* From Matt McGrath, who says he is a “Senior Communications Adviser to DPI [Democratic Party of Illinois], working on the U.S. Senate race”…
By now you’ve probably seen this: Senator Kirk is making headlines across the country for saying something outrageous and offensive - only this time it was on Boston’s largest radio station, not into a hot microphone.
Please note this is the second time Kirk felt compelled to invoke Hitler and make an ahistorical reference to appeasement. Back in April, he said “Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” while discussing the agreement’s framework. Those remarks were widely panned at the time.
He upped the ante this morning, however, when he said (and then reiterated) this: “The only reason that the president supported Corker legislation is because it allows him to get what he wants on Iran which is to get nukes to Iran.”
If that’s not accusing the President of treason, it’s awfully close.
In the same interview, Kirk refers several times to the President, whose Senate seat Kirk now holds, as Barack Hussein Obama… for some reason.
These are outrageous remarks, and they have no place in civil discourse. How does this square with Senator Kirk’s self-styled image as a “moderate” who “reflects Illinois values”?
There are so many banned commenting words in that e-mail of his that I hesitated to post it.
Let’s all try to be a bit more reasonable than both of those gentlemen, please. Thanks.
The story he referenced is here.
*** UPDATE *** Tammy Duckworth’s campaign manager doubles down…
Rich -
Mark Kirk made deeply inflammatory comments about the proposed Iran nuclear agreement yesterday, saying that what the President wants is “to get nukes to Iran.”
He also called the deal “the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler,” and repeatedly referred to the President as Barack Hussein Obama — an obvious attempt to make misleading insinuations about the President’s religion and loyalties.
Add your name: tell Mark Kirk that his incendiary language and partisan fear-mongering is unacceptable.
This isn’t the first time Kirk has invoked Hitler or made a careless reference to appeasement when discussing the Iran negotiations. He was also one of the 47 Republican Senators who undercut the President’s authority earlier this year by sending a partisan letter directly to Iranian leaders during the negotiations.
This kind of language is inappropriate coming from a U.S. Senator, and Kirk’s comments, which border on accusing the President of treason, are disgraceful.
Kirk made these comments before he’d even read the agreement. Tammy believes that Congress should carefully review this deal, without rushing to judgment or resorting to reckless partisanship.
Sign our petition condemning Kirk’s remarks:
http://action.tammyduckworth.com/iran-comments
Thank you for adding your voice,
Kaitlin Fahey
Campaign Manager, Tammy for Illinois
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
I don’t think anyone that pays really close attention has given Kirk’s level of truthiness any credence in years. It could be good Duckworth campaign fodder though.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:15 pm:
Senator Kirk, it might be time to look at retirement. You may do irreparable harm to your self through the track you are on.
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:17 pm:
Hussein = dog whistle to the right. Pandering.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:18 pm:
Comments like these and others recently from our Junior Senator certainly provide insights into the messaging style coming out of the Rauner Administration. The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:18 pm:
Hussein? Really??
Stay classy, Mark Steven Kirk.
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:19 pm:
I will also say that use of the word treason is hyperbolic as well. BS is BS, whether it comes from the left or the right.
- Tournaround Agenda - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:19 pm:
Kirk has always been hawkish on foreign policy. As the election heats up, it looks like he’s doubling down, though I’m not exactly sure it helps him in bluish Illinois. The Duckworth crew will find plenty of ammo against him.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:22 pm:
I remember a lot of prominent (and elected) Dems who were never shy about going on national TV and calling President Bush and VP Cheney “war criminals”.
National politics just suck. Foreign affairs issues and policy make that rhetoric and hyperbole worse.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:22 pm:
and he’s their “moderate”?
- The Captain - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:25 pm:
It’s long been Kirk’s strategy that he leave no room on his right on any positions related to Israel. Also it’s been his past practice when going through a tough period to focus on issues related to Israel, an almost comfort zone of sorts for him. Given the difficult time he’s had of late and the fact that the Israelis were opposed to the Iran deal I was expecting to see some strong statements from him on this issue but he went much, much farther than I was expecting.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:28 pm:
Rich,
I’m not sure why you’re saying his email is so outrageous. Let’s leave aside the details of the agreement as we don’t want to go off topic. All of his banned content was quoting Kirk and raising the question of whether Kirk is accusing the president of treason. He said - flat out - that the president wants Iran (a self-professed, “death to America” chanting enemy of the US) to get nukes and repeatedly called him by his middle name Hussein. It was stunning and outrageous and, unfortunately, consistent with his increasingly nasty comments. The email is fair.
