Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Staggering Obama Hypocrisy on Iran

Weekly Standard Blog, July 9, 2008 The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched nine medium and long-range missiles today. This is the latest demonstration of the growing threat posed by the IRGC, which--in addition to being at the center of Iran's ballistic and nuclear weapons programs--is also responsible for training, equipping, funding, and directing the proxy war Iran is waging against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan--resulting in the murders of hundreds of American soldiers. Asked about the IRGC this morning, Barack Obama tried to strike a tough pose--calling Iran "a great threat" and calling for tougher economic sanctions. Even by Obama standards, however, the disconnect here between what Obama says vs. what Obama does strains the bounds of hypocrisy. Readers may recall that the question of whether to impose tougher economic sanctions against the IRGC came before the Senate late last year, in the form of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. The overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate embraced the measure--including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Obama's fellow Illinois liberal Dick Durbin. But not Obama. On the contrary, Obama was one of the few senators who opposed the amendment--and vociferously at that--calling it "saber rattling" and building his opposition to the measure into one of the centerpieces of his primary campaign. To this day, his website brags "Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment," which imposed sanctions on the IRGC. With the IRGC firing missiles that could hit Tel Aviv and sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, you'd think the MSM might want to ask Obama--why exactly did he so strongly oppose an amendment imposing economic sanctions on the IRGC last fall, if he is in favor of economic sanctions on the IRGC? Why, if he thinks Iran is such a "great threat," did he say Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" during the primary campaign? Why, if he is concerned about the IRGC, did he fight so strongly against the legislative measure that represented the Congress' single greatest effort to date to go after the IRGC?

No comments: