A noteworthy example of bogus campaign journalism (Clinton, Obama, Iran)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

"Iowa City Democrat Katharyn Browne said she abandoned her support for Clinton in the past month and now supports Obama in light of the Iran issue. Obama spent weeks in October and November attacking Clinton's support for a measure that allowed President Bush to declare the Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a move Obama said was a step toward war. Clinton said the measure enhanced U.S. negotiating strength with Iran. "An Iran war terrifies me," said Browne, a 30-year-old University of Iowa student."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NEWS09/71201009/0/iowapoll07

Now check out the truthiness of the highlighted sentence:

"Obama spent weeks in October and November attacking Clinton's support for a measure..." TRUE

"Clinton's support for a measure that allowed President Bush to declare the Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization..." FALSE (The measure was a non-binding opinion. The Department of State designates entities as terrorist organizations unilaterally. Congress cannot "allow" such a designation. The measure in question had no effect whatsoever on the President's ability to do anything.)

Obama spent weeks in October and November attacking Clinton's support for a measure that ... Obama said was a step toward war TRUE

"Obama spent weeks in October and November attacking Clinton's support for a measure that allowed President Bush to declare the Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a move Obama said was a step toward war." FALSE The clear implication is that the "move Obama said was a step toward war" has something to do with designating the IRG a terrorist organization. That is false. Obama doesn't criticize Clinton for that, because Obama SUPPORTS the IRG designation. That is his long-standing and consistent position... not an off-hand comment out of context. It is his Oficial position. (Just ask him.)

So why would a reporter mis-characterize an issue being cited as causing a move in the race? It's probably not bias, it's sincere confusion. Political reporters tend to have a poor idea what's going on because in the course of their work they digest more stock speeches and campaign spin than anyone, and it takes its toll. In this case, the reporter has been utterly fooled by the Obama shell-game of complaining about the measure all the time, while keeping mum about the fact that he supports the part of the measure his supporters are upset with.
______________

Added on edit: Obama reaction to Condi Rice designating the IRG a terrorist organization.

"Democratic candidates expressed concern Thursday about the Bush administration's extensive sanctions against Iran, arguing that the measures were likely precursors to war. 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."

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

[sandnsea]

1. Bad Journalism

Those are two very different measures with very different approaches. They both deal with much more than the Revolutionary Guard and just because the journalist is too stupid to know that, it doesn'tmean the voters in Iowa are equally stupid.

[BeyondGeography]

2. You are utterly wrong about any Obama "shell game"

Obama co-sponsored a measure that would have designated IRG as a terrorist force back in March. His objection to Kyl-Lieberman, stated many times, is that it contains language that would use force structuring in Iraq to counteract a threat from Iran.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. that is why the media is so dangerous. They are picking the candidate for us

And we, are apparently too lazy to discover the truth.

Good job Kurt

[Windy]

4. Yes they are.... HRC

I'm sorry that your candidate is falling in the polls and I know that upsets you. The fact is the media wants Hillary and Rudy to be the winners. That match up will give them more dirt to talk about and they smell a ratings boost.

There is absolutely no possibly way anyone could produce any evidence that the media was skewing the race to any other candidate on the democratic side.

And if you would take the time to read each of the measures regarding Iran, you would see the stark difference.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Is this a mind control thing? There is no difference whatsoever in relation to the IRG

Are you just repeating what someone else assured you was true?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. See post #10 to compare the text

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. actually if you look at the research

It is evident that Clinton gets more negative press than any other candidate. And before the latest Rudy story broke, the republicans have been getting free passes on their past and present. Obama and Edwards have mostly postive stories, and the polls started showing a drop after the Russert-attack debate in which Edwards and Obama were given Clinton on a sliver platter.

It is a shame--not for me because my candidate is behind. It is a shame for democracy. You'd a thunk we would have learned from the last debacle.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. supporting analysis

Obama's Political Stunt On Iran
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:40:54 AM EST

First, let me make clear my view that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a huge mistake, both on policy and politics.

So what to do now? Pretend that Kyl Lieberman provides a LEGAL basis for Bush to attack Iran? Absolutely not. And yet, Senator Barack Obama, in a crass and harmful political stunt, is doing exactly that:

"Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran . . . Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

This is simply a false statement from the Obama campaign. Obama apparently is willing to pretend the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment authorizes the President to attack Iran, when it does not, in order to extract politcal gain as a result of Senator Clinton's huge mistake. That is despicable. More.


Senator Obama refused to sign a letter circulated by Senator Jim Webb that made clear that:

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," it says. That includes the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the letter says.
Instead of agreeing with this inarguable statement, Obama chooses to try and make political hay, and says only legislation can undo, implicitly, the Congressional grant of authority to Bush to invade Iran. The truth is the Obama campaign is lying. On the issue of going to war with Iran. This is worse than any doubletalk. This is playing with the security of our nation for crass political gain. This is the lowest moment of the campaign for any Democrat. Shame on Obama.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/2/104054/281

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. .

[AtomicKitten]

7. Much effort is made massaging the truth.

Here's the truth: Hillary voted YES on Kyl-Lieberman. She was the only Democratic candidate to vote YES on it.

The rest is subterfuge.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Don't forget...this was one of the hard votes that OBAMA skipped

all together. Something he is very good at.. is this part of is shell game then. Skip the vote...then if and when Hillary votes for....he jumps up and says he is against...guess this is the reason he has skipped more votes than anybody else in the senate ...cept Tim Johnson..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Since some Obama supporters like misrepresent this point... read for yourself

Every time I have posted on Obama's official and consistant support for designating the IRG a terrorist organization, someone "explains" that S970 and Ammendemnt 3017 are completely different bills.

First, S970 is not the basis for the uncontroversial statement that Obama supports the IRG designation. That is his OFFICIAL position. Today. Right now! Always has been! Just ask him. It's not a rumor or a characterization. It's his position. (See addendum to OP)

Second, of course the two different bills are different. (That's why they are two different bills.) But the section on the IRG is the same in both. So to those who say "read the bills!"... I have. As it relates to the IRG designation they are the same.

__________________

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

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. a note about the "shell-game"

The Obama shell-game on the IRG designation is like the "Saddam was involved in 9/11" shell-game.

You don't ever come out and state the lie you want people to believe. You just keeping implying it often enough that your supporters eventually think you said it... and they believe it.

To this day some Obama supporters on DU seem to believe that Clinton and Obama have different policies on the IRG designation. Where does that idea come from?

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

2) Obama spends a lot of time saying a key difference between him and Clinton on Iran is Kyl/Lieberman, which contains a section on the IRG designation.

3) Voters conclude that a key difference between Obama and Clinton on Iran is the IRG designation, when Obama actually supports that part 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.

[sandnsea]

14. That is the Clinton shell game

This has never been about designating the IRG a terrorist group, although I personally think that was a ridiculous thing to do.

It's always been about connecting the IRG to a reason to stay in Iraq. Go read what Obama has actually said and not the lies the Clinton campaign has put out.

(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 critical 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;

[Cameron27]

13. K&R

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Watching Webb on MTP this morning really brought this issue home

Webb was repeating his view that the IRG designation (specifically) is tantamount to war.

I cannot count how many times Obama supporters have cited Webb's analysis to criticize Clinton, while ignoring the fact that Webb's position is that Obama's own position on the IRG is tantamount to a declaration of war with Iran.

Whether Webb is right or wrong about the IRG designation, the fact is that Obama and Clinton have exactly the same position on it, and always have.