- phocion - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:29 pm:
A bit of a stretch from the DPI. First, where did he actually accuse the President of treason? That’s a much more serious accusation than Kirk’s claim that Iran will get nukes under this treaty. And, Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply here, either. Invoking Chamberlain and appeasement as a critique of a foreign policy stance has been done by both sides since 1938. There’s plenty to criticize about Kirk’s hawkish ways, but this hatchet job doesn’t do that. It’s misdirection to try to invoke some sympathy for the President instead of defending a proposed treaty that is extremely controversial. Typical, really.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:29 pm:
I’d send Artl cannoli, but he might need something … “stronger”.
My only thought is this is also to buttress against a challenge from the Right in the Primary. Tough walk-back after.
- Midway Gardens - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:29 pm:
“For some reason refers to…”, yeah pretty transparent.
I’d like our foreign policy to be made in Washington not Jerusalem or anywhere else. If he was so presentient about how events unfold in the Middle East, maybe he can explain his Iraq War vote.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:35 pm:
@Team Sleep
==I remember a lot of prominent (and elected) Dems who were never shy about going on national TV and calling President Bush and VP Cheney “war criminals”. ==
I would agree with you if Mark Kirk was the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich. But that is not what Mark Kirk is supposed to be.
- John A Logan - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:35 pm:
Kirk needs to step aside. Not because I am very concerned about his remarks, but because he obviously has lost some of his ability to navigate the political waters as deftly as he used to.
- thunderspirit - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
Most of the remarks are in line with Senator Kirk the war hawk.
The more combustible remarks are likely an attempt to stave off a battle from someone more conservative. Disappointing, but not altogether surprising.
- plutocrat03 - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
Again the DPI breathlessly reports that someone with more foreign policy experience than the President disagrees with the pact with Iran. I’m not clear what he is upset about. Is it because there is criticism of the President’s agreement in general, or whether it is because the Senator is asking the same unflattering questions that many others have voiced? The print and electronic media have been flooded with reports comparing this agreement with the agreement brought home by Neville Chamberlain in 1939, so he is not the only one making this comparison.
As usual, partisan bloviating is what we can expect from the DPI.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:43 pm:
==and he’s their “moderate”?==
Appears so. Politico July 9 ==Three Senate Republicans, including vulnerable incumbent Mark Kirk of Illinois, helped Democrats advance a repeal of the so-called global gag rule that restricts U.S. funding to humanitarian organizations that provide abortions.==
- Roamin' Numeral - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
@plutocrat, Kirk said the President wants to get nukes to Iran.
Who’s doing the breathless partisan bloviating?
- AC - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:46 pm:
When will politicians realize that when they construct these crazy caricatures of people they disagree with that most people ignore what they have to say. Legitimate critism is helpful, comical hyperbole is funny, but this is just crazy.
- The Captain - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:46 pm:
On a related note it’s nice to see that there are staffers working at the DPI focused on winning the senate seat. It would be more encouraging to see them add to their messaging team to better shape the framing of the statehouse battle.
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:47 pm:
He’s hardly the only person in Congress heated up over this agreement and chirping to the media about it. And there are Democrats who are not the least bit happy either, who have long resumes defending Israel.
Not too sure there’s really much to see here.
- Debbie - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:47 pm:
Is there anyone in public life who won’t jump in front of a bus in order to be offended?
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:48 pm:
So I guess China, Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany are all in a hurry for Iran to get nukes as well.
Seems strange, especially for Russia and China, as Iran could deliver a nuke loaded on a crop duster to both of those coutries.
Of course, China and Russia could wipe out Iran with its nukes. As could Israel, one of the world’s largest nuclear powers.
Kirk is trolling for Likud and Saudi money, and apparently will say anything to get it.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:53 pm:
===Not too sure there’s really much to see here.===
Lol!
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:56 pm:
Gee, Sling, to hear you tell it, it’s just not complicated at all. Such a fuss being put up over nothing, eh?
And yet I haven’t heard a single foreign policy expert defend this as a good agreement (as of yet)
- Anon - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 1:59 pm:
“Gee, Sling, to hear you tell it, it’s just not complicated at all. Such a fuss being put up over nothing, eh? And yet I haven’t heard a single foreign policy expert defend this as a good agreement (as of yet)”
Trying watching & reading something besides Fox News and the WSJ editorial page.
