Echoing McCain, Weekly Standard's Continetti falsely suggested Obama opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group
SUMMARY: The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In fact, Obama said he would have voted against the bill Continetti referenced -- the 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment -- because it "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran," not because it designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Indeed, Obama co-sponsored a different bill in 2007 that also would have designated the group a terrorist organization.
In the July 21 issue of The Weekly Standard, staff writer Matthew Continetti falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) a terrorist organization. Continetti wrote: "Asked how the United States ought to respond to last week's Iranian missile tests, Barack Obama told CNN that it was important 'we avoid provocation.' Just as last year, Obama criticized a Senate bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization because it was too 'provocative.' " In fact, Obama said he would have voted against the bill Continetti referenced -- the Kyl-Lieberman amendment -- 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." Indeed, Obama co-sponsored a different bill in 2007 that also would have designated the group a terrorist organization.
Continetti's statement echoes Sen. John McCain, who, in July 9 remarks that were repeatedly aired uncritically by CNN, also falsely suggested that Obama opposed designating the IRGC a terrorist group because doing so would be "provocative." McCain also falsely claimed during a June 4 blogger conference call that Obama had "switched" his position on the issue.
From Continetti's July 21 Weekly Standard article:
Asked how the United States ought to respond to last week's Iranian missile tests, Barack Obama told CNN that it was important "we avoid provocation." Just as last year, Obama criticized a Senate bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization because it was too "provocative." This has us wondering: Is the problem with Iran that the United States seems provocative?
Iran revealed to the world in late 2002 that it had been conducting a secret uranium enrichment program for 15 years. This was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Uranium enrichment is the first step on the road to building an atomic bomb. Most everyone seems to agree that Iranian nukes would destabilize the Middle East. What to do?
Obama might not admit it, but for about five years now the Bush administration has followed a course of action rather similar to his preferred policy. Bush has pursued multilateral diplomacy through international institutions (the U.N., the IAEA) and through an ad hoc coalition called the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the United States) in order to induce Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. Obama's policy would be a tad more unilateral, because he would prefer to have direct negotiations with the Iranians and thus remove our allies from the equation altogether.
Putting aside of course that labeling the Guard a 'terrorsit group' is a stupid, pedantic, propagandic notion that robs the word 'terrorist' of any real definition or meaning.
What's wrong with 'enemy'? Isn't that a sufficient way to describe someone we don't like? Being a muslin enemy doesn't make you a terrorist, if you act uinder the authority of a soverign government. It just makes you an ENEMY.
TERRORISTS, BY DEFINITION do NOT answer to a soverign power. That's a requirement of terrorism: that it not being carried out by the orders of a state. Otherwise it's an act of WAR!
So I'm opposed to the measure mainly because I SPEAK F%CK!NG ENGLISH!
Gracias, amigo. ;p
LOL
In the wardrobe of my soul. In the section labeled "shirts."
Otherwise...no; inflection, rejection, deflection, interdiction, identification, and I have no idea Who that lady projectionist was. So there Bwahahah!urp..s'cuse.
Gotta go, mom says she wants to vacume the basement. Hoah guess I'll drive her Hummer for a Dorito run and hit the Three Finger Mickey drive though.
"TERRORISTS, BY DEFINITION do NOT answer to a soverign power."
That's not correct. A terrorist BY DEFINITION is one who uses terror. They can be independent, they can be organzed, they can be an army, a police force, a homeland protection force. It can be one person...or a group.
Terrorism speaks more to the methods used than it does to the person or group who uses those methods. Personally...I define a "terrorist" as someone who primarily targets innocent bystanders. If the target is a police force, army, etc. it could legitimately be argued that they are fighting an opposing force. If the target is a politcal figure it would assassination.
But TARGETING the general public that is not involved in any sort of violence on their own...is TERRORISM.
But a question for you: Was Harry Truman commiting an act of terror or war when he dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? "
Both. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. He used the terrorism of an atomic attack on civilians to further the prosecution and eventualy winning of a war. But that doesn't necessarily make him a "terrorist"
"These are things you can't do with, say, Al-Quaeda, because their leadership has no official standing, nor does it have legal authority over it's constituents."
That's a separate issue. How you fight terrorists and terrorism is determined by the group involved and the techniques being used.
"A part of what meakes these group TERRORISTS is that their goals and tactics are not further STATE agendas, but essentially PRIVATE agendas."
And I don't agree. A state authorized group could be using, on orders, terror tactics against civilians. That makes them terrorists - ESPECIALLY if they are not in a state of "formal" war. That we could, possibly, negotiate an end to that use of terrorism only speaks to how well they will obey their chain of command, and who that chain of command is.
We could ATTEMPT, and maybe even succeed, in neogotiating an end to the terrorism used by Al Qaeda...but that might not actually lead to an END to the terrorism, because it's not a given that everyone in that "group" will agree with, or obey a command to stop.
Don't terrorists use violence and intimidation to make a statement or to try to achieve an end?
"Don't terrorists use violence and intimidation to make a statement or to try to achieve an end?"
I would say they try to "make a statement or to try to achieve an end?" - but "terror" doesn't HAVE to be violent. Intimidation can be mental, not just physical.
Obama might not admit it, but for about five years now the Bush administration has followed a course of action rather similar to his preferred policy.
'rather similar'?
Except maybe for the part about meeting w/ Iran's leaders. Oh yeah, and there's also that part about declaring Iran part of the 'axis of evil'. Um... and the whole Iraq war thing, and using Iraq as a launching pad to confront Iran, that part's a little bit different, too. Yeah, and the whole thing about encouraging Israel to strike Iran... just a teeny, tiny little difference.
But, other than those things (and probably several others), the Bush administration's course of action is exactly like Obama's proposed policy. Sheesh!
and no one can prove otherwise!
And, except for us, apparently no one cares either... ;>)
That's a very good point Jawill,
Conservative party USA is now totally wedded to telling lies. They are in such disarray that they know the only chance they have is to lie--and get the corporate media to carry water for them.
The reason they even "attempt" to lie so much is because they know the MSM will cover for them.
That guys a champ, Snoop. 9/11 (or "Nahn wun wun") could have been prevented if only Clinton had completely eliminated terrorism while he was in office. Sorry he forgot to baby-proof the White House for ya, W.
And what's with billboard boys Dallas cowgirl garage sale hat? That's pretty gay for a southern wingnut.
Snoop for President
Col. Harlan Sanders for vice
You guys crack me up. It's probably good that CNN put this dumbass on the air. This guy actually represents a small--and hopefully dwindling--section of the American electorate. The total, complete, uncut, abject dumbass. (And his accent has nothing to do with it. You can probably find some up north as well as down south.) Hopefully a dwindling group.
He's been listening to Rush Limboob, and now he thinks he's really on top of turrurism.