Posted on 02/18/2007 1:20:43 PM PST by BillyBoy
Thank you for responding to our survey.
I do not support President Bushs 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 Americas 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 Iraqs 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. Iraqs 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 governments 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 Iraqs 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
I'm wondering if the GOP is going to seriously contest Bean in '08 if they're acting the way they are towards the vulnerable Durbin. Bean managed to catch 2 lucky breaks, running against a weak incumbent in '04 and being carried by the "Sweep of Evil" (my personal term for the '06 election) for reelection. She should be beatable in '08, but even if we win the Presidential election and take back the House, I never underestimate the stupidity of the IL GOP to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. One name I'd like to see run against Bean ? Peter Fitzgerald. Had he been successful in beating Crane in the primary back in the '90s, he'd probably be holding the seat now (and the Senate seat would probably be in the hands of the RINO Combine twit Lolita Didrickson, assuming she beat Moseley-Braun in '98 AND Smiley in '04).
Terrible to say, but if Kathy Salvi runs, she'll be ignored by the party and be lucky to get 40% of the vote statewide. Illinois ought to just get it over with and call itself West New Jersey.
DJ, Mrs. Salvi would be running against Bean (for the House), not for the Senate. She was my first choice among the Republicans fighting to take on Bean in 2006, and I think she'd have a great chance of winning. Bean is far too liberal, especially on social issues, for that district.
I floated the idea of Peter Fitzgerald running in the IL-08 in 2006 and clearing the field (when it appeared that a RINO may slip due to so many conservatives running, but it appeared that Fitzgerald was done with electoral politics for the time being.
Kirk wouldn't run against Durbin. Kirk is eyeing the Governorship in 2010 and he would have a good chance of winning the Governorship. The media loves Kirk for being an independent thinker who listens to real people, not the Far Right.
As for reclaiming the IL-08, Kathy Salvi would be good to take on Bean. However, there is a state rep. in the district, Bob Churchill, who bears a huge grudge against the Salvi family. In 1998, Al Salvi beat Bob Churchill in the primary for Secretary of State. Churchill spread rumors about Salvi being a RINO. Then in 2000, Al Salvi's brother tried to run for state rep. in McHenry County. Churchill again spread the rumors. The Dem won in McHenry County. If Kathy Salvi is the nominee, expect Bob Churchill to throw a sour grapes tanturm again.
Kirk was in the miltary and yet he votes to stab his brothers in the back.
He emboldens the enemy and is a scumbag of the highest order. His constituents who back him can rot in hell with him.
Kirk for Governor ? Please tell me that is a joke. As for being an independent thinker, I'd say more he outsources his thinking to the rodents. Is there any legitimate candidate outside the Combine who isn't a RINO twit ?
As for the Salvi-Churchill feud, just once again proves the IL GOP isn't ready for primetime. Ridiculous.
In the media, Republicans are portrayed as either flakes (Alan Keyes) or crooks (George Ryan). Kirk is the only Republican who receives favorable press attention. The media fawns over him. Of course, the media likes Kirk becuase he'll move the GOP to be more liberal than the Dems.
There are two problems facing the IL GOP. One obvious problem is corrupt RINOS running the party. The other problem is in-fighting among conservative groups for the right to speak for all conservatives. The Salvi-Churchill feud is a prime example. As long as conservatives bicker amongst themselves, RINOs and Dems benefit.
That's the last thing the IL GOP needs, Conservative personality clashes. That's the kind of crap we expect from the rodent left. They either need to bury the hatchet or just stand aside for the grown-ups.
What??? How long? How many of our troops must stay? What are the names of 'our' allies?
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.