Posted on 02/18/2007 1:20:43 PM PST by BillyBoy
Thank you for responding to our survey.
I do not support President Bush’s proposed troop surge in Iraq and voted for the House resolution that recommended against his action. The United States should increase the responsibilities of the elected Iraqi government to solve its own problems, while reducing the number of American combat troops sent overseas.
I did not come to this conclusion lightly. The long-term security of our country depends on the United States not being defeated in the Middle East. To prevent a collapse of democracy, tolerance and our supporters in that region, we should implement a new plan that relies on America’s key strengths, building support among all our citizens and allies.
Our troops in Iraq did achieve two major objectives. First, they ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a leader who invaded two separate United Nations member countries and ordered the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Second, they backed the United Nations and its sponsorship of Iraq’s three national elections that approved a new constitution and government. Iraq is no longer a military threat to her neighbors or minorities – especially Kurdish families, who no longer fear that a third genocide campaign will be launched by their very own government. These are major achievements worthy of the bravery and sacrifice of Americans in uniform.
Iraq now faces new challenges which should be solved by Iraqis – not the U.S. military. Iraq’s government, lead by a Kurdish President and a Shia Prime Minister, face a daunting enemy, composed of people who would restore the old dictatorship or worse. This struggle is primarily political, not military. Foreign troops – be they American, British or otherwise – are not well-suited to advance the elected government’s writ.
In the coming months, I will use my voice and vote to help build a longer-term plan for the United States and our allies in the Middle East. Our plan should be strengthened by a major diplomatic initiative among Iraq’s neighbors and the World Bank to support the elected government's plans for reconstruction. The U.S. military has a unique expertise in providing logistics, communications and training for our allies. A plan based on these key strengths, while reducing the number of American combat troops, will improve the prospects for peace and build support for our goals here and among our allies.
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Please feel free to contact me on this or any other issue of concern to you that comes before the Congress. You can call my office at (847) 940-0202 or log on and e-mail me at www.house.gov/kirk.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
We need to do a better job getting the word about Kirk if people can't even tag this guy as a RINO. His record in the last six years makes him one of the most liberal Republicans in the House, EVERY organization from National Review to Human Events has confirmed this. With so many RINOs defeated last year (the ones no longer in office are crossed out below), he now consistantly ranks as 4th or even 3rd most liberal Republican in the House. "Mark Kirk" should instantly be synonymous with RINO, just as the name "Arlen Specter" is.
Perhaps this vote will be the straw that broke the camel's back and finally motivate conservatives to challenge him in the primary. For those of you who didn't notice Kirk was RINO until this vote:
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL'S TOP 10 RINOs IN THE HOUSE(FROM 2005):
Rep. Christopher Shays (Connecticut)
Rep. Michael Castle (Delaware) Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (New York)
Rep. Mark Kirk (Illinois) Rep. Jim Kolbe (Arizona) (tied for 5th) Rep. Rob Simmons (Connecticut) (tied for 5th)
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Maryland) (tied for 7th) Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) (tied for 7th)
Rep. Mary Bono (California) (tied for 9th) Rep. Nancy Johnson (Connecticut) (tied for 9th)
NATIONAL JOURNAL'S TOP 25 MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE (FROM 2005)
Ranked by a weighted analysis of selected roll call votes by National Journal magazine. Rep. Jim Leach (IA-2) 61.3
Rep. Ron Paul (TX-14) 60.3
Rep. Christopher Shays (CT-4) 53.7
Rep. Michael Castle (DE-AL) 52.7 Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (NY-24) 52.0 Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT-5) 51.7
Rep. Mark Kirk (IL-10) 51.3
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (MI-3) 51.0
Rep. Tim Johnson (IL-15) 50.7 Rep. Rob Simmons (CT-2) 50.7
KIRK'S RECORD ON KEY ISSUES
In 2005, "Citizens for Global Solutions" gave Representative Kirk a rating of "A"
In 2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Kirk a grade of "F"
Based on information available in 2006, Sierra Club chose to endorse Representative Kirk.
Based on information available in 2006, Planned Parenthood chose to endorse Representative Kirk.
Representative Kirk voted their preferred position of Taxpayers for Common Sense 36% of the time in 2001.
