On CNN King said
"But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now.
I guess King is either not paying attention or not counting former military members who served their time being forced to return.
Frederick Pistorius got a grand suprise when he was informed that not only was he being ordered back to duty but he has been considered a deserter since July. Mr. Pistorius recieved a letter from the army that said "On 12 July 2004 you were involuntarily mobilized to active duty in the United States Army... To date you have not reported to your mobilization station as required by your orders."
What is this all about? The Individual Ready Reserve which are former military members are being used to fill in where the various branches find themselves short of troops.
For more read this story (via DailyKos) from the Pittburgh Post-GazetteThe Army's long arm.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
King by the Numbers
So King is back for another two years unless the rumors (probably false) of him running against Tom Suozzi for Nassau County Executive. King has floated other trial baloons for other runs against Schumer and those baloons popped pretty quickly.
The 3rd CD is a republican-heavy district if all you go by is party registration. Clinton and Gore did very well in the 3rd CD and so did Kerry. Voter registration is slowly tilting towards Democrats but King is safe with just the Republican party-line voters.
King has been scoring above 60% for the past elections even garnering 72% in 2002 against Stu Finz.
Where does Kings future lie? Possible re-election in 2006 unless his
opponent can
In an off-year election (meaning non-presidential) King does better with 65% in 1998 and 2002 with 72%. When there is a president on the ballot, King's numbers are lower... 60% in 2000 and 63% in 2004.
This year while King got 3% more and added to his total vote total by , his opponent got 7000 more voters than 2000.
The numbers are really all over the place for both King and his Democratic opponents....
From Presidential years 2000 to 2004 King gained 31,680 votes while his opponent gained 7244. This is only for 2000 and 2004 changes.
From year to year 2000 to 2002 King lost 18,397 and his opponent lost 46,001
From 2000-2004 King gained 50,077 votes but his opponent gained 53,245 votes.
In all, King has gained less since 2000 than his Democratic opponent.
What does this all mean? The Democrats are making strong gains and if they can make gains in voter registration in the next two years, raise the candidates profile and expose King's dismal record King can lose. Incumbents always have a huge advantage and as long as they haven't been caught with a dead hooker, they start with 60% and the numbers go up or down from there.
The 3rd CD is a republican-heavy district if all you go by is party registration. Clinton and Gore did very well in the 3rd CD and so did Kerry. Voter registration is slowly tilting towards Democrats but King is safe with just the Republican party-line voters.
King has been scoring above 60% for the past elections even garnering 72% in 2002 against Stu Finz.
Where does Kings future lie? Possible re-election in 2006 unless his
opponent can
In an off-year election (meaning non-presidential) King does better with 65% in 1998 and 2002 with 72%. When there is a president on the ballot, King's numbers are lower... 60% in 2000 and 63% in 2004.
This year while King got 3% more and added to his total vote total by , his opponent got 7000 more voters than 2000.
The numbers are really all over the place for both King and his Democratic opponents....
From Presidential years 2000 to 2004 King gained 31,680 votes while his opponent gained 7244. This is only for 2000 and 2004 changes.
From year to year 2000 to 2002 King lost 18,397 and his opponent lost 46,001
From 2000-2004 King gained 50,077 votes but his opponent gained 53,245 votes.
In all, King has gained less since 2000 than his Democratic opponent.
What does this all mean? The Democrats are making strong gains and if they can make gains in voter registration in the next two years, raise the candidates profile and expose King's dismal record King can lose. Incumbents always have a huge advantage and as long as they haven't been caught with a dead hooker, they start with 60% and the numbers go up or down from there.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Great stuff from the Mailbag!
Big thanks to the reader who sent along a clip from the Alexandra Pelosi HBO documentary "Diary of a Political Tourist."
Here is the transcript...... (Note: I don't know the date this was filmed but it seems to be early fall.)
The set-up: Bush and King hanging around the White House lawn being interviewed by Pelosi
Bush: The panhandle.....
(unintelligible)
Bush: She's a panhandler
King: It's over..... The election's over. We won.
Pelsosi: How do you know that?
King: It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.
What was that? Oh, "... we'll take care of the counting."
Yes, it does look like someone "took care" of the counting.
Here is a little from Keith Olberman on MSNBC who seems to be the only journalist interested.
From today: "There, 52 counties tallied their votes using paper ballots that were then optically scanned by machines produced by Diebold, Sequoia, or Election Systems and Software. 29 of those Florida counties had large Democratic majorities among registered voters (as high a ratio as Liberty County— Bristol, Florida and environs— where it’s 88 percent Democrats, 8 percent Republicans) but produced landslides for President Bush. On Countdown, we cited the five biggest surprises (Liberty ended Bush: 1,927; Kerry: 1,070), but did not mention the other 24."
In Ohio, Cuyahoga County has 93,000 MORE votes than registered voters. In Gahana, Ohio one district registered Bush getting 4,258 out of 638 cast. That is 667% of the vote. What an incredible Get Out the Vote effort! And that is only one district that was scrutinized. How many more are there?
So when Warren O'Dell the CEO of Diebold the company that makes most of the electronic voting machines says he is "...committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year, " King says non-chalantly "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting" and this really huge number of irregularities pop up, it looks like there is a there there.
As John Edwards said "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that, with this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted,"... "Tonight, we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Here is the link to the video clip again. Click Here.
Here is the transcript...... (Note: I don't know the date this was filmed but it seems to be early fall.)
The set-up: Bush and King hanging around the White House lawn being interviewed by Pelosi
Bush: The panhandle.....
(unintelligible)
Bush: She's a panhandler
King: It's over..... The election's over. We won.
Pelsosi: How do you know that?
King: It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.
What was that? Oh, "... we'll take care of the counting."
Yes, it does look like someone "took care" of the counting.
Here is a little from Keith Olberman on MSNBC who seems to be the only journalist interested.
From today: "There, 52 counties tallied their votes using paper ballots that were then optically scanned by machines produced by Diebold, Sequoia, or Election Systems and Software. 29 of those Florida counties had large Democratic majorities among registered voters (as high a ratio as Liberty County— Bristol, Florida and environs— where it’s 88 percent Democrats, 8 percent Republicans) but produced landslides for President Bush. On Countdown, we cited the five biggest surprises (Liberty ended Bush: 1,927; Kerry: 1,070), but did not mention the other 24."
In Ohio, Cuyahoga County has 93,000 MORE votes than registered voters. In Gahana, Ohio one district registered Bush getting 4,258 out of 638 cast. That is 667% of the vote. What an incredible Get Out the Vote effort! And that is only one district that was scrutinized. How many more are there?
So when Warren O'Dell the CEO of Diebold the company that makes most of the electronic voting machines says he is "...committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year, " King says non-chalantly "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting" and this really huge number of irregularities pop up, it looks like there is a there there.
As John Edwards said "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that, with this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted,"... "Tonight, we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Here is the link to the video clip again. Click Here.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
It's getting Drafty
King had this to say about Rep. Charlie Rangels military draft bill "I think it should be a military decision, not just -- not the philosophical decision Charlie wants it to make. If it's in the best interests of our armed force to have a volunteer Army, we should keep a volunteer Army. If we need a draft to have sufficient forces, then we should certainly consider a draft. I think it should be on the table.But I'm just saying I think Charlie is bringing it up in the context of Iraq. We could have brought it up in the context of Haiti or Bosnia or Kosovo. And we didn't."
"I think we should put more incentives in to get voluntary Army -- more volunteers. But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now."
Here is a great incentive for an all-volunteer army; take a vet who left the service after the Gulf War in 1991 after over 10 years in, did his reserve time and is now being ordered to report for duty. That's a back-door draft of vets. But this brave vet isn't taking this sitting down. David Miyasato is suing.
From The Honolulu Advertiser
"David M. Miyasato enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1987, served three years of active duty during the first Gulf War and received an honorable discharge in 1991. He remained on inactive status for five more years, until 1996. Since then, the Kaua'i resident has married, started an auto window tinting business and this year, he and his wife had their first child.
But in September, Miyasato received a letter from the Army recalling him to active duty and directing him to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday."
"I fulfilled my contract," he said. "I just want to move on from this, and I'm optimistic that I'll be successful."
Hmmm.... wasn't King in the National Guard during the Vietnam War? MAybe King would like to "volunteer" his services. The Penatgon is calling up all ages for the Bush-Iraq War. 4,119 soldiers called up for Iraq and Afghanistan are 50 or older. King says Iraq is doing great so maybe he'd like to serve there.
"I think we should put more incentives in to get voluntary Army -- more volunteers. But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now."
Here is a great incentive for an all-volunteer army; take a vet who left the service after the Gulf War in 1991 after over 10 years in, did his reserve time and is now being ordered to report for duty. That's a back-door draft of vets. But this brave vet isn't taking this sitting down. David Miyasato is suing.
From The Honolulu Advertiser
"David M. Miyasato enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1987, served three years of active duty during the first Gulf War and received an honorable discharge in 1991. He remained on inactive status for five more years, until 1996. Since then, the Kaua'i resident has married, started an auto window tinting business and this year, he and his wife had their first child.
But in September, Miyasato received a letter from the Army recalling him to active duty and directing him to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday."
"I fulfilled my contract," he said. "I just want to move on from this, and I'm optimistic that I'll be successful."
Hmmm.... wasn't King in the National Guard during the Vietnam War? MAybe King would like to "volunteer" his services. The Penatgon is calling up all ages for the Bush-Iraq War. 4,119 soldiers called up for Iraq and Afghanistan are 50 or older. King says Iraq is doing great so maybe he'd like to serve there.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Dear Peter, Up Yours
On October 28th, King expanded his "New Axis of Evil." Before it was the UN, the NYTimes and Dan Rather. On Hannity and Colmes, King added John Kerry to the list.
"KING: He's not being held accountable because the media is in collusion with him. I mean, this whole idea of it going from the U.N. to "The New York Times" to CBS to John Kerry, this is to me -- this is another axis of evil. It really is."
"COLMES: Congressman Smith -- you want to blame the media. Congressman King here said the media is the axis of evil?
KING: No. Not the media, the media, U.N. and John Kerry. Absolutely"
King will go to any length to lower the discourse in politics. It's just sad. And this man is still our representative in congress.
"KING: He's not being held accountable because the media is in collusion with him. I mean, this whole idea of it going from the U.N. to "The New York Times" to CBS to John Kerry, this is to me -- this is another axis of evil. It really is."
"COLMES: Congressman Smith -- you want to blame the media. Congressman King here said the media is the axis of evil?
KING: No. Not the media, the media, U.N. and John Kerry. Absolutely"
King will go to any length to lower the discourse in politics. It's just sad. And this man is still our representative in congress.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Election 2004
More news to about election 2004.
Peter King by the numbers:
1998
King ..... 65%
Langberg ..... 35%
2000
King ..... 135,328.... 60%
Lamagna ..... 90,290.... 40%
2002
King..... 116,931....72%
Finz ..... 44,289 .... 27%
2004
King ..... 167,008 .... 63%
Mathies ..... 97,534 .... 37%
A breakdown of the numbers up next.
Nassau County is Kerry Country.
JOHN F KERRY-JOHN EDWARDS........ 312,388
GEORGE W BUSH-DICK CHENEY........ 278,727
And it ain't over till it's over.
Voter irregularities being reported and verified in Ohio and Flordia. An Ohio precinct with 638 people voting showed 260 votes for Kerry and 4258 for Bush!!! How many more precincts did this happen to?
