Kirk Betrays Moderates, Sticks with Bush

this week, mark kirk will again show his true colors. his devotion to the extreme right-wing position of president bush, redefining the geneva conventions against the advice of his military advisors (the ones in uniform), will expose his connection to the conservativism, while parading around the 10th district as a porter moderate.

this week, mark kirk will vote to support president bush’s attempt to redefine the geneva conventions more to his liking — but against every thought of common sense known to man (and woman).

the dispute between the moderates and the extremists is over <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/washington/17detain.html?pagewanted=print”>common article 3 of the geneva conventions</a>, which prohibits inhumane treatment of combatants seized in wartime. the problem is that bush has declared this a war, the supreme court has ruled against bush’s extremist positions, and the republican moderates (colin powell, john mccain, john warner and lindsey graham) lead the charge against bush’s extreme position on detainee policy.

mark kirk stands with the extremists, and against the moderates in his party.

the problem is that this is not about getting republicans elected. this is about protecting americans in uniform and what could happen to them if they are captured by the enemy — as happened to john mccain. if america reinterprets the geneva conventions to fit its ideological preferences, there is nothing to prevent our enemies from doing the same, eliminating protections for our troops seized in future confrontations. senior judge advocates general have already publicly disputed numerous aspects of the administration’s position, but especially any reinterpreting of the geneva conventions. the geneva accords have long been the cornerstone of international law, and america has been the leading defender of the conventions — until bush and kirk were elected.

kirk’s blind loyalty to bush, and his utter disregard for our american troops, has lead to his voting with bush — and against the mainstream political opinion in the country. moreover, this misguided loyalty sets back our efforts in the global war on terrorism. as senators mccain, warner and graham point out, the bush position signals to the world that america has abandoned its commitment to human rights and justice in the world.

kirk’s extreme position sets him apart from the real veterans of the uniformed services in congress, who argue that the president’s proposal guts the geneva conventions, sending a stark signal to the rest of the world and leaving our military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment. it sets him apart from colin powell and numerous retired military officers who wrote letters supporting the moderate’s position. and it sets him apart from the political mainstream and centrists in this country. mark kirk is no moderate — he’s one of bush’s lackeys in the house. the american military is the real loser here…