Reasons for Change: Massive Intelligence Failures
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...