And Warren O'Dell CEO of Diebold the company that built the electronic voting machines said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''
Hmmmm......
Peter King by the numbers:
1998
King ..... 65%
Langberg ..... 35%
2000
King ..... 135,328.... 60%
Lamagna ..... 90,290.... 40%
2002
King..... 116,931....72%
Finz ..... 44,289 .... 27%
2004
King ..... 167,008 .... 63%
Mathies ..... 97,534 .... 37%
A breakdown of the numbers up next.
Nassau County is Kerry Country.
JOHN F KERRY-JOHN EDWARDS........ 312,388
GEORGE W BUSH-DICK CHENEY........ 278,727
And it ain't over till it's over.
Voter irregularities being reported and verified in Ohio and Flordia. An Ohio precinct with 638 people voting showed 260 votes for Kerry and 4258 for Bush!!! How many more precincts did this happen to?
And Warren O'Dell CEO of Diebold the company that built the electronic voting machines said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''
Hmmmm......
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
King wins but loses ground
In 2002 King beat Finz with 72% of the vote. This year King won again but he lost 7%. 65-35 isn't great but for an unknown from the sliver of the district in Suffolk he did very well.
Soooo.. King Watch stays alive for two more years.
Regular updates start again tomorrow with some election wrap-up and other items we didn't get to.
Soooo.. King Watch stays alive for two more years.
Regular updates start again tomorrow with some election wrap-up and other items we didn't get to.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
King margin smaller than 2002
with 20% of precincts:
King....... 26,014....66%
Mathies...13,361....34%
King....... 26,014....66%
Mathies...13,361....34%
Zogby's results
Right-leaning Zogby - the only pollster who did cell phone polling is calling teh election 311-213 EV for Kerry.
It's still early so we have to wait.
Guam goes for Bush.
AZ, VA and AR are in play. All "safe" Bush states that look to be tipping.
It's still early so we have to wait.
Guam goes for Bush.
AZ, VA and AR are in play. All "safe" Bush states that look to be tipping.
Early VNS exit polls
From MyDD:
AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Take with a grain of salt but add in the huge early voting turn-out for Kerry and the numbers mean more in FL and OH.
AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Take with a grain of salt but add in the huge early voting turn-out for Kerry and the numbers mean more in FL and OH.
The missing King
Last night there was a rally at Republic Airport in Farmingdale for republican candidates. The event was "hosted" by George Pataki. There was Garner, there was Mills, there was Manger and there WASN'T King.
Where was King?
King was on Crossfire on CNN. King was at the new Time-Warner building at Columbus Circle.
King was in no rush to leave the studios at 5pm when the show was over. He stopped to chat with former Sec. Def. William Cohen's security detail outside on 58th street and then he and his photographer strolled over the the parking garage across the street and took a leisurely drive out of the city.
Time from Midtown Manhattan to Farmingdale without rush-hour traffic? 50minutes. With rush-hour traffic? a couple of hours.
King cares so little about his supporters he chose CNN over a rally.
Where was King?
King was on Crossfire on CNN. King was at the new Time-Warner building at Columbus Circle.
King was in no rush to leave the studios at 5pm when the show was over. He stopped to chat with former Sec. Def. William Cohen's security detail outside on 58th street and then he and his photographer strolled over the the parking garage across the street and took a leisurely drive out of the city.
Time from Midtown Manhattan to Farmingdale without rush-hour traffic? 50minutes. With rush-hour traffic? a couple of hours.
King cares so little about his supporters he chose CNN over a rally.
Election Day
6am polls opened. At 6:20 there was a steady stream at local polling places. No lines out the door like in Florida but it is still early.
People at Massapequa, Mass park and Seaford train stations headed to work and hopefully voting when they get home.
No politicians patrolling stations yet but they will probably be there soon.
People at Massapequa, Mass park and Seaford train stations headed to work and hopefully voting when they get home.
No politicians patrolling stations yet but they will probably be there soon.
Monday, November 01, 2004
VOTE!
Polls open in a few hours. Get out the Vote and get Peter King out of the congress. Vote Blair Mathies.
Vote John Kerry!
Vote Chuck Schumer!
Vote Bill Funk!
Vote John Kerry!
Vote Chuck Schumer!
Vote Bill Funk!
More King on Crossfire Monday Night
A few choice comments:
"KING: ... yes, I believe that we should continue the war against terrorism. And President Bush realizes it is not just a single war or just against bin Laden or just against this group. It's a war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And that is why Iraq is part of the war against terrorism."
The fact is that Iraq was NOT a Isalmic fundamentalist nation. Osama bin Laden was opposed to secular leaders like Saddam Hussein.
"KING: We did win the war. How did we win the war? Because the Taliban has been disposed and bin Laden is running. There's absolutely no real evidence at all that they knew for certain he was in Tora Bora. He won that war in Afghanistan in six weeks. The Russians took 10 years and lost tens of thousands of troops. There was no outsourcing of that."
Yes, the Taliban was defeated but Osama bin Laden did escape and he was at Tora Bora. King wants to deny it but Knight-Ridder has reports from four journalists who were on the ground in Afghanistan who say that Gen. Tommy Franks ignored intelligence reports about bin laden. The Taliban might not be in control anymore but neither is the new Afghan government in Kabul. Local warlords still control most of the country and heroin production is at a record high. Oh and the Taliban is trying a come-back.
The simple fact is Bush's mistakes let the mass-murdered bin laden escape.
"KING: No, 75 percent of the armed forces are supporting President Bush; 75 percent of the American armed forced are supporting President Bush."
We'd LOVE to see the source behind that....
"KING: Charlie, I was in Iraq last week. The armed forces are supporting President Bush."
Oh.. King interviewed all 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. I see.
Wait a minute.. he didn't meet all of teh soldiers in Iraq. Maybe King should visit Operation Truth to find out what the soldiers really think.
"KING: No, we should keep going in the same direction. We have created 1.9 million jobs in the last year. Bill Clinton lost half a million manufacturing jobs in his last year and a half. We've gained more in manufacturing in the last year than in 20 years."
President Clinton left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate. Bush is leaving with a 5.6%. manufacturing jobs are still way down, the deficit is at record levels and is increasing and consumer confidence has tanked. Hurray for the same direction. More of the same direction means DEPRESSION.
"KING: He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton."
Well actually the recession began in March of 2001.. that would be after Clinton left office.
"KING: No. What we're saying is that the Democratic policies are weak. Democratic policies are weak and they would invite attack. But, hopefully -- no one wants us to be attacked."
When did Osama bin Laden attack and who was in charge? That would be republican George W. Bush. The same Bush who ignored repeated warnings and was about to have his attorney general cut FBI anti-terrorism funding.
"KING: ... yes, I believe that we should continue the war against terrorism. And President Bush realizes it is not just a single war or just against bin Laden or just against this group. It's a war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And that is why Iraq is part of the war against terrorism."
The fact is that Iraq was NOT a Isalmic fundamentalist nation. Osama bin Laden was opposed to secular leaders like Saddam Hussein.
"KING: We did win the war. How did we win the war? Because the Taliban has been disposed and bin Laden is running. There's absolutely no real evidence at all that they knew for certain he was in Tora Bora. He won that war in Afghanistan in six weeks. The Russians took 10 years and lost tens of thousands of troops. There was no outsourcing of that."
Yes, the Taliban was defeated but Osama bin Laden did escape and he was at Tora Bora. King wants to deny it but Knight-Ridder has reports from four journalists who were on the ground in Afghanistan who say that Gen. Tommy Franks ignored intelligence reports about bin laden. The Taliban might not be in control anymore but neither is the new Afghan government in Kabul. Local warlords still control most of the country and heroin production is at a record high. Oh and the Taliban is trying a come-back.
The simple fact is Bush's mistakes let the mass-murdered bin laden escape.
"KING: No, 75 percent of the armed forces are supporting President Bush; 75 percent of the American armed forced are supporting President Bush."
We'd LOVE to see the source behind that....
"KING: Charlie, I was in Iraq last week. The armed forces are supporting President Bush."
Oh.. King interviewed all 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. I see.
Wait a minute.. he didn't meet all of teh soldiers in Iraq. Maybe King should visit Operation Truth to find out what the soldiers really think.
"KING: No, we should keep going in the same direction. We have created 1.9 million jobs in the last year. Bill Clinton lost half a million manufacturing jobs in his last year and a half. We've gained more in manufacturing in the last year than in 20 years."
President Clinton left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate. Bush is leaving with a 5.6%. manufacturing jobs are still way down, the deficit is at record levels and is increasing and consumer confidence has tanked. Hurray for the same direction. More of the same direction means DEPRESSION.
"KING: He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton."
Well actually the recession began in March of 2001.. that would be after Clinton left office.
"KING: No. What we're saying is that the Democratic policies are weak. Democratic policies are weak and they would invite attack. But, hopefully -- no one wants us to be attacked."
When did Osama bin Laden attack and who was in charge? That would be republican George W. Bush. The same Bush who ignored repeated warnings and was about to have his attorney general cut FBI anti-terrorism funding.
Blogging the election
Tomorrow night Pete King Watch will be going live with election results and commentary. Stop by all night for updates.
Check out these other blogs for great election news:
Daily Kos
Atrios
Talking Points Memo
America Blog
Oliver Willis
Corrente
MyDD
TAPPED
Check out these other blogs for great election news:
Daily Kos
Atrios
Talking Points Memo
America Blog
Oliver Willis
Corrente
MyDD
TAPPED
King is a reprehensible bastard
Yup. He is. King was on Crossfire tonight and came across as across uninformed SOB... as usual. He takes the cake though with his statement "KING: There's a new axis of evil. There's a new axis of evil, U.N. bureaucrats, "The New York Times" and Dan Rather. That is the axis of evil that we're up against in this country."
So King is saying that an American newspaper the New York Times and an Amercian citizen Dan Rather are "evil." King might not like what the Times and Rather report but to call them evil is just disgusting. But that of course is a very republican thing to do. Bush and his minions do their best to link Kerry and the Democrats to terrorists. A draft-dodger republican Saxby Chambliss compared war hero Max Cleland to Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein to win the senate seat in Georgia two years ago.
Our local Young Republicans got into the disgusting act on their website
Peter King and his party have done everything they can to lower the discourse in politics.
So King is saying that an American newspaper the New York Times and an Amercian citizen Dan Rather are "evil." King might not like what the Times and Rather report but to call them evil is just disgusting. But that of course is a very republican thing to do. Bush and his minions do their best to link Kerry and the Democrats to terrorists. A draft-dodger republican Saxby Chambliss compared war hero Max Cleland to Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein to win the senate seat in Georgia two years ago.
Our local Young Republicans got into the disgusting act on their website
Peter King and his party have done everything they can to lower the discourse in politics.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Newsday still practicing
October 29, 2004, 3:32 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 30, 2004, 4:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 30, 2004, 4:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
Friday, October 29, 2004
And the silence from King is deafening
The question of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service or rather non-service was a cause for disengenuous republicans to attack Kerry and Bush detractors by saying Kerry was denegrating the service of ALL National Guard members. That of course is NOT true. But that doesn't stop Peter King from joining the pile-on.
"Washington – Today, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and fellow Congressmen sent a letter to Senator Kerry demanding he immediately apologize for comments attacking the honorable service of those in the National Guard. All of the Congressmen who signed the letter are veterans or current members of the National Guard or Reserves.
