Posted on 06/05/2008 1:07:28 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
TODAY, SENATOR BARACK OBAMA will speak before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he will execute a maneuver likely to become familiar to the American people in the months ahead: the pander pivot. That is, a sharp turn to the right to satisfy a vital Democratic constituency whose support he now needs.
The story begins nine months ago, when the Senate took up debate on the so-called Kyl-Lieberman amendment--a bipartisan measure that urged the U.S. government to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.
The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC's role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.
Of course, that's not the full extent of the IRGC's malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran's licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.
Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.
Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment--which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman--or "Lieberman-Kyl," as they preferred to call it--was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.
The offending clause (a non-binding Sense of the Senate) suggests that the U.S. military presence in Iraq "will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf." It emphatically does not suggest either that we "use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran," as Senator Obama's website falsely claims, or that "we should maintain our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence," as Senator Obama frets.
That reading of the amendment is incomprehensible to most, including Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and one of Obama's chief supporters. "It's rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude," Durbin told Bloomberg Television at the time. "I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything."
Nonetheless, Senator Obama (who perceived the issue as a key wedge against the warmongering Senator Clinton) seized on the amendment--and proceeded to spend the next nine months boasting to every anti-war audience he could find about his brave opposition to it.
In subsequent debates, speeches, and interviews, Senator Obama kept up the attack. On his website, he offers only three points about his Iran policy; opposition to Kyl-Lieberman is one of them.
This week, in a speech before AIPAC, Senator John McCain condemned Senator Obama for his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman. "Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama," McCain said on Monday. "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.'"
In response, Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man--despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman--"has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization."
Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear.
In much the same way, Obama has recently sought to finesse his desire to chat directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In July of last year at a Democratic debate, Senator Obama was famously asked whether he would "personally meet with leaders of Iran North Korea, Syria and other hostile nations 'without preconditions'." "I would," replied the senator, adding that "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
Ten months later, Senator Obama insists that "I didn't say I would meet unconditionally." True, he said "without preconditions." Kind of like Senator Obama didn't "oppose" designating the IRGC, he simply "opposed" Kyl-Lieberman, the only measure dealing with IRGC designation to reach the president's desk before or since.
Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that Senator Obama opposed IRGC designation before he supported it. In the context, however, of the candidate's flip-flopping on personal negotiations with terrorist state leaders, however, the audience at AIPAC might ask why Senator Obama has pivoted from opposition to "Lieberman-Kyl" to support for the IRGC designation his audience demands. Is this really change they can believe in?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.youtube.com/user/YadVashem
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
#
OPINION:
WONDERING OUT LOUD: Does Obama really understand Iran and the potential threat Iran is/can be to Israel, the U.S.A. and the other parts of the world?
It will take more than a good speech by Obama to deal with the problems/potential problems Iran presents to the world.
“the pander pivot”
It is unbelievable that his cult followers are this stupid. When they say they are ready for change, it must mean watching this dolt cross dress for any occasion.
“People need to wake up to what an Obama presidency would mean for our country and the world!”
He isn’t going to win 5 states. Hillary is smart. She is going to let the Republicans smear him until he decides to quit. Then she will reluctantly step in to take his place.
I figure mid to late October, when she won’t need much funding and won’t have to debate. And Obama will pay for it all by paying off Hillary’s campaign debt.
Tinfoil hat? Probably. Would you put this past the Clinton’s? No.
Obama is looking to pick up support of those who are wary of McCain, but he’ll be Iran’s friend, and you can bet on that! This guy is slick. He knows he HAS to look as if he knows Iran is a threat until he gets elected, then he can do as he pleases! Any RINO or other Republican who votes for Obama is willfully deceived. He’s been very up front about his beliefs.
The money may not matter this time, since Barry has raised many millions from the Internet. Someone needs to look at those contributions and see who is paying to swing the American elections. Barry has a phone bank in Gaza, real nice, huh?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/13/palestinians_phonebank_for_obama
I’m somewhat confused (which is better than all the rest of the time): I saw just a minute or two of Obama speaking to AIPAC, getting some applause here and there, and then he said something like, “The war in Iraq is wrong because it has made Iran stronger, developing nuclear weapons, blah, blah...!)
Did I hear him correctly, and how could a statement like this fly at AIPAC?
mark
Of course all politicians pander to some extent. It’s part of the job description. However, this guy is up there with Kerry in the pandering department.
If you’re Jewish and you’re wondering if Obama is a friend of Israel just ask yourself who is supporting him. Let’s see, we have Syria, Hamas and Hezbolla who have come out for him. While Bush talks about appeasment to terrorists in front of Israel’s Knessett and Obama assumes it’s him. That’s all you need to know.
“Someone needs to look at those contributions and see who is paying to swing the American elections.”
The answer is George Soros. Going to read your article. It is against the law for Obama to take money from a foreign entity.
Lies and deceptions are required when in jihad against the infidels.
Just one of the things B. Hussein Osama learned in kindergarten.
Breakout the flip flops to wave in the air again...
Obammy will lie to anyone to succeed in his bid.
Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
. . . we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done . . . The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
Obama And McCain (Thomas Sowell)
GOPUSA ^ | June 5, 2008 | Thomas Sowell
I am reminded of when Romney was running earlier this year. He talked a good line, but he was shown to have pander-pivoted on a number of issues, to be acceptable to Conservatives.
I guess it depends on which side of the fence you’re pander-pivoting on, whether it’s acceptable or not.
Today McCain pander pivots on judicial appointments. I don’t see too many people taking him to task over it.
On the issue of illegal immigration he’s pefected the pander-pivot pander-pivot position, a double reverse of sorts. About all I hear from his supporters is ooos and ahhhs over it.
Pander-pivoting, the 2008 contribution to the political lexicon.
Sorry, but the 1972 election was NOTHING near as bad as this one. You can slam McGovern all you want, but Nixon vs McCain? LOL, you’ve got to be kidding.
Obama will lose both ears to wind shear if he tries to turn right too fast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.