Thursday, October 26, 2006

Reasons for Change: Massive Intelligence Failures

mark kirk has made much of his service as a naval reserve intelligence officer and especially his award as the Navy's "Intelligence Officer of the Year." so one should expect that kirk's job in the pentagon would have made him aware of the rather dubious intelligence that has emerged since that award.

instead of winning awards, mark kirk has towed the administration's line on the intelligence front since his election. yet there are numerous examples of massive intelligence failure during the bush administration. the attacks on 9/11 are just the first example. the bush administration believed the prior administration to be "obsessed" with osama bin laden and al-qaeda. obviously, to george bush, dick cheney and donald rumsfeld, the clinton administration had been misguided in not focusing on iraq. that was the *real* threat (to republicans).

where was mark kirk? standing with bush, of course. despite kirk's security clearance, despite his training as an intel officer, despite his access to the information that should have steered him the other way, he stood with the bush administration, focusing on iraq as an "emerging threat," instead of the real threat posed by the non-nation actor, al qaeda.

but there's more!

mark kirk was sold by the war monger's belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. while claiming to be an "owl" -- one who approaches this with a steady, firm judgment kirk bought the bush spin hook, line and sinker. instead of his promise to show steady, firm judgment, kirk demonstrated incredibly poor judgment, and an inability to perform one of the key functions of a member of congress -- oversight of the executive branch and especially our national security apparatus. instead of acting like a john mccain, sam nunn or john murtha -- an expert in military issues with an independent streak -- mark kirk acted like a rubber stamp for the extreme right wing.

where's the weapons of mass destruction? where was the imminent threat? WHAT WAS HE THINKING???

historians will write of this decade as a time of massive intelligence failures, an era when our supremely bad judgment distracted us from the threats at our front doors for an invented threat far, far away. and history will record that mark kirk was not thoughtful, that kirk was not independent, and kirk did not demonstrate steady leadership.

AN INTEL OFFICER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. an intel officer should have spoken up against george bush's rash judgments -- and his rash decisions. more americans have died in the dubious enterprise of invading iraq than died on september 11, 2001. and those deaths do nothing to deter al qaeda, and its offshoots, from continuing to threaten the united states. mark kirk had a part in the massive intelligence failures that have driven this country on the wrong course, for our national security, for our military, for our future. he's demonstrated incredibly poor judgment -- in an area in which he claims expertise.

mark kirk was a sucker. instead of demonstrating independence in a field in which he's supposed to have some expertise, kirk swallowed the kool-aid for bush, cheney and rumsfeld. we can no longer afford to have "yes men" in congress, people who can't stand up to a rash president or offer a more coherent approach to these very complex problems.

voting against mark kirk -- and for dan seals -- is one of the purest votes the electorate can make to show its displeasure for the direction that george bush has taken our country. it's not simply that mark kirk supported the president and his misguided goals, but that he was a party to the massive intelligence failures of this administration. a vote for kirk says that bush was right to get distracted from the real threats that this country faces. we already know that bush was wrong. mark kirk hasn't been able to figure that out. we can't afford to have the patience for him to catch up...

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Countdown to Change: Reasons for Change

i've been distracted by mark kirk's use of children as human shields to prevent voters from thinking about the implications of voting for kirk. while i find kirk's association with the pedophile mark foley reprehensible, and the pictures he uses on his website frightening, the fact is that there are many reasons why thoughtful, independent voters will be casting their ballots against mark kirk this election.

iraq is only one, and perhaps the most important, reason why. this video frames the choice nicely:

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Mark Kirk Likes Children

it's pretty disgusting. you would think, given his friendship and alliance with the pedophile, mark foley, that kirk would have changed his strategy and been more respectful of people's concerns.

but no. as one person put it, kirk's attention to children is

sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick

no one can be surprised that kirk is falling rapidly in the polls. does kirk think we are unaware of his close association with the disgraced pedophile? there's only one reason that kirk would run that commercial and keep those pictures up on his website.

mark kirk is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick. it's disgusting...