“I am honored to be joined by so many proud Members of Congress in demanding that Senator Kerry stop slandering the men and women who have served in the National Guard and Reserves. When Senator Kerry attacks President Bush’s National Guard record as a refusal to serve in the U.S. Military, he is degrading the commitment of all the proud men and women who have served and are serving today. We demand that Senator Kerry cease his attacks and apologize for his comments.”
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time Democrats have demeaned the service of men and women in the Guard. Earlier this year, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that President Bush had never ‘served in our military’. This was an insult to all those in the Guard and Reserve who are part of the American Military. It’s time for the Democrats to apologize and stop insulting the National Guard and Reserves.”
Joining Congressman Wilson in signing the letter sent to Senator Kerry’s Presidential Campaign were Bill Young (R-Fl.), Dave Weldon (R-Fl.), John Shimkus (R-Il.), Butch Otter (R-Id.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Walter Jones (R-), Steve Buyer (R-In.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), Tom Osbourne (R-Ne.), Todd Akin (R-Mo.), Henry Brown (R-S.C.), Mike Bilirakis (R-Fl.), Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), Spencer Bachus (R-Al.), Mark Kirk (R-Il.), Peter King (R-N.Y.), and Mac Collins (R-Ga.)."
Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was running cover for Bush because the heat is on about the missing 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq. Those explosives were under seal by the IAEA and the US was told where they were. Kerry and Edwards have been holding Bush as commander-in-chief responsible for the poor planning. Here comes Rudy to Bush's rescue. Well maybe not really. Someone had to be blamed for missing explosives so Rudy put the blame on the soldiers. (via Atrios) "The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
The buck never stops at Bush.
Where are King and his cohorts blasting Giuliani for blaming the soldiers for not being told to look for weapons Bush knew existed and knew were left unguarded.
Giuliani like King will say and do anything to protect Bush.
"Washington – Today, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and fellow Congressmen sent a letter to Senator Kerry demanding he immediately apologize for comments attacking the honorable service of those in the National Guard. All of the Congressmen who signed the letter are veterans or current members of the National Guard or Reserves.
“I am honored to be joined by so many proud Members of Congress in demanding that Senator Kerry stop slandering the men and women who have served in the National Guard and Reserves. When Senator Kerry attacks President Bush’s National Guard record as a refusal to serve in the U.S. Military, he is degrading the commitment of all the proud men and women who have served and are serving today. We demand that Senator Kerry cease his attacks and apologize for his comments.”
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time Democrats have demeaned the service of men and women in the Guard. Earlier this year, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that President Bush had never ‘served in our military’. This was an insult to all those in the Guard and Reserve who are part of the American Military. It’s time for the Democrats to apologize and stop insulting the National Guard and Reserves.”
Joining Congressman Wilson in signing the letter sent to Senator Kerry’s Presidential Campaign were Bill Young (R-Fl.), Dave Weldon (R-Fl.), John Shimkus (R-Il.), Butch Otter (R-Id.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Walter Jones (R-), Steve Buyer (R-In.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), Tom Osbourne (R-Ne.), Todd Akin (R-Mo.), Henry Brown (R-S.C.), Mike Bilirakis (R-Fl.), Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), Spencer Bachus (R-Al.), Mark Kirk (R-Il.), Peter King (R-N.Y.), and Mac Collins (R-Ga.)."
Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was running cover for Bush because the heat is on about the missing 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq. Those explosives were under seal by the IAEA and the US was told where they were. Kerry and Edwards have been holding Bush as commander-in-chief responsible for the poor planning. Here comes Rudy to Bush's rescue. Well maybe not really. Someone had to be blamed for missing explosives so Rudy put the blame on the soldiers. (via Atrios) "The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
The buck never stops at Bush.
Where are King and his cohorts blasting Giuliani for blaming the soldiers for not being told to look for weapons Bush knew existed and knew were left unguarded.
Giuliani like King will say and do anything to protect Bush.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Funny: Newsday getting some practice this week
October 20, 2004, 3:18 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 22, 2004, 3:24 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York
October 23, 2004, 4:34 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 25, 2004, 3:29 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 27, 2004, 3:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 28, 2004, 3:45 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 22, 2004, 3:24 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York
October 23, 2004, 4:34 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 25, 2004, 3:29 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 27, 2004, 3:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
October 28, 2004, 3:45 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Whatever King's drinking, I'll have two.
From Newsday:
"I remember being in downtown Baghdad and thinking that I felt like I was in downtown Manhattan."
Really? There are car bombs in downtown Manhattan? Tanks and personnel carriers patrolling the streets?
King is either lying or just plain ignorant.
If downtown Baghdad is so nice like a stroll around SoHo, we would like to know if King took a stroll without heavily armed guards. Probably not. Wonder why.
"I remember being in downtown Baghdad and thinking that I felt like I was in downtown Manhattan."
Really? There are car bombs in downtown Manhattan? Tanks and personnel carriers patrolling the streets?
King is either lying or just plain ignorant.
If downtown Baghdad is so nice like a stroll around SoHo, we would like to know if King took a stroll without heavily armed guards. Probably not. Wonder why.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Here comes the Freedom Flu
Pete King is against all things French. King has called France a "second rate country" and "yesterday's people." King is dismissive of French accomplishments and contributions to the world. Heck he even said "Anything we can do to hurt them without hurting us, I will support."
At a time when we are in need, who can help us with 2.6million additional doses of the flu vaccine? FRANCE. Specifically Aventis-Pasteur based in Strasbourg.
We guess that when it comes to the flu vaccine shortage King will take one for the team and risk getting the Freedom Flu.
At a time when we are in need, who can help us with 2.6million additional doses of the flu vaccine? FRANCE. Specifically Aventis-Pasteur based in Strasbourg.
We guess that when it comes to the flu vaccine shortage King will take one for the team and risk getting the Freedom Flu.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
An embarassment to the nation: Peter King on the BBC
So we were talking about this earlier this year and now here is the audio to the BBC interview with Peter King from 2003. This interview was pre-Bush-Iraq War and had King attacking "Old Europe" France and Germany. Especially France. King had it out for France in a big way. We are working on a transcript but in teh meantime we present the audio in mp3 format in 3 parts.
Laugh along as the clueless King attacks France about not having an aircraft carrier when in fact they did and the aircraft carrier Charles DeGaulle was assisting the US in operations in Afghanistan.
The interviewer from the BBC seemed to be stunned at each crass and uninformed statement King makes.
Enjoy.
King on BBC Part 1
King on BBC Part 2
King on BBC Part 3
Laugh along as the clueless King attacks France about not having an aircraft carrier when in fact they did and the aircraft carrier Charles DeGaulle was assisting the US in operations in Afghanistan.
The interviewer from the BBC seemed to be stunned at each crass and uninformed statement King makes.
Enjoy.
King on BBC Part 1
King on BBC Part 2
King on BBC Part 3
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Oh no they didn't: Newsday endorses King
You have to wonder what is wrong with Newsday. Actually maybe you don't. Newsday endorses King but it was such a tepid endorsement you have to ask why they did it in the first place.
"3rd C.D.: Keep King: Wrong on taxes but he’s his own man
October 20, 2004
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is a unique individual. Newsday has sometimes endorsed him to represent the Third Congressional District despite disagreeing with him on a host of issues. He won that support because of his independence and uncommon strength of character. King, 60, is his own man. He'll buck anybody he thinks is wrong. He was a lonely Republican voice against his party's impeachment of President Bill Clinton. That strength won our respect. But that "Clinton effect" is wearing thin.
Democrat Blair Mathies, 48, of Babylon is trying to end King's 12-year run in Congress. He says President George W. Bush and Republicans like King have misled the country on the war in Iraq, Medicare, tax cuts and many other issues. There's a lot of truth in what he says. Mathies is a lawyer who spent his career investigating unethical and illegal sales practices of securities brokers. He wants Washington to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, impose real fiscal discipline and shore up critical entitlement programs.
King does need to get real about taxes. He's a supply-sider who has never met a tax cut he didn't like. That may go down easy with voters, but it's the road to ruin for Social Security and Medicare. His dogged belief that tax cuts stimulate enough economic growth to pay for themselves is delusional.
King can also be intemperate. His comment that 80 to 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists who constitute an enemy living among us was over the top. The incendiary language overwhelmed any message he may have wanted to deliver.
Still, King is positioned as a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security to help deliver anti-terror money to New York. He has been an important voice and fund-raiser for improving security in the underwater LIRR tunnels into Pennsylvania station. And King has an extraordinary knack for remaining friends with people he opposes and forging relationships with people in power, including current and former occupants of the White House. Those are valuable talents in Congress. Newsday endorses King."
Pete King Watch has written to Newsday to express our dismay at the endorsement and point out Kings real record.
To the Editor,
I am perplexed by Newsday once again endorsing Peter King. I am glad to see that Newsday is tiring of the “King voted against Clinton impeachment” reasoning since that was merely a move of political opportunism. Newsday cites King for his “uncommon strength of character.” The fact of the matter is King is willing to do anything to curry favor and switches sides depending which way the winds are blowing. In 2000 King said Bush lacked a “moral compass” yet went on to support Bush after King’s chosen candidate John McCain lost the primaries. King also said Bush “probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about."
King boasts that things are going well in Iraq and touts rebuilt schools, hospitals and firehouses as examples. That’s great for Iraq but in NYC, six firehouses have been closed, Long Island could use more school aid and Nassau University Medical Center which is invaluable to county residents is close to collapsing.
This goes to the heart of Newsday’s argument that because King is on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security he is effective. New York has been severely short-changed on anti-terror funding and there doesn’t seem to be a change coming any time soon. How effective is King if he can pose for pictures with Bush, envoking 9/11 but can’t get more money for New York?
"3rd C.D.: Keep King: Wrong on taxes but he’s his own man
October 20, 2004
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is a unique individual. Newsday has sometimes endorsed him to represent the Third Congressional District despite disagreeing with him on a host of issues. He won that support because of his independence and uncommon strength of character. King, 60, is his own man. He'll buck anybody he thinks is wrong. He was a lonely Republican voice against his party's impeachment of President Bill Clinton. That strength won our respect. But that "Clinton effect" is wearing thin.
Democrat Blair Mathies, 48, of Babylon is trying to end King's 12-year run in Congress. He says President George W. Bush and Republicans like King have misled the country on the war in Iraq, Medicare, tax cuts and many other issues. There's a lot of truth in what he says. Mathies is a lawyer who spent his career investigating unethical and illegal sales practices of securities brokers. He wants Washington to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, impose real fiscal discipline and shore up critical entitlement programs.
King does need to get real about taxes. He's a supply-sider who has never met a tax cut he didn't like. That may go down easy with voters, but it's the road to ruin for Social Security and Medicare. His dogged belief that tax cuts stimulate enough economic growth to pay for themselves is delusional.
King can also be intemperate. His comment that 80 to 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists who constitute an enemy living among us was over the top. The incendiary language overwhelmed any message he may have wanted to deliver.
Still, King is positioned as a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security to help deliver anti-terror money to New York. He has been an important voice and fund-raiser for improving security in the underwater LIRR tunnels into Pennsylvania station. And King has an extraordinary knack for remaining friends with people he opposes and forging relationships with people in power, including current and former occupants of the White House. Those are valuable talents in Congress. Newsday endorses King."
