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
a.) Is he too dumb to recognize the inherent contradictions of his position as stated?
b.) Or is he trying to straddle the issue, proving himself hopelessly cynical and hypocritical?
He believes victory is "important" but wants to run from the prospect that it might actually happen.
He wants the Iraqis to fight their own fight with the "insurgents", but totally avoids the fact that the "insurgents" are heavily composed of foreign fighters and supported by foreign powers.
This is not an intelligent man. It is either a stupid -- or craven -- politician.
'major diplomatic initiative among Iraq's neighbors....'
hmmm, would this be Iran, the neighbor who has announced they wish to get rid of Israel...or maybe, Mr. Kirk, has no problem converting to Islam so he won't be killed....
hmmm, or maybe the neighbor Syria, who really didn't care for Pres Hariri of Lebanon so seems they got rid of him....
Maybe, Mr. Kirk and his family would like to live in the countries of these wonderful neighbors and see just how long he would enjoy 'talking' with them. Hope his wife packs the correct clothing.
Bet he'd stand by totally unconcerned if the Iranians were sending nukes into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and so on.
People like Kirk shouldn't be allowed in public, to say nothing of "public office".
http://www.acuratings.org/
2005 AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION RATINGS
10 KIRK, MARK (R) - - + + - - - + - - - - - + - - + - - + - + - + + 36%
12 Costello, Jerry (D) - - + - - - + - - + + + + + - + - - + - + - - - - 40%
As you can see, Kirk voted to the LEFT of Jerry Costello, who represents a safe Democrat district in the St. Louis area, with a bunch of working class, union controlled riverfront towns. A 50-70% conservative rating is "moderate Republican". He is no "moderate". Kirk is a liberal along the lines of say, Mark Pryor.
You say most votes in Kirk's district don't focus on "social issues", but on Iraq and their "pocketbooks". Fine, why not run a low key moderate, "fiscally conservative" candidate who disagrees with Bush on Iraq does not hold Kirk's extreme liberal views on other issues?
Kirk thinks he needs to be more liberal last year since he got 53% instead of his usual "winning" amount of 67%. The truth is when you campaign as Dem lite against Dem, the voters will pick the genuine article every time. How many conservatives in Kirk's district sat home last time?
Mark Kirk forgot to add in his statement that he wanted to see what it was like to perform fellatio upon our enemies.
Lake County has two Congressional districts: "Republican" Mark Kirk and Democrat Melissa Bean. Their far left fringe views on several issue are way out of touch with their county. At recently as 2002, Lake County was represented by the solidly conservative Phil Crane. He lost that district by 1% because he had problems with alcahol and age issues (plus Bean pounded him for failing to "work his district"), and not because he was "too conservative"
I spent 40 years in Lake County, and have many family
members that still live up there. They have kept me aware
of the happenings in the political world there. I've also
been able to keep up to date thanks to FR.
Conservatives in Lake County are watching and paying attention
to what's going on, and most are not liking it at all.
I agree that Kirk is dreadful, but this isn't much of a GOP district anymore. You may remember that prior to Kirk's predecessor, John Edward Porter, the district sent the ghastly leftist rodent Abner Mikva from this seat. Mikva might still be there today had he not been promoted by Carter to a federal judgeship. Unless we elect a GOP Governor in IL in 2010, the likelihood is that the 'Rats will draw Kirk out of his seat and gerrymander a huge rodent majority in the state for 2012.
You're right about that. IMHO, Kirk should run against Turban Durbin next year.
Unfortunately he represents a very liberal district in Illinois, the North Suburbs of Chicago and he has to vote for the will of the community. He had all the big hitters try and get him out of office this year, Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama all came out for rallys for Dan Seals, Kirk's opponent.
Quite to the contrary, Mark Kirk is a very intellegent man with a strong background in history.
Then, how is it he subscribes to the notion that, in the interest of its national security, America must not suffer defeat in the Middle East -- then supports a measure that amounts to cut and run? And does not have an alternative suggestion designed to achieve the objective.
If Kirk is a very intelligent man, as you say, then he is not being intellectually honest with his constituents or the country at large.
I called his office to protest his vote over ANWR. They responded with a stupid letter claiming he voted against drilling there because it overstated the favorable effect on the budget deficit. If you're going to lie to constituents, you should at least try to make it plausible.
A friend told me about conversations he/she (don’t want to reveal the sex) had with Kirk when he was running for the nomination. This friend convinced him that he had to take more conservative positions to get the nomination. It was clear from this that Kirk is more liberal than his public stances. And his public positions are pretty liberal.
I agree that a strong conservative might be unelectable in the 10th district. But do we have to settle with someone who is so quick to break with the base when he has a tough election.
The IL-10 gave President Bush 47% in both 2000 and 2010, but is historically Republican. There is no reason why a moderate-to-conservative Republican can't win there, which is why the liberal-to-moderate Kirk should be kicked to the curb.
"Kirk should run against Turban Durbin next year"
Here is an unrelated matter to Kirk, probably, but one I though you might be interested to know.
There is the possibility that conservative attorney Kathy Salvi will run against Durbin next year. You probably remember her from losing the GOP primary to run against Melissa Bean. If she goes ahead (she's nowhere near to a decision, but hasn't ruled it out), it would be the first time that a United States Senator will have run against both a husband (Al Salvi in 1996) and his wife in separate elections.
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.