McCain attacked Obama in the same way:

John McCain is attacking Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which (among other things) called for labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. McCain claims that Obama's opposition means that he also opposed calling the IRGC terrorists. We find otherwise.

    * Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

    * The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rattling."

    * McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama's Web site doesn't say anything about the IRGC. McCain's argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

" * The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rattling."  "

Mmfa's point: "In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do that."

   How does having a reason to NOT support the bill translate into "consistently supported"? If the guy did NOT support the bill and had a reason to NOT support the bill then doesn't that take away mmfa's ability to say he "consistently supported" the bill?? Ending up with misinformation about misinformation. Very talented.

Ah if you'd only turn that critical vision towards your own, Do them a world of good no doubt.

I'm pretty clear on Obama's position as described above, your not.

I appreciate this merely allows you to place me also in a bad light. Which reminds me, have you stopped beating your significant other?

"I'm pretty clear on Obama's position as described above, your not."

   I would have been much more clear on his position if it didn't change from speach to speach. But, as long as we have mmfa pointing out the misinformation while providing misinformation then all is good in liberal land, huh? Conservative misinformation: bad. Liberal misinformation: good. Is that how it works in your world?

   Oh, and ... uh ... no.

You accuse, you offer no proof.

I don't put ideological filters on missimformation. My reading comprehension is pretty good too. 

My sympathies to the individual.

"You accuse, you offer no proof."

   I provided a direct quote from mmfa. What more proof do you want?

A two word quote is proof? I understand why he wouldn't have voted for it. Again you show no understanding of it. Two words whew, took me a couple minutes to find them.

Great job mmfa. No posturing, no word-smithing, no pandering.

A straight forward report detailing why Levin is wrong and is the one doing the pandering...and chock full of great links...kudos to Brian Levy. 

What I don't understand is why the pundits who have slammed Clinton for labeling the IRG a "terrorist group", have not criticized Obama for earlier that year trying to do the same thing.

Here's Maureen Dowd saying praising Obama for saying he would have opposed the ammendment, but Dowd at no point reminded her readers that Obama believed that the IRG was a terrorist organization. This was, after all, the main reason why Dowd criticized Clinton in the piece.

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.

Sorry, I don't normally paste entire paragraphs, as too much of that makes a thread seem really repetetive, but this one is a cracker. I've noticed that McCain's statements regarding the war in Iraq make Bush seem pretty reasonable, and are actually much closer to Sean Hannity's childlike views.

Surrender, cut & run, the equating of support for the war with support for the troops, he uses all of these buzzwords that aren't surprising coming from the am radio monkeys, but are embarrassing coming from a potential President.

I realize it's politics, you don't help your opponent by correcting the media,and you capitalize with doubletalk when you can, but the quote above to me is from a man who is unfit to lead this country.

I've had the misfortune to listen to LEVIN  for a while now . He is a complete IDIOT .He rants and raves against DEMOCRATS AND LIBERAL EVERY DAY . IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING HE SAYS YOU ARE LABELED AS UNAMERICAN AND THE ENEMY. He is about the WORST OF THE RIGHT WING LUNITICS THAT I HAVE HEARD.

How does having a reason to NOT support the bill translate into "consistently supported"? If the guy did NOT support the bill and had a reason to NOT support the bill then doesn't that take away mmfa's ability to say he "consistently supported" the bill?? Ending up with misinformation about misinformation. Very talented.

No. You're really confused. The two quotes you copied and pasted contradict the argument you're trying to make. Obama didn't consistently support the Kyl-Liberman bill. He consistently supported designating the IRG a terrorist organization. THAT is what MMFA is saying.

"The two quotes you copied and pasted contradict the argument you're trying to make. Obama didn't consistently support the Kyl-Liberman bill."

   You're wrong, the 2 quotes do not contradict my arguement. The first quote I c/p'd was your quote that O'bama had a 'reason' for not supporting a bill that would designate the IRG a terrorist organization. The second quote was from mmfa's "summary" of their complaint of misinformation by Levin and MacCallum. O'bama did in fact oppose the bill that would have designated the IRG a terrorist organization. So, my arguement that mmfa is using misinformation to protest misinformation by others is correct.

   Simple test you can do yourself:  1) Yes or no; Did Obama support the Kyl-Lieberman resolution? I don't need a reason for/against support, just a simple yes or no. 2) Yes or no; Did mmfa claim 'false assertion' (misinformation) by Levin for saying Obama was inconsistant on his support of resolutions that condemn the IRG as a terrorist organization? 3) Yes or no; Did Obama consistantly support resolutions that label the IRG as a terrorist organization?

   If you're truthful with yourself and the rest of us, you should answer; No, Yes and No.  Whether he had an "excuse" for not supporting the resolution is irrelevant. The fact is he did not support it and mmfa claims a consistancy by Obama that isn't present.

 

2) Yes or no; Did mmfa claim 'false assertion' (misinformation) by Levin for saying Obama was inconsistant on his support of resolutions that condemn the IRG as a terrorist organization?

Wait a minute. Levin said no such thing. He asserted that Obama was "changing his tune" on whether the IRG should be labeled a terrorist organization BECAUSE he opposed the Kyl-Liberman. Levin made no mention of Obama's co-sponsoring a bill that also similarly labeled them one, but left out the stuff he disliked. Your "yes or no" test is misleading.

Excuse me. It was Martha MacCallum, not Levin, who said Obama was changing his tune. Levin claimed that Obama was lying to AIPAC about designating the IRG a terrorist organization simply because he opposed the Kyl-Liberman bill. But my point still stands; Levin said nothing about Obama being inconsistent on resolutions.

"Levin claimed that Obama was lying to AIPAC about designating the IRG a terrorist organization simply because he opposed the Kyl-Liberman bill."

   And my stance is that mmfa is promoting misinformation by stating (as FACT) that Obama has consistantly supported designating the IRG as a terrorist organization, when he did not support a measure that would do just that.

Philib, would you sign a bill that legalized child pornography if it  designatid the IRG as a terrorist organization?

If not, would you consider yourself a terrorist sympathizer?

I don't think it could be dumbed down any further, so good luck.

"Philib, would you sign a bill that legalized child pornography if it  designatid the IRG as a terrorist organization?"

   But, IT DID NOT include child pornography in it!! So, your analogy just exposes your private fetishes. Why don't you ask me if I would sign the bill if our troops would be used to enforce it, like O'bama was. Then we can talk misinformation related to the actual FACTS in this case!

And my stance is that mmfa is promoting misinformation by stating (as FACT) that Obama has consistantly supported designating the IRG as a terrorist organization, when he did not support a measure that would do just that.

The measure he opposed did MORE than just label the IRG a terrorist organization, and that's why he opposed it. MMFA provided that reason in this article, but you've conveniently ignored it:

Obama said he would have voted against the bill Levin referenced -- 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."