Pete King Watch has written to Newsday to express our dismay at the endorsement and point out Kings real record.
To the Editor,
I am perplexed by Newsday once again endorsing Peter King. I am glad to see that Newsday is tiring of the “King voted against Clinton impeachment” reasoning since that was merely a move of political opportunism. Newsday cites King for his “uncommon strength of character.” The fact of the matter is King is willing to do anything to curry favor and switches sides depending which way the winds are blowing. In 2000 King said Bush lacked a “moral compass” yet went on to support Bush after King’s chosen candidate John McCain lost the primaries. King also said Bush “probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about."
King boasts that things are going well in Iraq and touts rebuilt schools, hospitals and firehouses as examples. That’s great for Iraq but in NYC, six firehouses have been closed, Long Island could use more school aid and Nassau University Medical Center which is invaluable to county residents is close to collapsing.
This goes to the heart of Newsday’s argument that because King is on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security he is effective. New York has been severely short-changed on anti-terror funding and there doesn’t seem to be a change coming any time soon. How effective is King if he can pose for pictures with Bush, envoking 9/11 but can’t get more money for New York?
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Why does King want to change the constitution?
What is "marriage?" To Peter King and his far-right buddies, marriage is something that deserves a constitutional amendment. H J RES 106 was introduced to change the constitution to say "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The House held a vote but failed to secure the 3/4 required. King of course voted to codify the bigotry.
There are a few issues we can talk about.. the first one being "states rights" which the republicans like to trot out when they don't like the federal government. Now they want the federal government specifically the constitution of the United States to restrict states from making marriage laws.
The second issue is just exactly what is "marriage?" The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders
of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father
of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?
How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.
What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?
We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?
The House held a vote but failed to secure the 3/4 required. King of course voted to codify the bigotry.
There are a few issues we can talk about.. the first one being "states rights" which the republicans like to trot out when they don't like the federal government. Now they want the federal government specifically the constitution of the United States to restrict states from making marriage laws.
The second issue is just exactly what is "marriage?" The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders
of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father
of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?
How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.
What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?
We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Pete King is just plain lying about John Kerry
A few weeks gow we started talking about the Washington Times having to print a correction after recieving erroneous information from King. It seems Pete has been pushing a story about his appearance with John Kerry on Crossfire. King has been all over saying that in 1997 John Kerry's policy towards Iraq mirrors what Bush is doing now and that Kerry has not been consistant. King has also been providing a quote to prove what he is saying about Kerry. Too bad Kerry didn't say.
The Washington Times retartion went something like this:
"Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday's editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN 's "Crossfire" as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq.
In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern [-] where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."
Later, referring to French and Russian reservations on the use of force, Mr. Kerry said: "There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country."
There are two websites that jumped on this when it happend and they have some great coverage over at Talk Left and the right-leaning Just One Minute.
The Washington Times retartion went something like this:
"Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday's editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN 's "Crossfire" as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq.
In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern [-] where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."
Later, referring to French and Russian reservations on the use of force, Mr. Kerry said: "There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country."
There are two websites that jumped on this when it happend and they have some great coverage over at Talk Left and the right-leaning Just One Minute.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Delays in posting
We've been caught up with some technical details but we're back and ready to go. There are a few things to catch up on and continue teh saga of Peter King just plain lying.
Remember election day is November 2nd and we can send King back to Seaford.
Check out the website for Blair Mathies. Please contribute and volunteer to electa REAL representative of the 3rd CD.
Remember election day is November 2nd and we can send King back to Seaford.
Check out the website for Blair Mathies. Please contribute and volunteer to electa REAL representative of the 3rd CD.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
What Peter has wrought
Washington Times on their Inside the Beltway page for September 24th opened with this Correction:
"Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican"
More to come!
"Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican"
More to come!
King tries to re-write history
King simply can't tell the truth. That would be the truth that is unimpeachable. Of course he has his own version of the truth which he most whole-heartedly believes in. King was arguing with Rep. Charles Rangel about the economy on WNBC September 5th and threw out this gem to support his argument that Bush is doing good things with the economy; "Unemployment is down, lower now than what it was when Bill Clinton ran in 1996."
Now let's deconstruct this. Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996. He had since 1993 to work on the economy. The jobs situation placed in context demolishes King's argument. Clinton came into office with a 7.5% unemployment rate. By the time he ran for re-election in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. That would be a 2.1% DECREASE in the unemployed. By the time Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 4%.
Now let's look at Bush's record. He inherited Clinton's 4%. By 2003, the unemployment rate was 6%. That is a 2% INCREASE. Of course King and the other Bush apologists will invoke 9/11 and say it's all the terrorists fault. That cheap excuse won't wash. Sure there were job losses after 9/11 in he airline industry and business in NYC. That does not account for a 2% increase in unemployment. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing fast and it isn't Osama bin Laden's fault. The unemployment rate has gone down this year in drips and drabs not because more people are working but because they are not applying for unemployment benefits. PLUS the Bush administration has re-classified burger flipping jobs as "manufacturing jobs." Putting the numbers in context, unemployment steadily INCREASED under Bush while it steadily DECREASED under Clinton. King tries to pull a fast one whenever the economy comes up and he should be called on his lies.
Here are the numbers:
1990 - 5.6
1991 - 6.8
1992 - 7.5
1993 - 6.9
1994 - 6.1
1995 - 5.6
1996 - 5.4
1997 - 4.9
1998 - 4.5
1999 - 4.2
2000 - 4
2001 - 4.7
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6
Friday, September 24, 2004
Pete is Geographically Challanged
Now we all know that Peter King is rather slow-witted and quite frankly doesn't know much about the rest of the world except for Northern Ireland. So when King was on with Gabe Pressman on WNBC September 5th, King was trying to rattle off those countries who are behind Bush on his war on Iraq and kinda missed that one of his countries isn't a country. King said "Rep. KING: Was Chirac ever our friend? We have Tony Blair, we have Poland, we have the Czech Republic, we have Bavaria, we have Italy..."
We can assume King was substituting "Tony Blair" for England but the curious name here is "Bavaria." You see, "Bavaria" is a state in Germany. Sure Bavaria has a "President" but is it still a state. The "President" of Bavairia is like a governor.
We can assume King was substituting "Tony Blair" for England but the curious name here is "Bavaria." You see, "Bavaria" is a state in Germany. Sure Bavaria has a "President" but is it still a state. The "President" of Bavairia is like a governor.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
King wants Bush fired!!!
Yup, according to King if you get bad information and use it, you deserve to be fired... oh wait.. only if you are Dan Rather. King was on CNN's Crossfire September 21st and had this to say:
"REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Actually, I wish Dan Rather were half the man that George Bush is.
Dan Rather is not guilty of a mistake. He's guilty of criminal negligence. For him to put that story on when both the person's widow and his son told him it was wrong, their own experts said that the documents were questionable, when they got them from such a questionable source, to put those type of documents on with that type of background to me shows incredible bias on Dan Rather's part.
And he should be ashamed of himself. As far as I'm concerned, CBS should fire him and we should find out what were Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland talking with this guy Burkett? "
King wishes Dan Rather were "half the man George Bush is"??? Bush can't even bring himself to admit he made mistakes, Dan Rather went on and admitted his mistake and apoligized for it. Bush can't even attend a single funeral of soldiers killed in Iraq and he can't even meet the bodies when they return.
Bush sent US soldiers to die and THAT is criminal negligence. Bush was told repeatedly that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was not a threat anymore. Bush ignored Osama Bin laden and went after Hussein.
King should apply the standard he has for Rather to Bush. That would mean of course Bush should be fired.
BUT
We all know that King is a major hypocrite so when Crossfire co-host Paul Begala asked King about Bush and his war on Iraq King did his darnedest to change the subject;
"KING: Paul, OK. Paul, actually, let's get this straight.
The Senate intelligence report itself said that there was no lying at all on Iraq. If there were mistakes made, they were also made by John Kerry, who also said that he thought they had nuclear weapons. He also said that Saddam Hussein could give these weapons to terrorists.
And the facts is, in the post-9/11 world, thank God that President Bush had the guts to realize you cannot give a dictator such as Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. As Joe Lieberman said, Americans will eternally grateful and proud for what we have done in Iraq."
King doesn't want to get anything "straight." Bush used intel he was told was wrong at best. And now king wants to blame John Kerry for Bush's screw-up in Iraq. How does that happen?
The fact is that Bush lied about Iraq. If he made a "mistake" then he still should live up to the standard that King set for Dan Rather and be fired.
Begala called King out and King pulled his usual spiel and changed the subject. King can't give a straight answer if his life depended on it.
"REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Actually, I wish Dan Rather were half the man that George Bush is.
Dan Rather is not guilty of a mistake. He's guilty of criminal negligence. For him to put that story on when both the person's widow and his son told him it was wrong, their own experts said that the documents were questionable, when they got them from such a questionable source, to put those type of documents on with that type of background to me shows incredible bias on Dan Rather's part.
And he should be ashamed of himself. As far as I'm concerned, CBS should fire him and we should find out what were Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland talking with this guy Burkett? "
King wishes Dan Rather were "half the man George Bush is"??? Bush can't even bring himself to admit he made mistakes, Dan Rather went on and admitted his mistake and apoligized for it. Bush can't even attend a single funeral of soldiers killed in Iraq and he can't even meet the bodies when they return.
Bush sent US soldiers to die and THAT is criminal negligence. Bush was told repeatedly that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was not a threat anymore. Bush ignored Osama Bin laden and went after Hussein.
King should apply the standard he has for Rather to Bush. That would mean of course Bush should be fired.
BUT
We all know that King is a major hypocrite so when Crossfire co-host Paul Begala asked King about Bush and his war on Iraq King did his darnedest to change the subject;
"KING: Paul, OK. Paul, actually, let's get this straight.
The Senate intelligence report itself said that there was no lying at all on Iraq. If there were mistakes made, they were also made by John Kerry, who also said that he thought they had nuclear weapons. He also said that Saddam Hussein could give these weapons to terrorists.
And the facts is, in the post-9/11 world, thank God that President Bush had the guts to realize you cannot give a dictator such as Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. As Joe Lieberman said, Americans will eternally grateful and proud for what we have done in Iraq."
King doesn't want to get anything "straight." Bush used intel he was told was wrong at best. And now king wants to blame John Kerry for Bush's screw-up in Iraq. How does that happen?
The fact is that Bush lied about Iraq. If he made a "mistake" then he still should live up to the standard that King set for Dan Rather and be fired.
Begala called King out and King pulled his usual spiel and changed the subject. King can't give a straight answer if his life depended on it.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
King of the Flip-Flops
In 2000, King supported Bush then supported McCain then supported Bush again. When defending his support of McCain, King was very adament in his opposition to Bush. Now he loves him. What happened?
Here is King on CNN's Crossfire from Feb 21, 2000:
"... First of all, I have left Governor Bush for a number of reasons. The Bob Jones University was the final one.
But actually, going back to last year when he said that he didn't know whether Jews get into heaven during the debates -- the early debates where he showed really a lack of expertise on foreign policy, where he also said several weeks ago he looked upon the nation of Islam, which is anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-white, as being an organization which espoused universal principles such as love thy neighbor.
And then finally, yes, the trip to Bob Jones University, which is anti-Catholic and is anti-black, and he went there not just as a campaign stop-in, but he commenced his campaign there, he held hands and sang songs with them. He made that be the centerpiece of his campaign and put his stamp of approval on a school which is anti- Catholic, and as a Catholic I greatly resent that, and as an American and as a Republican I really resent that being infused into the campaign."