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Out of Touch, Distant and Protected...

one of the things that happens when you are someone like mark kirk is that you hide from people. in fact, if you are mark kirk, you hide from everyone.

kirk has created false illusions about himself, in the attempt to seem more like the people of the tenth district. in illinois, he acts like a john porter moderate, someone who cares about the environment, about protecting our rights, about bipartisanship. at home -- in dc -- he asks for permission from the leadership to vote his district, he is the leadership's "vote in reserve." ask yourself, how many times has mark kirk voted against the republican leadership on votes they deemed essential?

the illusion that kirk has created about himself, that protective barrier, is the reason that you don't see him in his district very often. when you are deceiving your employers (in kirk's case, the voters), you don't want to look them in the eye very often, do you? so one doesn't find kirk holding townhall meetings like the rest of congress. one doesn't find kirk meeting with large groups in the district.

instead, mark kirk treats his constituents like george bush campaigned in 2004 -- you could see him, but only if you were pre-screened, and you signed the loyalty oath. the bush analogy is stronger than you might think. bush pretended to be compassionate about his conservatism (nicely packaged language) while kirk pretends to be a moderate. but his unwavering positions about our elective invasion of iraq (while there was a war on terrorists to be fought) disproved that. not only does kirk stand with the right-wing extremists in this country, he stands against an overwhelming majority of americans who think we were wrong to rely on faulty intelligence and george bush's incredible arrogance that he is right about everything.

i suppose if i were mark kirk, hiding in the closet from my constituents, i would be distant and out-of-touch, too. i'm sure mark kirk is scared that voters will discover his secret. but all the more reason for the tenth to choose a new congressman, someone who represents tenth district values, next month. mark kirk's dalliance with george bush makes that imperative. you can't trust him, and he won't come back here, so why should we re-elect him? he's out of touch, distant and way too protected in the washington beltway. he's not regular people anymore...

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Mark Kirk's New Mailer...

we've all got them. mark kirk tries to compare himself to dan seals.

there's no comparison. but kirk ignores the questions on everyone's minds:

who has ties to the pedophile, mark foley? kirk: strong ties seals: no ties

who has ties to the speaker, who covered up foley's dalliance with congressional pages in high school: kirk: strong ties seals: no ties

who has co-sponsored legislation as a means for hiding a sexual predator? mark kirk, that's who! dan seals: clean bill

who can best protect our children? dan seals (a father), that's who! mark kirk? you can't trust him.

mark kirk doesn't represent the values of the people of the tenth congressional district. kirk's constituents are outraged at the actions of the GOP and the pedophile that it hid in its midst. dan seals shares our outrage.

mark kirk stood by his friend. the pedophile. shame on mark kirk. shame...

Monday, October 09, 2006

Mark Kirk and the Pedophile II

today's washington post reports that: republican jim kolbe (r-ariz.) knew of mark foley's racy internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and had confronted foley about them. this startling revelation not only casts considerable doubt on denny hastert's spin of this, but also prompts these questions:

* given mark kirk's close association with the pedophile, what did kirk know and when did he know it?

* and given the inevitable fall of kirk's patron, how will kirk be able to play a significant role in future congresses?

kirk's close alliances with a pedophile and someone who covered up foley's activities largely marginalizes any power or influence kirk hoped to have in the future. kirk (and foley's) suburban agenda is dead -- it was created to protect a pedophile. kirk really can't believe voters nationwide won't understand this...

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Mark Kirk and the Pedophile

there is something profoundly disturbing when people in authority try to defend their actions to protect a known child predator -- and mark kirk's friend and mentor -- with the assertion that "it's ok, they did it, too!"

message to mark kirk (and the gop): IT'S NOT OK!!!!

it's not ok for congressmen to prey on young, idealistic pages, no matter what gender they are, or what is the congressman's sexual preference.

it's not ok for congressmen to hide their predatory practices behind their concerns about "safety for children."

it's not ok for the (gop) leadership -- HELLO, MARK KIRK! -- to cover up these incidents because they want to protect one of their own and retain the reigns of power.

mark kirk has no credibility in this area because of his friendship and association with mark foley and the fact that HE HAD TO KNOW. if he didn't know about foley's predatory practices, then he has no influence, no power, and is completely oblivious to his surroundings. more importantly, his naivete makes it dangerous, especially for children. if mark kirk is that oblivious, our children simply are not safe as long as he's in congress. if kirk didn't know about foley's predispositions toward young boys then he is too impotent to be our representative in congress.

and if he did know, he not only showed poor taste, he demonstrated poor judgment.

regardless, mark kirk protected his friend, the pedophile. kirk's images on his website not only demonstrate the fact that he's lost touch with our values, but that he just doesn't care what normal people think. the bar is not set very high for someone to be a much better member of congress than this friend of a pedophile, mark kirk...