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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.”