's about whether we win the right war.
I truly believe that it is this kind of behavior that has demolished the Republican Party. Distorting their opposition's positions has come back to bite them in the arse. I say let them continue to poke holes in their own raison d'etre.
The known facts are that Obama rejected the other bill for reasons other than the declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. Posters here often say that someone who distorts reality like this is either dishonest or too stupid to understand. I think they're both. Too stupid to understand how their dishonesty is costing them support!
That's one of the things that amazes me about McCain even being in the race. While Bush blurted out the slogans at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, he mostly let his friends in the media carry the torch later on. Grampy is still stuck on the "surrender" and "appeasement" BS, and publicly stating the lies about Obama that he doesn't need to. Fox and most of the am radio dial would be happy to do the job.
What I don't understand is this; the GOP has the 28%ers (or whatever the number of suckers is now), those are the people who would vote for Satan if he was the candidate. Who are they trying to win over by being more ridiculous?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
Apparantly, each family is only allottted a finite amount of honest and integrity. And it looks like all of the Wallace Family's allottment went to Chris's father, Mike Wallace.
Well hot damn... your attack on Mike Wallace with zero backup and your ad hominem towards WZ earns you the privilege to sit in the corner for the week.
Off you go...
Actually, assuming that Obama does believe they are a terorist group, it may be the first thing I disagree with him on. By DEFINITION the standing military of a sovereign nation CAN'T be classified as terrorists. It's just nonsense anyway: IF THEY ATTACKED THE U.S., IT WOUDL BE AN ACT OF WAR, NOT TERROR. By definition, terrorists act outside of State control or authority. Just be cause they don't like us, or becuase they are armed and muslim, or becuase they are bearded and scary, does not make them terrorists. They act with the authority of the Iranian government. If they act militarily, it is an act of WAR, and the government of Iran is accountable. (And would likely be wiped off the face of the earth no matter WHO is the president.) They are unlike Al-Quaeda (or the IRA, Shining Path, etc...) whom do not answer to a governement.
(Now the degree of control that the governemnt has may be questionable, or whether it's THEM that controls the GOV'T, but it's still irrelevant. They are an official branch of the State's military. They might be "bad" but that doen't make them "terrorists." If it does then the word has no meaning and ANYONE can be a terrorist.)
The powers that be have been playing fast and loose with the English language ever since they assumed power. Up is down and now black is white. Clean sky has nothing to do with clean air, torture is not torture, etc. The same with their definition of terrorists. I guess it could be anyone who disagrees with them.
If we can call their military terrorists, can they call our military by the same name?
I'm not making excuses for the Iranian military or the Iranian Government. But how we view and describe the rest of the world will define how the world describes us.
We need to use the proper terms when dealing with our friends and our enemies.
If we can call their military terrorists, can they call our military by the same name?
Yes, they can. But it should be restricted to those who commit atricities, such as massacering innocent women and children.
And further restricted by including the provision that those attrocities not be committed by order of the government. Just because it's BAD doesn't mean it's terrorism. WAR maybe. EVIL maybe. But by definition terrorists do not answer to any government authority. They operate outside of anyone's jurisdiction, THAT'S what makes them terrorists.
the iranian revolutionary guard is not the standing military of a sovereign nation.
the revolutionary guard was formed to protect the revolutionaries (circa 1979) and prevent a military coup. ahmadinejad was one of the original members, and he was personally involved in the hostage situation where 444 americans were held in tehran.
the revolutionary guard controls iran's deadliest arms, including adapted scud missiles with ranges up to 1,200 miles, along with a chemical and biological weapons program and missile production.
the most secretive guard unit is the quds force, which conducts operations beyond iran's borders using proxies such as hezbollah, hamas and the palestinian islamic jihad. it has operatives in many embassies abroad and runs iran's training camps for unconventional warfare.
its special forces unit is operating deep in iraq, providing militias with deadly roadside explosives used against american troops.
but they shouldn't be designated as a terrorist group, acording to obama, who refused to support a non-binding senate resolution to do exactly that. furthermore, obama has called for direct, unconditional meetings with iranian leadership.
media matters is flat-out lying about obama's vote - multiple newspapers including the boston globe, the concord monitor, and the washington post all state that obama "opposed the measure but was absent on the day of the vote".
check your facts before you believe this website, people!!!
i used to be a liberal, then i learned to think for myself...
"i used to be a liberal, then i learned to think for myself..."
Sounds more like 'wishful thinking'... you WISH you could think for yourself.
the most secretive guard unit is the quds force, which conducts operations beyond iran's borders using proxies such as hezbollah, hamas and the palestinian islamic jihad. it has operatives in many embassies abroad and runs iran's training camps for unconventional warfare. (Justathinker)
The most secretive Guard unit is the Quds Force, which conducts operations beyond Iran's borders using proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad,Cordesman says in the book. It has several directorates -- for Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan; Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula; North Africa; and Europe and North America, Cordesman writes. It has operatives in many embassies abroad, he says, and runs Iran's training camps for unconventional warfare. (Washington Post)
Nice "thinking for yourself", sport. Is that you, AA?