King even goes so far as to elude that Bush is a bigot
"As for myself, I have a 100 percent Christian Coalition rating, so I am not going to support anyone who is bigoted."
When pressed by co-host Mary Matalin, King continued his attack on Bush saying,
"In fact, Mary, Governor Bush has never denounced the policies. What he says is that he doesn't agree with the policy on interracial dating, and he says that his brother has become a Catholic. That's like saying, you know, some of my best friends are Jews and some of my best friends are blacks. The fact is he had the opportunity when he was there at Bob Jones and didn't say a word in denouncing their policies at all, and as a Republican I find that offensive."
And what did King say to CNN's Carol Lin that same morning?
"... I think he was so desperate to be elected in South Carolina that he was willing to run the risk of speaking at a bigoted school. And to me, that shows a clear lack of judgment and also, quite frankly, a lack of moral compass."
So according to King, Bush's actions are "offensive," that he lacks a moral compass and is a bigot.
Wow, you would wonder how King could support Bush now.
Here is King on CNN's Crossfire from Feb 21, 2000:
"... First of all, I have left Governor Bush for a number of reasons. The Bob Jones University was the final one.
But actually, going back to last year when he said that he didn't know whether Jews get into heaven during the debates -- the early debates where he showed really a lack of expertise on foreign policy, where he also said several weeks ago he looked upon the nation of Islam, which is anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-white, as being an organization which espoused universal principles such as love thy neighbor.
And then finally, yes, the trip to Bob Jones University, which is anti-Catholic and is anti-black, and he went there not just as a campaign stop-in, but he commenced his campaign there, he held hands and sang songs with them. He made that be the centerpiece of his campaign and put his stamp of approval on a school which is anti- Catholic, and as a Catholic I greatly resent that, and as an American and as a Republican I really resent that being infused into the campaign."
King even goes so far as to elude that Bush is a bigot
"As for myself, I have a 100 percent Christian Coalition rating, so I am not going to support anyone who is bigoted."
When pressed by co-host Mary Matalin, King continued his attack on Bush saying,
"In fact, Mary, Governor Bush has never denounced the policies. What he says is that he doesn't agree with the policy on interracial dating, and he says that his brother has become a Catholic. That's like saying, you know, some of my best friends are Jews and some of my best friends are blacks. The fact is he had the opportunity when he was there at Bob Jones and didn't say a word in denouncing their policies at all, and as a Republican I find that offensive."
And what did King say to CNN's Carol Lin that same morning?
"... I think he was so desperate to be elected in South Carolina that he was willing to run the risk of speaking at a bigoted school. And to me, that shows a clear lack of judgment and also, quite frankly, a lack of moral compass."
So according to King, Bush's actions are "offensive," that he lacks a moral compass and is a bigot.
Wow, you would wonder how King could support Bush now.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Republican Primary
Looks like King wins again against Previdi. Hats off to Previdi for trying every two years.
Now it's off to the general election to send King back to Seaford.
Vote Blair Mathies.
You can help elect Blair by donating time and money to his campaign.
Now it's off to the general election to send King back to Seaford.
Vote Blair Mathies.
You can help elect Blair by donating time and money to his campaign.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
A Shout-Out!
Been busy lately but have alot to add. More on the Plame treason case and alot of King's voting record. PLUS more people get nasty letters from King.
Until we get in the groove again we just want to say "HELLO!" to the house.gov visitors.
And of course a hardy welcome to those new to Pete King Watch.
Check out our archives and if you feel liek it e-mail us and tell us what you think.
Until we get in the groove again we just want to say "HELLO!" to the house.gov visitors.
And of course a hardy welcome to those new to Pete King Watch.
Check out our archives and if you feel liek it e-mail us and tell us what you think.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Summer Vacation is OVER!
We're back and it's time to get rid of Peter King once and for all.
We have a candidate who can send King back to Seaford.
Meet Blair Mathies.
Tomorrow: Things Peter King doesn't want you to see.
Also: Robert Previdi is challenging King in the Republican primary. King only gets 6000-7000 votes in a primary. That means it will only take 7500 registered republicans who see King's incompetence to get rid of him in September.
We have a candidate who can send King back to Seaford.
Meet Blair Mathies.
Tomorrow: Things Peter King doesn't want you to see.
Also: Robert Previdi is challenging King in the Republican primary. King only gets 6000-7000 votes in a primary. That means it will only take 7500 registered republicans who see King's incompetence to get rid of him in September.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
King is well liked... well not really
From the Guardian UK:
"And then, rather disconcertingly, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people. Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance."
"And then, rather disconcertingly, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people. Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance."
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Pete King and his support of terrorism
From a BBC interview:
King: To me terrorism is always wrong, but I think the IRA was a legitimate force that had to be dealt with.
BBC: A legitimate force? It wasn't a terrorist group trying to bomb and blow-up the democratically elected government of a sovereign state? That wasn't terrorism?
King: No, I would say it was a legitimate fight going on in Northern Ireland. Any time a civilian was targeted that was wrong. If you look back over the record, there was probably a greater number of, percentage wise, of civilians killed by the security forces in the world by the IRA. …To me terrorism is if you target civilians.
BBC: That's not the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using violence to gain political ends.
King: To me terrorism is always wrong, but I think the IRA was a legitimate force that had to be dealt with.
BBC: A legitimate force? It wasn't a terrorist group trying to bomb and blow-up the democratically elected government of a sovereign state? That wasn't terrorism?
King: No, I would say it was a legitimate fight going on in Northern Ireland. Any time a civilian was targeted that was wrong. If you look back over the record, there was probably a greater number of, percentage wise, of civilians killed by the security forces in the world by the IRA. …To me terrorism is if you target civilians.
BBC: That's not the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using violence to gain political ends.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Excusing Treason??
As this is being written there is an investigation into columnist Bob Novak's exposing the name of a CIA undercover agent. Early last year as Bush built his lies for the Bush-Iraq War, Joe Wilson a former ambassador and career State Department diplomat came forward to expose one of the lies Bush told.
The Bush administration tends to go on the attack and in usual fashion tried to destroy Joe Wilson by using his wife Valerie Plame. Valerie Plame was a NOC agent for the CIA. By exposing the name of a CIA agent, that agent and all of the agents contacts are compromised. And by "compromised" we mean their lives are in danger. This also ruins all the intelligence collected by the agent and contacts.
The whole sordid affair... or rather treason can be found here.
Enter Peter King. King told WABC host Stever Malzberg the it is Pete Wilson who needs to be investigated!!! King said "I assume that if he went into this job for the CIA, he had to sign an oath of secrecy - a confidentiality [agreement]" And if he did, then he violated it and he should be prosecuted."
and
"He conducted a so-called secret mission for the CIA he's talking about it all over national and international television - undermining the president of the United States. ... Why wasn't this guy called in before a grand jury?"
Joe Wilson responded to King in an interview and said "No. This was not a CIA mission. Mr. King would do well to inform himself. I specifically told the CIA that I don't do clandestine and that I would do a government activity. I briefed the State Department before I went out there, I secured the clearance of the ambassador before I went to Niger. I spoke with the ambassador here when I went there. I made it clear to my interlocutors that I was posing questions on behalf of my government. My particular look at this was not clandestine, it was a look at how the industry operates."
Again King makes unfounded accusations and comes out with egg on his face.
Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy said of King's allegations "For King to say that just sounds like Republican hackery. It really does. This thing has legs and the Bush people are sweating."
The simple fact is that someone authorized the release of a CIA agents name and this is being used as a tactic to attempt to intimidate those who would speak the truth about Bush. Bush and his people put intelligence agents and contacts in real danger and may have caused harm to intelligence gathering. That is treason. And Peter King would rather go after Joe Wilson. Interesting priorities.
The Bush administration tends to go on the attack and in usual fashion tried to destroy Joe Wilson by using his wife Valerie Plame. Valerie Plame was a NOC agent for the CIA. By exposing the name of a CIA agent, that agent and all of the agents contacts are compromised. And by "compromised" we mean their lives are in danger. This also ruins all the intelligence collected by the agent and contacts.
The whole sordid affair... or rather treason can be found here.
Enter Peter King. King told WABC host Stever Malzberg the it is Pete Wilson who needs to be investigated!!! King said "I assume that if he went into this job for the CIA, he had to sign an oath of secrecy - a confidentiality [agreement]" And if he did, then he violated it and he should be prosecuted."
and
"He conducted a so-called secret mission for the CIA he's talking about it all over national and international television - undermining the president of the United States. ... Why wasn't this guy called in before a grand jury?"
Joe Wilson responded to King in an interview and said "No. This was not a CIA mission. Mr. King would do well to inform himself. I specifically told the CIA that I don't do clandestine and that I would do a government activity. I briefed the State Department before I went out there, I secured the clearance of the ambassador before I went to Niger. I spoke with the ambassador here when I went there. I made it clear to my interlocutors that I was posing questions on behalf of my government. My particular look at this was not clandestine, it was a look at how the industry operates."
Again King makes unfounded accusations and comes out with egg on his face.
Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy said of King's allegations "For King to say that just sounds like Republican hackery. It really does. This thing has legs and the Bush people are sweating."
The simple fact is that someone authorized the release of a CIA agents name and this is being used as a tactic to attempt to intimidate those who would speak the truth about Bush. Bush and his people put intelligence agents and contacts in real danger and may have caused harm to intelligence gathering. That is treason. And Peter King would rather go after Joe Wilson. Interesting priorities.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
King and the Shame of Nassau County
In 2002 King sponsered a bill that would name a Federal Courthouse after disgraced and defeated Sen. Al D'Amato. The first thought any one would have about this would be "D'Amato should be tried in that courthouse, not have it named after him." But alas, the deed was done.
The naming of a courthouse or any federal building should be reserved for men and woman of disticntion, not a criminal like D'Amato.
For a rundown of D'Amato and his illicit dealings see this site and this site and if you can still get it try the great book by Leonrad Lurie.
D'Amato nimbly slipped out of prosecutors hands while a Senate Ethics investigation found D'Amato to be a crafty criminal of the lowest caliber. When asked for a release of D'Amatos etchics committee testimony, the committe defers to D'Amato and D'Amato refuses to authorize thier release. Why is that?
King embarrassed Long Island by sponsering this naming. Right now there are men and women being convicted in a courthouse named after a man who should be thier cellmate.
A great article about D'Amato can be found here
The naming of a courthouse or any federal building should be reserved for men and woman of disticntion, not a criminal like D'Amato.
For a rundown of D'Amato and his illicit dealings see this site and this site and if you can still get it try the great book by Leonrad Lurie.
D'Amato nimbly slipped out of prosecutors hands while a Senate Ethics investigation found D'Amato to be a crafty criminal of the lowest caliber. When asked for a release of D'Amatos etchics committee testimony, the committe defers to D'Amato and D'Amato refuses to authorize thier release. Why is that?
King embarrassed Long Island by sponsering this naming. Right now there are men and women being convicted in a courthouse named after a man who should be thier cellmate.
A great article about D'Amato can be found here
Saturday, April 17, 2004
A lie
From the Massapequa Post:
"I am responding to the uninformed letter which appeared in your April 25 paper. The letter charges that I voted against veterans and it is entirely untrue."
