So what do you want to do, Mister Kirk? Go to war with Iran? Have the two wars over the last decade not been enough? Has the money squandered, the bad will created, the coffins buried or the thousands maimed and crippled not been enough? Are the war profiteering companies and corporations that pull your strings to the detriment of your constituents and this nation’s reputation and future hungry for more federal tax dollars that you and others like you may parade as patriotism?
The war industry, of which you are both a pawn and a peddler, is the true reason this nation is racing towards insolvency. You would instead blame the poor, the unions and the working class; those who feel the real impact of your policies and who would almost exclusively feed their children into the death culture you help to perpetuate.
Let me be clear, I have never supported you, and would never support you. I did say a prayer for your recovery with your recent illness. Like any sudden and catostrphic illness, one would hope that it brings clarity and a deeper humanistic perspective. It seems clear that you are so beholden to anti-humanist, anti-religous beliefs regarding human rights, dignity and freedom, that you remain undetoured from that darker destructive anti-American path. Or, perhaps, you are too entwined in crimes and schemes, and lack the moral fortitude to face them justly.
This is not a nation of fools and the greedy? Capitalism is not our religion. War is not the natural state of affairs here. Capitalism is an economic theory, tempered by the dictates and values of the society. In practice it is either a tool or an oppressor. You have supported its misuse as an oppressor of millions. But you and your deeply mis-directed party would make it the national religion serving only a few, while teasing the rest of us with crumbs. We are not a nation of fools, who are tricked into war and hate and destructiveness by the fear you proliferate or the patriotism you pretend.
Across this nation hunmdreds of thousands have already risen against what you stand for as part of the Occupy Movement. I can assure you millions more support them. And I among them will stand in their ranks as a voice and a body for peace, and to help forge a better direction for this nation.
As for those who peddle the pretend issues, short-sighted partisan-ship, or outright lies, history will cast you in a shameful light, without doubt. I pray for your health and wish you a speedy recovery with all my heart, but pray that soon men like you will no longer represent this good nation, for fear that having men like you anywhere near the reigns of power will surely wreck and ruin us as a nation beyond repair.
Most sincerely, and resolutely yours,
W.C. Turck: Author, Activist, War survivor, Patriot and Illinois voter.
— On Fri, 4/13/12, Senator Mark Kirk <email@example.com> wrote:
From: Senator Mark Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: ICYMI – WSJ Article Iran Talks Déjà Vu
Date: Friday, April 13, 2012, 12:28 PM
April 13, 2012
Obama gives Tehran reasons to doubt his seriousness.American and Iranian negotiators will meet this weekend in Istanbul to try to hash out a deal over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and everyone says the stakes are high. President Obama is even warning the mullahs that it’s their “last chance” to come to terms with international demands. Or else? Mr. Obama won’t specify, but Iranians can be forgiven if they don’t take the implied U.S. threat seriously.This isn’t the first encounter between Mr. Obama’s envoys (along with the other four permanent Security Council members, plus Germany) and the Islamic Republic. In October 2009, months after the turmoil of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stolen election, hopes were high that Iran was primed to reach a “grand bargain” with the West.“Iran experts and regional analysts say . . . that Iran finally may be ready to make a deal,” reported the New York Times. “The analysts cite a confluence of factors, from Iran’s internal political crisis to the change in leadership in Washington, and one overriding point: Iran’s leadership may have achieved much of what it set out to accomplish when it stepped up its clandestine nuclear program in 1999.”It didn’t work out that way. After initially appearing to agree to a proposal to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium outside its borders, Iran rejected the offer.Far from being satisfied with its nuclear progress up to that point, Tehran continues to enrich its stockpile of uranium to higher concentrations and in more heavily defended sites. A report last November by the International Atomic Energy Agency all but accuses Iran of hiding the “military dimensions” of its nuclear program, and IAEA inspectors have repeatedly been denied access to suspected military sites.So what hope is there for negotiations now? The Administration insists Iran is feeling the squeeze of the financial sanctions Mr. Obama signed at the end of last year, citing Iran’s depreciating currency as evidence. Then there’s the possibility that Israel may strike before Iran reaches what Israel’s defense minister recently called the “zone of immunity” from attack.As for the terms of the deal the U.S. is prepared to offer, that seems to be changing by the minute. Mr. Obama is reported to have sent word to the Iranians via Turkish channels that the U.S. would be prepared to accept Iran’s civilian nuclear program so long as the Iranians close down their underground Fordo enrichment facility near Qom, relinquish their stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, and offer verifiable guarantees never to build a nuclear weapon. On Wednesday, though, White House spokesman Jay Carney appeared to backpedal by calling for the “full suspension of uranium enrichment.”If we were the Iranian regime, we would probably take whatever deal is put on the table. It would offer a reprieve against the possibility of military strikes and lead to the easing of sanctions. And its terms could always be violated at a more convenient time, openly or in secret.Then again, Mr. Obama has given Iran plenty of reasons to believe they can reject a deal outright and not face any serious consequences. For starters, he has made no secret of his opposition to an Israeli military strike, which could persuade Tehran either that Israel won’t strike after all or that it will do so alone and therefore to less effect. The President also previously resisted the very sanctions he now trumpets as his finest Iran accomplishment and the reason diplomacy may now have a chance to work.That pattern continues in the Senate, where Harry Reid is now pushing a watered-down sanctions bill that gives the Administration wide discretion in applying the bill’s penalties. The Majority Leader also closed the bill to additional amendments, most conspicuously one from Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.The Kirk amendment—which would have more of an impact on Iran than the rest of the bill combined—would close loopholes in existing sanctions, including one that allows a handful of Iranian financial institutions (and the Iranian government itself) to continue to do business with the outside world. It would also strengthen disclosure requirements for foreign financial institutions tempted to do business with Iran, effectively putting them to the choice of whether they want to have business ties with the U.S. or with the Islamic Republic. All but the most rogue operations will choose the former.Economic sanctions are always a game of whack-a-mole, and we doubt they will persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. But the Administration’s unwillingness to ratchet up sanctions as far as they can go at the very moment that they’re supposed to provide the U.S. with diplomatic leverage says something about the Administration’s seriousness—or lack thereof. The Iranians are smart enough to figure that out.In an interview Mr. Obama gave earlier this year on Iran to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, he warned that “as President of the United States, I don’t bluff.” We were glad to hear him say it, and it would be nice to believe it. The only mystery is why he is giving Iran incentives to call that bluff.A version of this article appeared April 13, 2012, on page A12 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Iran Talks Déjà Vu.###
230 South Dearborn, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
607 East Adams, Suite 1520
Springfield, IL 62701
524 Hart Office Building
Washington DC, 20510