- Crust - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm:
“How does this square with Senator Kirk’s self-styled image as a ‘moderate’ who ‘reflects Illinois values’?
I think we can all agree that not wanting a country that chants “death to America” to get nukes reflects Illinois’ values pretty well…
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:07 pm:
Time to resign, Senator.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
Seriously I’m beginning to wonder of Kirk’s health issues are affecting his mind. His mouth is being very beneficial to the Duckworth campaign.
- Justice Torch - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:27 pm:
George Orwell wrote “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” It seems like a lot of hate is being spewed on this issue and I have to question why. We all want the right to speak our mind and say what we believe until somebody speaks something with which we disagree. You may not like what Kirk said. OK. You may disagree with him. You may passionately disagree with him. But to call him crazy or mentally ill or accuse him of a dozen other things only looks like panic. Disagree and then intelligently debate. Name calling never helped anything. If you want the right to believe and speak as you are persuaded then you must afford others that same right.
Do I agree with Kirk? No. But I’m not going to tell the man he has no right to call it as he sees it either
- Huh? - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:34 pm:
I am ashamed that Senator Kirk is representing Illinois. This kind of hyperbole is unbecoming a gentleman of his education and stature in society.
I agree with Wordslinger. The other negotiating countries think it is a good deal, otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to it.
- William j Kelly - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
Someone needs to have the decency to step in and finally get Kirk the help he clearly needs.
- NewSolutions - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
The “editor” part of Kirk’s mind is not what it used to be. He has served the nation well and has endured a debilitating health crisis with grace. Clearly, he’s moving on to another career…I just hope he doesn’t further embarrass himself as the campaign develops. He doesn’t deserve that.
- kimocat - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:41 pm:
Kirk is acting like he is the senator from Oklahoma — they love that Hussain stuff out there. How much AIPAC money does he get???
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
===Trying watching & reading something besides Fox News and the WSJ editorial page.===
Oy, that response is so, so last year. But I’ll humor you. Where can I find all of the policy experts who are lauding this agreement?
I read several papers everyday, hard copies and online. I watch several news outlets. So point me to one where this agreement is considered a diplomatic victory.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
Kirk knows what he’s saying. The stroke has nothing to do with it. He willfully said a lot of goofy things long before he had a stroke.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:15 pm:
Pluto, could you give us a breakdown as to how Sen. Kirk has “more foreign policy experience than the president?”
I’m not seeing how that’s possible, given that Obama has been president for more than six years.
But I’m sure you have some insightful and thoughtful reasons for writing that and hitting “send.”
- Responsa - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:17 pm:
While navigating around the internet news sites since yesterday I’ve noticed there seems to be a lot more effort going towards criticizing of the criticizers of the deal than there is actual selling of the deal by the administration. President Obama himself took this tack in his presser and even went after a journalist who asked some questions that many Americans have. This is not good marketing for the administration and its surrogates. If it’s such a grand agreement with Iran then explain it truthfully to the American people and convince us of its strengths, merits, and benefits to the United States if you can.
And yeah, Tammy, on that note, no reasonable person could possibly take your urging people to “sign a petition condemning Kirk’s remarks” as anything resembling “resorting to reckless partisanship”, could they?
- Federalist - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:29 pm:
Seriously, He might need medical help and definitely should not run for re-election.
- phocion - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:35 pm:
Responsa - BINGO!
- kimocat - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:38 pm:
a guy — you could start out by reading Peter Beinart in the Atlantic and Daniel Larison in The American Conservative. There are many more.
- DuPage Don - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:39 pm:
Has anyone picked Doug Truax’s brain about a primary challenge lately?
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:42 pm:
kimo, I’ll take a look.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:42 pm:
==And yet I haven’t heard a single foreign policy expert defend this as a good agreement ==
That rather indicts your sight more than the deal, ’cause there’s been plenty.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:47 pm:
Vox has also put together a long list of FP and disarmament experts praising the deal. I don’t know that they’re right. They may well not be. But acting like they’re not out there is silly.