Untrue, eh?
In 1999 HR2116 passed the House without King's vote.
The letter King was responding to referenced the fact that the proposed budget would short-change veterans. King denied this and said "Because this budget is so supportive of veterans' programs, it has been endorsed by such veterans' organizations as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America."
In fact, the budget was assailed by the very veterans groups he cites. The Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert "Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation’s heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" The DAV sent a bulletin out outlining the fight to preserve benefits. The VFW called the house budget a "betrayal."
I wasn't until AFTER the VFW, AL, DAV and PVA spoke out that the budget was changed. Unfortunatly the VA is STILL underfunded.
"I am responding to the uninformed letter which appeared in your April 25 paper. The letter charges that I voted against veterans and it is entirely untrue."
Untrue, eh?
In 1999 HR2116 passed the House without King's vote.
The letter King was responding to referenced the fact that the proposed budget would short-change veterans. King denied this and said "Because this budget is so supportive of veterans' programs, it has been endorsed by such veterans' organizations as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America."
In fact, the budget was assailed by the very veterans groups he cites. The Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert "Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation’s heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" The DAV sent a bulletin out outlining the fight to preserve benefits. The VFW called the house budget a "betrayal."
I wasn't until AFTER the VFW, AL, DAV and PVA spoke out that the budget was changed. Unfortunatly the VA is STILL underfunded.
Friday, April 16, 2004
The Arrogance of the King
Peter King can't take criticism or tough questions. When confronted, King lashes out like a child. The letter to Mr. Harry Halikias as reported in Newsday is just one instance of King's unbelievable arrorance. King wrote to Mr. Halikias is "...morally, intellectually and politically wrong." It is incredible as Mr. Halikais put it "How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?"
That is what King does.
When King went after Sen. John McCain on the campaign finance issue, King used his usual rhetoric "McCain has been grandstanding the whole campaign finance issue to death. He has a tremendous sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority."
McCain unleashed a letter in The Hill which sums King up quite nicely with "As far as Rep. [Peter] King’s [R-N.Y.] opinions are concerned, I could hardly care less what his opinion of me is or what motives he attributes to my support for campaign finance reform. His accusation of grandstanding is laughable given that there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
This is in 1997 and even back then King was known as a do-nothing on the legislative front and a big mouth in front of the cameras. Kings recent comments about american muslims conform to the statement "...he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites" and of course sell books.
Indeed, McCain's words were precient when he said "...When I have a disagreement with someone, I will press my case forcefully, but I will not define my opponents’ motives or question their character. As Mr. King has chosen to question mine..."
McCain goes on "He (King) and I barely know each other. I think we have met on one occasion. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. King has grasped his insights into my character. But let me suggest to Mr. King that there are many people in Congress who may sincerely hold views on an issue contrary to the majority view in their party.
They hold these views honorably, and not because they put their ambition before their party, but because they put their principles first. No doubt this comes as a shock to Mr. King, but should he ever consider adopting a principle or two himself, he might find, for the first time, that people consider his views worthy of respect."
That is what King does.
When King went after Sen. John McCain on the campaign finance issue, King used his usual rhetoric "McCain has been grandstanding the whole campaign finance issue to death. He has a tremendous sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority."
McCain unleashed a letter in The Hill which sums King up quite nicely with "As far as Rep. [Peter] King’s [R-N.Y.] opinions are concerned, I could hardly care less what his opinion of me is or what motives he attributes to my support for campaign finance reform. His accusation of grandstanding is laughable given that there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
This is in 1997 and even back then King was known as a do-nothing on the legislative front and a big mouth in front of the cameras. Kings recent comments about american muslims conform to the statement "...he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites" and of course sell books.
Indeed, McCain's words were precient when he said "...When I have a disagreement with someone, I will press my case forcefully, but I will not define my opponents’ motives or question their character. As Mr. King has chosen to question mine..."
McCain goes on "He (King) and I barely know each other. I think we have met on one occasion. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. King has grasped his insights into my character. But let me suggest to Mr. King that there are many people in Congress who may sincerely hold views on an issue contrary to the majority view in their party.
They hold these views honorably, and not because they put their ambition before their party, but because they put their principles first. No doubt this comes as a shock to Mr. King, but should he ever consider adopting a principle or two himself, he might find, for the first time, that people consider his views worthy of respect."
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Why does King lie?
Really now, it's so easy to prove the incredible lies King spreads everytime he speaks. On a WNBC interview with Gabe Pressman King defends Bush's actions regarding the 9/11 Commision by saying
"... But this administration has complied enormously with the September 11th Commission, turning over millions of pages of documents."
Let's be real here. Bush OPPOSED the creation of the commission and then opposed extending the commission deadline. Then Bush refused to let Rice testify in public under oath citing a bogus precedent about presidential advisors not testifying. Oops... there have been many instances where this has happend and it turns out as far back as the Pearl Harbor investigation.
The Bushies have stonewalled investigators by refusing to hand over relevant documents and then when it looks like the popular "Clinton did nothing" myth is about to be shattered, the Bushies refuse to release Clinton papers that Clinton agreed to release.
Now part of the bargain to "let" Rice testify under oath and in public, Bush will meet with the panel in private and not under oath and holding hands with Cheney. Before Bush was only going to meet (not "testify") with the co-chairs and then withthe whole panel but for only an hour.
Is this "complying enormously?" We think not. Maybe King woul dliek to take this opportunity to revise his ridiculous remarks.
"... But this administration has complied enormously with the September 11th Commission, turning over millions of pages of documents."
Let's be real here. Bush OPPOSED the creation of the commission and then opposed extending the commission deadline. Then Bush refused to let Rice testify in public under oath citing a bogus precedent about presidential advisors not testifying. Oops... there have been many instances where this has happend and it turns out as far back as the Pearl Harbor investigation.
The Bushies have stonewalled investigators by refusing to hand over relevant documents and then when it looks like the popular "Clinton did nothing" myth is about to be shattered, the Bushies refuse to release Clinton papers that Clinton agreed to release.
Now part of the bargain to "let" Rice testify under oath and in public, Bush will meet with the panel in private and not under oath and holding hands with Cheney. Before Bush was only going to meet (not "testify") with the co-chairs and then withthe whole panel but for only an hour.
Is this "complying enormously?" We think not. Maybe King woul dliek to take this opportunity to revise his ridiculous remarks.
Angry constituents
After Kings comments about muslims, there was a pile-on with letters to the editor lambasting King. Here are a few excerpts:
March 9th
" In the three years since Rep. King (R-Seaford) has become my representative, I have been appalled by the arrogance, lack of respect and dismissiveness that King and some of his staff have shown to people who do not agree with the hard-right turn of the House of Representatives."
"On one occasion, my husband called his office to take exception to statements he made on a cable news show in defense of the Bush administration's lies about the Iraq war. King fired back a sarcastic letter reiterating the lies and suggesting that my husband purchase a copy of the broadcast tape and watch it during the summer for "his enlightenment."
March 15th
"Lately Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has been jumping from one media outlet to another repeating his Islamophobic statements. Doesn't he have anything to do except defame the people whom he represents?
King's statements can further hurt the minorities in New York. Reports have shown that there is a trend of eroding civil rights in the Muslim and South Asian communities in New York and other states. Reported incidents include school and work-place discrimination, financial discrimination, harassment and even hate crimes."
March 16th
"I don't think people in this district would vote for Texas Rep. Tom DeLay if his name was on the ballot, but because of strong party "discipline," every Republican member of the House is now a political clone of DeLay, who is House majority leader.
King consistently votes with DeLay: for tax cuts for the super rich, for drilling in the Arctic, for an energy bill written by the oil industry, and for a Medicare drug benefit bill written by the pharmaceutical industry."
"This November, I intend to vote for A.B.K. - Anybody But King - in order to help take the House of Representatives away from the radicals who have so cynically hijacked it."
March 17th
"As a constituent of Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), I am troubled by his speeches and letters about the Islamic community.
While attending Hofstra University I had the privilege and honor of meeting Faroque Khan, president of the Islamic Cultural Center of Long Island, and attending a service at his mosque.
As a Jew, I had serious reservations. But from the first moment we arrived those reservations went away because Khan made us all feel welcome."
And to show how much of an arrogant you-know-what King is, check this out:
From the March 18th Newsday
"A Bellmore man this week learned how deeply Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) supports President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Harry Halikias believed the president lied about invading to destroy weapons of mass destruction. So he wrote to King urging he vote to censure Bush for dishonesty.
King declined.
Halikias was fine with most of King's March 11 reply letter, which read, "I disagree with you in every respect. ... President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity."
But the congressman also wrote, "You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong."
That angered Halikias. "I am blown away by it. How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?" he said. "He personally attacked me based on an issue important to my community."
In an interview Tuesday, King said he'd been deliberately blunt. "He was personally attacking the president, and I was defending the president."
Halikias was especially upset because he has supported King. "If I'm so morally bankrupt, why did I vote for him?" the constituent said.
King responded, "I guess he's undecided now."
March 9th
" In the three years since Rep. King (R-Seaford) has become my representative, I have been appalled by the arrogance, lack of respect and dismissiveness that King and some of his staff have shown to people who do not agree with the hard-right turn of the House of Representatives."
"On one occasion, my husband called his office to take exception to statements he made on a cable news show in defense of the Bush administration's lies about the Iraq war. King fired back a sarcastic letter reiterating the lies and suggesting that my husband purchase a copy of the broadcast tape and watch it during the summer for "his enlightenment."
March 15th
"Lately Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has been jumping from one media outlet to another repeating his Islamophobic statements. Doesn't he have anything to do except defame the people whom he represents?
King's statements can further hurt the minorities in New York. Reports have shown that there is a trend of eroding civil rights in the Muslim and South Asian communities in New York and other states. Reported incidents include school and work-place discrimination, financial discrimination, harassment and even hate crimes."
March 16th
"I don't think people in this district would vote for Texas Rep. Tom DeLay if his name was on the ballot, but because of strong party "discipline," every Republican member of the House is now a political clone of DeLay, who is House majority leader.
King consistently votes with DeLay: for tax cuts for the super rich, for drilling in the Arctic, for an energy bill written by the oil industry, and for a Medicare drug benefit bill written by the pharmaceutical industry."
"This November, I intend to vote for A.B.K. - Anybody But King - in order to help take the House of Representatives away from the radicals who have so cynically hijacked it."
March 17th
"As a constituent of Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), I am troubled by his speeches and letters about the Islamic community.
While attending Hofstra University I had the privilege and honor of meeting Faroque Khan, president of the Islamic Cultural Center of Long Island, and attending a service at his mosque.
As a Jew, I had serious reservations. But from the first moment we arrived those reservations went away because Khan made us all feel welcome."
And to show how much of an arrogant you-know-what King is, check this out:
From the March 18th Newsday
"A Bellmore man this week learned how deeply Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) supports President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Harry Halikias believed the president lied about invading to destroy weapons of mass destruction. So he wrote to King urging he vote to censure Bush for dishonesty.
King declined.
Halikias was fine with most of King's March 11 reply letter, which read, "I disagree with you in every respect. ... President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity."
But the congressman also wrote, "You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong."
That angered Halikias. "I am blown away by it. How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?" he said. "He personally attacked me based on an issue important to my community."
In an interview Tuesday, King said he'd been deliberately blunt. "He was personally attacking the president, and I was defending the president."