Representative Kirk voted their preferred position of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100% in 2002
Representative Kirk supported the interests of the NARAL 100% in 2005.
Representative Kirk supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100% in 2004.
Representative Kirk supported the interests of the Republicans for Environmental Protection 75% in 2005.
To RINO Kirk,
You're done!
It appears that some who voted for the Resolution did so to force the USA to wind up the war, not to withdraw in defeat. But, this would be like forcing Pres Roosevelt to wind up WW II right away after Pearl Harbor as if telling China to get their act together in 1943 would result in some kind of success. The war, when initiated by the enemy, can not be concluded by the ones attacked except by military means or negotiation with the enemy. Since the present enemy lacks a person to negotiate with, military means are the only means.
The whole thing is disgusting. Left wing democrats control Congress now and it is only a matter of time before they drastically weaken us. I would be very happy to view Bush as the bulwark against them, IF he would stop kissing their rear ends.
Kirk,"I'm worried that I'll be investigated like Atty Gen. Gonzalez."
It appears to be a death wish of some kind. There are many of the hippy generation who said then that they would just as soon see the society and the culture disappear, and perhaps they have forgotten they said so, but they are still around and some have risen to responsible positions. Although they have nice houses and BMWs and Macintosh computers and families with 2.1 children, they have not changed something so fundamental. This will lead to national suicide, I have no doubt.
I am still glad I voted for Kirk over Dan Seals, the puppet of Dick Durbin, Rahm Emmanuel and Jan Schakowsky. Seals didn't even live in my district. Let's face it, Illinois is one of the most Democratic states of the Union. The Republican Party in Illinois is a joke. They were incapable of finding a viable candidate to run against Obama, who is not from Illinois, and look what happened. There is absolutely no Republican on the horizon to run against Durbin. You will soon get your wish, Billy Boy. Every day this district gets more Democrat. I was stunned that Mark Kirk hung on this election, by next election it might be impossible for a Republican, even a Rhino, to win in the 10th district. Be careful of what you wish for.
Time to throw these Main Street "Republicans" out with the trash.
I don't buy that this clymer "needs" to be so liberal to "win" in his "swing district". Kirk represents an suburban upper middle class to wealthy electorate in the far north suburbs of Chicago. It was held by another "moderate" Republican for 20 years before him. I'm in a less affluent, more Democrat part of suburban Chicago, and my DEMOCRAT state legislators vote to the right of this guy. Kirk is so liberal he supports partial birth abortion. Now how many "middle of the road" people can you find who would jump up and defend that?
He is a shameless opportunist and needs to go.
Hillary didn't live in NY in 2000, either, but since when did Democrats care about things like that?
Riiiight, lets try diplomacy among the nieghbors, lets see...we can start with Syria? no wait how 'bout Iran. We know how well they respond to diplomacy. Phocking MORON RINO!
You're a RINO scumbag, surrender monkey, traitor.
Those are my thoughts. Thank you.
Oh wait...your hero Mark Kirk already did that. Perhaps you can think of a single issue where Kirk or any of his Democrat opponents disagree. I sure can't. Neither can Kirk, I remember his "debate" with Lauren Beth Gash in 2000.
Amazing how my DEMOCRAT state legislators manage to vote to the RIGHT of Kirk on social issues and "win" in the suburbs handily, eh? Oh well, I guess everyone in the suburbs must LOVE partial birth abortion... cuz we all know Kirk is only for that so he can be "electable"
Diplomacy is at least possible with those countries since they have a person who can speak for them. But the terrorist groups do not have a person with the power to speak for all, so diplomacy is not possible for them as a whole.
No chit, Kirk! EVERYONE wants that. But until that happens, you don't interfer with the policy the President and generals in Iraq have decided on and cut troop re-enforements. Our soldiers need these additional troops. You are toast next election!
I also don't think a candidate more conservative than Kirk can win that district.
I also don't think a candidate more conservative than Kirk can win that district.
Heavens forbid we run a Republican who says partial birth abortion is infanticide like 80% of the public believes. That surely won't play well Waukengan.
On social issues, I would hazard the opinion that the s.w. suburbs where you live are more conservative than the no. suburbs which Kirk represents.
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.