And of course, the merits of the deal are distinct from Mark Kirk’s never-ending parade of bizarre rhetoric.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 3:54 pm:
I’ve tried to avoid getting into the substance of the deal but some folks here are saying silly things - like nobody thinks this is a good deal. So try these. The first is from an Israeli nuclear scientist. The second from an arms control expert. There are many many more.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4680188,00.html
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/14/its-a-damn-good-deal-iran-nuclear-agreement-joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action/
And I’m still waiting for Plutocrat or Responsa or A Guy to defend Kirk for repeatedly using the president’s middle name in a clearly derogatory way.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:00 pm:
==I’ve tried to avoid getting into the substance of the deal but some folks here are saying silly things - like nobody thinks this is a good deal.==
Kinda makes you wonder about all the “Everybody I know thinks Rauner is wonderful/terrible, even the Dems/Reps” rhetoric, doesn’t it?
Again, I don’t know that this is a good deal or not. But there’s FP experts who think it is, and there are FP experts who think it isn’t. One person’s subjective reading list does not change this.
- William j Kelly - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:22 pm:
Message to Kirk: shut up!
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:22 pm:
Absolutely right Arsenal. I’m a skeptic on this deal and have been reading substantive pieces from both perspectives. Now I have no use for a WSJ editorial (umm, I think we know where they’ll come down) because it’s all rhetoric, all politics. But the substantive discussion is interesting.
Still waiting on a response to the Hussein issue…
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:25 pm:
Here’s Beinart in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
Here’s Larison in the American Conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-politics-of-the-nuclear-deal-2/
I wouldn’t call either of these guys policy experts, but the articles are interesting and well written. I don’t think either goes a long way in supporting the agreement, but they do pose the question of what the alternatives are (and offer a few unappetizing ones)
Cynic, kindly, your links; not too interesting and not strong on policy.
As for the use of the President’s middle name? I’m not sure why Kirk uses it. There’s plenty of criticism warranted without dropping that in there.
I read Krauthammer’s comments on this agreement and found them to be profound and well thought out. In listening to real policy wonks, I’ve yet to see or hear one call this a solid agreement.
I’m not a Kirk disciple by any means. If he’s our nominee, I’ll support him like a precinct captain is expected to. I do so with no reservation over the two Democratic names that are out there.
He’s been a moderate to be sure, but a hawk on National Defense from the start. The greatest hyperbole in this whole entry and thread is the DPI dude using the term “treason”. That’s just nuts.
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:26 pm:
Credit to kimocat for the lead on the stories and links. Interesting reading.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:31 pm:
Well, I won’t be voting for Kirk (that doesn’t mean I’ll be voting for Tammy or Andrea tho). Kirk sounds totally crazy in these remarks.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:49 pm:
===That’s just nuts===
Treason isn’t a word I’d have used, but what is nuts is what Kirk said, that Obama really wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes that should be disqualified from holding public office.
- Old and In the Way - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 4:52 pm:
A Guy
I read Krauthammer’s comments on this agreement and found them to be profound and well thought out.
Much like his justification for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Central America. Neo-cons. What’s his solution? Bombing or invading outright?
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 5:02 pm:
Guy, try to preserve a shred of credibility.
Can’t find one foreign policy or nuclear expert on the old Innertubes in favor of tne Iran deal? You can’t believe that’s possible.
Don’t know what Kirk is doing with that Hussein stuff? Again, how could that be possible?
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 5:36 pm:
“Cynic, kindly, your links; not too interesting and not strong on policy.”
You’re right. Why would an arms control expert or Israeli nuclear scientist be remotely credible compared to true experts like the WSJ editorial board or Krauthhammer. Uh huh.
And…
“As for the use of the President’s middle name? I’m not sure why Kirk uses it.”
Really? You just CAN’T POSSIBLY IMAGINE why Kirk would call the president Hussein repeatedly? Sorry, but I refuse to believe you’re that dumb. You and I and everyone else know perfectly well what Kirk was doing. It’s reprehensible and he should be called out on it.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 16, 15 @ 10:11 pm:
Even by Kirk standards, the complete comments in the Buzzfeed article are wild.
Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama (and China, Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany) hate Israel so much that they want Iran to have nukes to provoke a nuclear war with Israel that will kill tens of thousands.
Geez, if that’s the case, Obama sure did blow a lot of taxpayer dollars pushing for that Iron Dome that made those Hamas rockets useless.
That’s our GOP moderate senator, trolling for Sheldon Adelson and Prince Bandar network money.