Halikias was especially upset because he has supported King. "If I'm so morally bankrupt, why did I vote for him?" the constituent said.
King responded, "I guess he's undecided now."
Friday, April 02, 2004
King is just wrong as usual
From CNN
"And also this is the media swirl involving Dick Clarke. And the media has given him such a free ride, because he has not made one factual allegation that backs up his case whatsoever. I think it's really been pretty disgraceful the way the media has given him this free ride."
So if as King says, Clarke has not made "one factual allegation" then that means Clarke lied under oath. Why not be the first in the well of the House to call for perjury charges? Let's see King request the Justice Department file charges. This CNN interview as on March 30th and still no perjury charges have been filed against Clarke. We wonder why.
So far every accusation from Clarke has been supported.
The lack of urgency Clarke spoke of is actually backed up by Bush's own words in the Bob Woodward book "Bush at War." The book was hailed by the Bushies as being completely accurate.
WOODWARD (page 39): [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point…I didn’t have that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.”
"And also this is the media swirl involving Dick Clarke. And the media has given him such a free ride, because he has not made one factual allegation that backs up his case whatsoever. I think it's really been pretty disgraceful the way the media has given him this free ride."
So if as King says, Clarke has not made "one factual allegation" then that means Clarke lied under oath. Why not be the first in the well of the House to call for perjury charges? Let's see King request the Justice Department file charges. This CNN interview as on March 30th and still no perjury charges have been filed against Clarke. We wonder why.
So far every accusation from Clarke has been supported.
The lack of urgency Clarke spoke of is actually backed up by Bush's own words in the Bob Woodward book "Bush at War." The book was hailed by the Bushies as being completely accurate.
WOODWARD (page 39): [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point…I didn’t have that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.”
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Spanish Appeasement or is King an Idiot?
King is an idiot. Plain and simple. King tells NRO "The defeat of Aznar's Popular party was a clear victory for the terrorists. Unfortunately, in the face of attack, the Spanish electorate opted for appeasement."
That FACT is that unlike King, Spaniards know the difference between a war on terror and the Bush-Iraq War. The Spanish people support the war on terrorism but they do not support the Bush-Iraq War with polling showing 90% against the Bush-Iraq War. The Aznar government was on shaky ground back in March of 2003 and the election this year bore out the opposition to Spanish involvement in the Bush-Iraq war.
When it comes to an actual war on terror, a war Spain has been fighting for over 40 years with ETA, the new Prime Minister has committed to doubling their forces in Afghanistan.
What exaserbated the voters anger at Aznar was his governments insistance against all availbale evidence that the Madrid train bombings (M-11) were planned and executed by ETA.
King's lack of basic knowledge of world affairs is frightening and sad because too often he is called by news organizations to comment on things he simply does not know about.
That FACT is that unlike King, Spaniards know the difference between a war on terror and the Bush-Iraq War. The Spanish people support the war on terrorism but they do not support the Bush-Iraq War with polling showing 90% against the Bush-Iraq War. The Aznar government was on shaky ground back in March of 2003 and the election this year bore out the opposition to Spanish involvement in the Bush-Iraq war.
When it comes to an actual war on terror, a war Spain has been fighting for over 40 years with ETA, the new Prime Minister has committed to doubling their forces in Afghanistan.
What exaserbated the voters anger at Aznar was his governments insistance against all availbale evidence that the Madrid train bombings (M-11) were planned and executed by ETA.
King's lack of basic knowledge of world affairs is frightening and sad because too often he is called by news organizations to comment on things he simply does not know about.
Why now Peter?
It's intersting that the only times King has spoken about the muslim threat in local mosques has been in reference to his book. There are no House floor speeches nor any press interviews that make mention of this troubling finding he made.
Back on November 9th, just over a month before the release of his latest snooze-fest, King was on with Gabe Pressman on WNBC and only got to the threat when Pressman asked about his book. If this was such an important matter why does King wait until after he wrote a book and starts a press tour to let us know there is a problem?
Simple: King just wants to sell books.
The exchange started like this
"PRESSMAN: What about the book that you had just published or are about to publish? What's it called?
Rep. KING: Oh, book coming out in January called "Veil of Tears." It's a novel based on a terrorist attack in New York in the next several years, and it goes back and forth between the future and September 11th. "
And after a little banter:
Rep. KING: Well, it's one of those things. Actually, what I am trying to show in the book, to make a long story short, the--that there is a threat, I believe, in our country from Islamic fundamentalism which because of political correctness we're not addressing. And you can talk to police, FBI--they will tell you they're getting very little cooperation from the Muslim community in this country. And I think this is something that's a time bomb that's ready--it's going to go off someday.
PRESSMAN: You mean, there are Muslims with American citizenship who are going to blow up the country?
Rep. KING: Oh, there's no doubt there are fifth columns in this country, there are sleeper cells in this country. And we're not getting a level of cooperation that we should be getting from the Muslim community. And I can--you can ask any police chief, police commissioner--they'll tell you the same thing. I think it's something that we should address. Not that they would be supporting us, but they're willing to look the other way. They're just not cooperating with the police. Listen, let's--we know that there are sleeper cells. We know that, for instance, the first World Trade Center--there were people in--you know, from New York involved in it and New Jersey. And there's--it's something we really have to be concerned about.
Back on November 9th, just over a month before the release of his latest snooze-fest, King was on with Gabe Pressman on WNBC and only got to the threat when Pressman asked about his book. If this was such an important matter why does King wait until after he wrote a book and starts a press tour to let us know there is a problem?
Simple: King just wants to sell books.
The exchange started like this
"PRESSMAN: What about the book that you had just published or are about to publish? What's it called?
Rep. KING: Oh, book coming out in January called "Veil of Tears." It's a novel based on a terrorist attack in New York in the next several years, and it goes back and forth between the future and September 11th. "
And after a little banter:
Rep. KING: Well, it's one of those things. Actually, what I am trying to show in the book, to make a long story short, the--that there is a threat, I believe, in our country from Islamic fundamentalism which because of political correctness we're not addressing. And you can talk to police, FBI--they will tell you they're getting very little cooperation from the Muslim community in this country. And I think this is something that's a time bomb that's ready--it's going to go off someday.
PRESSMAN: You mean, there are Muslims with American citizenship who are going to blow up the country?
Rep. KING: Oh, there's no doubt there are fifth columns in this country, there are sleeper cells in this country. And we're not getting a level of cooperation that we should be getting from the Muslim community. And I can--you can ask any police chief, police commissioner--they'll tell you the same thing. I think it's something that we should address. Not that they would be supporting us, but they're willing to look the other way. They're just not cooperating with the police. Listen, let's--we know that there are sleeper cells. We know that, for instance, the first World Trade Center--there were people in--you know, from New York involved in it and New Jersey. And there's--it's something we really have to be concerned about.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Opportunist pt. 2
King's claim to fame as in "independent" is his vote against President Bill Clintons impeachment. Now why would a hard-core, right-wing republican do such a thing? Because he stuck his finger in the air, checked the way the wind was blowing and made his decision. Plus King needed Clinton for his pet project: Ireland.
In 1996 Bill Clinton won the 3rd congressional district with 52% of the vote. Even going into the impeachment in 1998, Bill Clinton topped out with a 72% approval rating. To curry favor with President Clinton, King even called Newt Gingrich "... roadkill on the highway of American politics."
It's all about what is best for Peter King and how can Peter King get what he wants. King came out in support of local muslims but when it is time to sell his book, he turns on them.
Up next: Election 2000
No one trusts Peter King:
"Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different."- Republican leaderTom Delay
In 1996 Bill Clinton won the 3rd congressional district with 52% of the vote. Even going into the impeachment in 1998, Bill Clinton topped out with a 72% approval rating. To curry favor with President Clinton, King even called Newt Gingrich "... roadkill on the highway of American politics."
It's all about what is best for Peter King and how can Peter King get what he wants. King came out in support of local muslims but when it is time to sell his book, he turns on them.
Up next: Election 2000
No one trusts Peter King:
"Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different."- Republican leaderTom Delay
Monday, March 08, 2004
A letter in the Long Island Press
This was published one year ago about King and his hatred of France. Pete was upset that France was not doing what the Bush wanted and King made his displeasure known. Pete cancelled his trip to Paris and took pot-shots at "old Europe" every chance he got.
We are also transcribing a hilarious BBC Radio interview with King to be posted shortly.
Long Island Press
March 7, 2003
C'est What?
George W. Bush suffered another blow against his war when Turkey
could not be bought and they voted against being the second front.
This slap in the face is similar to the one delivered by France and
Germany. Rep. Peter King along with local and national patriots have
taught France and Germany a lesson by slapping them back. . The
unstoppable Mr. King took a stand and will not grace the City of
Lights with his presence. France has been downgraded from 2nd to 3rd
rate nation. French wine? Make mine Night Train sez the flag-draped
Mr. King. He'll have Freedom Fries with his hamburger... oops Patriot
Patty. Only Silver Dollar Pancakes at IHOP, none of that French
Appeasement Toast. Mr. King will no longer watch his Special Edition
DVD of Grease in a boycott of Frenchy (Didi Conn unavailable for
comment.) Now it is Turkey's turn. It'll be All-American Ham (not the
Black Forest kind) USAHeroes hold the dijon mustard and add extra
mayo. Thanksgiving 2003 will have Patriot Poultry or Fore-Fathers Fowl
as it's main course. The bird whose claim to fame is a chopping block
every november will suffer unspeakably. Good Ally Australian Lamb can
take your place, Mr. Gobble. A word to the wise from Peter King; you
better watch out Chile, get on his wrong side and no more baby back,
baby back ribs.
John Rennhack
We are also transcribing a hilarious BBC Radio interview with King to be posted shortly.
Long Island Press
March 7, 2003
C'est What?
George W. Bush suffered another blow against his war when Turkey
could not be bought and they voted against being the second front.
This slap in the face is similar to the one delivered by France and
Germany. Rep. Peter King along with local and national patriots have
taught France and Germany a lesson by slapping them back. . The
unstoppable Mr. King took a stand and will not grace the City of
Lights with his presence. France has been downgraded from 2nd to 3rd
rate nation. French wine? Make mine Night Train sez the flag-draped
Mr. King. He'll have Freedom Fries with his hamburger... oops Patriot
Patty. Only Silver Dollar Pancakes at IHOP, none of that French
Appeasement Toast. Mr. King will no longer watch his Special Edition
DVD of Grease in a boycott of Frenchy (Didi Conn unavailable for
comment.) Now it is Turkey's turn. It'll be All-American Ham (not the
Black Forest kind) USAHeroes hold the dijon mustard and add extra
mayo. Thanksgiving 2003 will have Patriot Poultry or Fore-Fathers Fowl
as it's main course. The bird whose claim to fame is a chopping block
every november will suffer unspeakably. Good Ally Australian Lamb can
take your place, Mr. Gobble. A word to the wise from Peter King; you
better watch out Chile, get on his wrong side and no more baby back,
baby back ribs.
