Soft on Iran?

As for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, it too called for the executive branch to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The amendment, which passed the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007, by a vote of 76 to 22, is not as bold a step as it might sound, considering the White House had announced a month earlier that it was debating naming either the entire IRGC or the Quds Force, an elite wing of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment expressed "the sense of the senate" that the IRGC as a whole ought to be so designated. Proponents argued that the designation would pressure Iran to change its behavior in Iraq.

But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

The 19 Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent who voted against the amendment included many of the Senate's leading voices on foreign relations. Joseph Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment, as did Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the same committee. In fact, nine of the 23 senators who opposed the amendment sit on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
McCain's Web site offers another curious – and convoluted – argument about Obama and the IRGC:

McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.

The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.

We take no position on the wisdom of the Kyl-Lieberman act. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly, and our colleagues at PolitiFact found that experts were divided over the implications of the amendment. We do know that McCain's claim that Obama's opposition to the bill was based on an unwillingness to label the IRGC as terrorists is false.

Also worth noting: For all the time McCain and Obama have spent arguing about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, they were the only two members of the Senate who failed to show up for the vote.