John Rennhack
Monday, March 01, 2004
King on Bush
George W. Bush "showed a willingness to take any road to the White House.'' AP report 02/20/2000
George W. Bush "probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about." USAToday
"Combine that with the fact that last year, Bush said he wasn't certain whether Jews could get into heaven,... The fact Bush said that as part of an intellectual debate scared me -- and I'm not Jewish. If Jews can't get into heaven, who's next?" The Jewish Journal February 25, 2000
George W. Bush "probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about." USAToday
"Combine that with the fact that last year, Bush said he wasn't certain whether Jews could get into heaven,... The fact Bush said that as part of an intellectual debate scared me -- and I'm not Jewish. If Jews can't get into heaven, who's next?" The Jewish Journal February 25, 2000
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Petey Get Your Gun
In 1999 Pete King voted for Bill HR 2122 introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum, R-FL that would require purchases of guns at gun shows to have a completed background check which was 72 hours but shortened to 24 hours. Vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999.
It is a known fact that terrorists want to exploit our weak gun laws to amass weapons. The Brady Center did a study which details this situation.
In documents entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" found in Afghanistan, the terrorists suggests to it's students that they should come to the US to buy weapons because it is so easy.
Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center Senior Policy Analyst says "This document and the link to the cold-blooded assassins who carried out the suicide attacks show conclusively that our lax gun laws and our tolerance of the most extreme factions of the gun culture have turned America into a one-stop shopping mall and training playground for terrorists,"
Pete King co-sponsered legislation by Rep. Marty Meehan in 2003 to make gun traffiking a federal crime. King said "Why would any rational person be against legislation that prevents illegal guns from being sold? This has nothing to do with hunters, collectors or the Second Amendment." The question is why did King make it easier for terrorists to buy the guns legally? The horse is already out of the barn when the terrorists have the weapons in thier hands.
It is a known fact that terrorists want to exploit our weak gun laws to amass weapons. The Brady Center did a study which details this situation.
In documents entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" found in Afghanistan, the terrorists suggests to it's students that they should come to the US to buy weapons because it is so easy.
Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center Senior Policy Analyst says "This document and the link to the cold-blooded assassins who carried out the suicide attacks show conclusively that our lax gun laws and our tolerance of the most extreme factions of the gun culture have turned America into a one-stop shopping mall and training playground for terrorists,"
Pete King co-sponsered legislation by Rep. Marty Meehan in 2003 to make gun traffiking a federal crime. King said "Why would any rational person be against legislation that prevents illegal guns from being sold? This has nothing to do with hunters, collectors or the Second Amendment." The question is why did King make it easier for terrorists to buy the guns legally? The horse is already out of the barn when the terrorists have the weapons in thier hands.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
King's hate speech denounced
DNC Calls on President Bush to Condemn Rep. Peter King's Hate Language
Feb 12, 2004
Washington, D.C. — Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) called on President Bush and Republican leaders to repudiate remarks made Tuesday by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) accusing American Muslims of "extremist leadership," and saying that most American Muslims are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement officials on homeland security matters. Rep. King made these comments in an interview on a nationally-syndicated radio program where he was promoting his new novel. King said his book is about future terrorist attacks by "Muslim extremists" in New York, and that the content is "half truth and half fiction."
"In the past, President Bush has told Muslim Americans that his administration does not condone bigotry," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Muslim Americans are teachers, lawyers, doctors, business owners who have made invaluable contributions to our country. President Bush has said 'those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens and take out their anger… represent the worst of humankind.' That's why I am calling on President Bush and the Republican leadership to condemn this latest example of hate-filled language.
"Peter King is using bigotry to make a buck, plain and simple," said DNC member Jim Zogby. "He does so showing no concern for the impact his remarks have on millions of decent, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans. While in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the President urged Americans not to strike out against their Arab and Muslim neighbors; too many members and supporters of his own Administration have undercut that message using anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric to create fear and suspicion."
"By failing to condemn and demand apologies from John Ashcroft, General Boykin, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham for their bigoted remarks, President Bush has undercut his own message and created a situation where some in his party now feel they have a presidential green light to spread a message of hate," said Zogby who also heads the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee. "One person could put a stop to all of this, and we call on President Bush to do the right thing and condemn those in his administration, in his party and those among his supporters who continue to spew anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry."
Feb 12, 2004
Washington, D.C. — Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) called on President Bush and Republican leaders to repudiate remarks made Tuesday by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) accusing American Muslims of "extremist leadership," and saying that most American Muslims are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement officials on homeland security matters. Rep. King made these comments in an interview on a nationally-syndicated radio program where he was promoting his new novel. King said his book is about future terrorist attacks by "Muslim extremists" in New York, and that the content is "half truth and half fiction."
"In the past, President Bush has told Muslim Americans that his administration does not condone bigotry," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Muslim Americans are teachers, lawyers, doctors, business owners who have made invaluable contributions to our country. President Bush has said 'those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens and take out their anger… represent the worst of humankind.' That's why I am calling on President Bush and the Republican leadership to condemn this latest example of hate-filled language.
"Peter King is using bigotry to make a buck, plain and simple," said DNC member Jim Zogby. "He does so showing no concern for the impact his remarks have on millions of decent, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans. While in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the President urged Americans not to strike out against their Arab and Muslim neighbors; too many members and supporters of his own Administration have undercut that message using anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric to create fear and suspicion."
"By failing to condemn and demand apologies from John Ashcroft, General Boykin, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham for their bigoted remarks, President Bush has undercut his own message and created a situation where some in his party now feel they have a presidential green light to spread a message of hate," said Zogby who also heads the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee. "One person could put a stop to all of this, and we call on President Bush to do the right thing and condemn those in his administration, in his party and those among his supporters who continue to spew anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry."
Monday, February 16, 2004
Pete King: Opportunist pt. 1
Pete was on the Sean Hannity Show and said that he believes that "85 percent" of the mosques in the United States have "extremist leadership" In Newsday he reiterated his comments by saying "Most of the Muslim community is cooperating with police and local authorities," King said yesterday. "But 85 percent of the mosques have extremist leadership in this country. Most Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, are loyal Americans, but they seem unwilling to come forward."
King based his "belief" on unnamed "law enforcement officials."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations pegged King's comments and appearance on Hannity for what it was: PUBLICITY. You see, King has a new novel which was released in January and he needs to boost sales among his fellow-travellers. In his book he makes the same accusations he made on Hannity. The council executive director invited King to meet with local Islamic leaders but of course King does not want to do that. We went through Kings qualifications for the meeting yesterday.
King is willing to smear American Islamic leaders on the vile Sean Hannity Show to make a buck. King likes to play to the far-right while keeping up an "independent" facade to fool voters.
Some reviews of previous King scribblings:
"... propaganda-heavy first novel" Reed Business Information, Inc
"King shouldn't give up his day job" Booklist
"Congressman King has given us a piece of IRA agitprop that Brendan Behan himself wouldn't be able to read with a straight face."
"Straight-faced propaganda, without a hint of irony, a shade of complexity, or a suggestion of depth: If King is looking for a photo-op with Gerry Adams, hes earned it." Kirkus Reviews
King based his "belief" on unnamed "law enforcement officials."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations pegged King's comments and appearance on Hannity for what it was: PUBLICITY. You see, King has a new novel which was released in January and he needs to boost sales among his fellow-travellers. In his book he makes the same accusations he made on Hannity. The council executive director invited King to meet with local Islamic leaders but of course King does not want to do that. We went through Kings qualifications for the meeting yesterday.
King is willing to smear American Islamic leaders on the vile Sean Hannity Show to make a buck. King likes to play to the far-right while keeping up an "independent" facade to fool voters.
Some reviews of previous King scribblings:
"... propaganda-heavy first novel" Reed Business Information, Inc
"King shouldn't give up his day job" Booklist
"Congressman King has given us a piece of IRA agitprop that Brendan Behan himself wouldn't be able to read with a straight face."
"Straight-faced propaganda, without a hint of irony, a shade of complexity, or a suggestion of depth: If King is looking for a photo-op with Gerry Adams, hes earned it." Kirkus Reviews
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Who do you work for Peter?
The Feb. 12th Newsday article about King and local Muslims has alot to offer. We are going to start here and add more later.
Local muslim leaders who were offeded by King's comments want to meet with him. King is quoted as saying he would meet with them "on my terms. I'm not going to listen to propaganda. The purpose of the meeting will be to detail the cooperation they are giving to law enforcement and what they are doing to work against al-Qaida in this country."
Let's see that again "on my terms." Who does King think he is? Peter King is a public servant. His salary is paid for by taxpayers. He is answerable to those taxpayers and quite frankly has "no terms" which the taxpayers are required to meet. If I have something to say to my congressman, he better damn well listen because that is his job. There are no qualifiers for the conversation.
In the article King is also quoted as saying that criticizing foreign policy is fine BUT "not in the wake of the largest tragedy ever to strike this country." So to King, the first amendment is no longer valid and we should all shut the hell up and agree with Bush. We don't think so.
This all harks back to last year when there was an organized effort by move-on.org to have constituents all over the country speak to thier congressional representative about why the war in Iraq was wrong. Reps around the country from both sides of the political aisle invited the consituents in to speak with them. Not Peter King. He hid in his office, refused to meet with his constituents and called the police. King is quoted as saying "I do not want to be a part of any national effort to undermine the President." A letter to the Massapequan Observer asked the question "I would like to know how airing opposing views on the reasoning behind war is "undermining." How does meeting with constituents do any harm?" That's what we would like to know.
Let it be known that unless you come to give him praise, take a picture with him or offer a campaign contribution, Peter King doesn't want to hear you.
Why doesn't King want to listen to his constituents? Call him or e-mail and ask him 202-225- 7896
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
Quote of the Day:
"I have never met a single other Republican who felt that Mr. King spoke for the party or for any Republican other than himself. Indeed, the only ‘Republican’ organization I have ever noticed Mr. King represent is the Irish Republican Army."
Sen. John McCain , The Hill Newspaper December 1997.
Local muslim leaders who were offeded by King's comments want to meet with him. King is quoted as saying he would meet with them "on my terms. I'm not going to listen to propaganda. The purpose of the meeting will be to detail the cooperation they are giving to law enforcement and what they are doing to work against al-Qaida in this country."
Let's see that again "on my terms." Who does King think he is? Peter King is a public servant. His salary is paid for by taxpayers. He is answerable to those taxpayers and quite frankly has "no terms" which the taxpayers are required to meet. If I have something to say to my congressman, he better damn well listen because that is his job. There are no qualifiers for the conversation.
In the article King is also quoted as saying that criticizing foreign policy is fine BUT "not in the wake of the largest tragedy ever to strike this country." So to King, the first amendment is no longer valid and we should all shut the hell up and agree with Bush. We don't think so.
This all harks back to last year when there was an organized effort by move-on.org to have constituents all over the country speak to thier congressional representative about why the war in Iraq was wrong. Reps around the country from both sides of the political aisle invited the consituents in to speak with them. Not Peter King. He hid in his office, refused to meet with his constituents and called the police. King is quoted as saying "I do not want to be a part of any national effort to undermine the President." A letter to the Massapequan Observer asked the question "I would like to know how airing opposing views on the reasoning behind war is "undermining." How does meeting with constituents do any harm?" That's what we would like to know.
Let it be known that unless you come to give him praise, take a picture with him or offer a campaign contribution, Peter King doesn't want to hear you.
Why doesn't King want to listen to his constituents? Call him or e-mail and ask him 202-225- 7896
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
Quote of the Day:
"I have never met a single other Republican who felt that Mr. King spoke for the party or for any Republican other than himself. Indeed, the only ‘Republican’ organization I have ever noticed Mr. King represent is the Irish Republican Army."
Sen. John McCain , The Hill Newspaper December 1997.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
