Just a reminder to those who think King has a clue...
This post is from March of 2004. Nothing has changed since then and King still clings to his uneducated remarks.
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 available 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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
King Homeland Security Chairman? HA!
Since late June, King has been jockeying to be the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King is "running" against Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska)and Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).
King told Newsday "This is serious business. I'm campaigning, but not in the traditional sense because the issue is so serious,"
Which is not quite true. He has been trying to tear down opponent Youing using Young's vote for the Sanders Amendment that would protect citizens privacy. Young opposes some of the "Patriot Act" and supports protecting our freedoms first. Rep. Weldon would have alos voted for the amendment according The Hill "He missed that vote because he had a family emergency,” said Russ Caso, Weldon’s chief of staff. “He would have voted for the Sanders amendment."
King went after Young by saying "I can understand someone being against it, but it’s difficult to understand someone being against it and then being chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. There’s an underlying inconsistency in being chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and being against a basic provision of the Patriot Act.”
The is no inconsistency at all. The "Patriot Act" is extremely flawed and elected officials and scholars from across the political spectrum oppose much of it. Young and Weldon seem to want to fix the flaws while King will be a lapdog of Bush administration extremists.
What IS inconsistant is King defending the treason of Karl Rove, being a long-time supporter of the terrorist IRA, defending Bush adminsitration lies leading to war, and acting increasingly unstable, but wanting to be the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Laughably Leslie Feldman, a political scientist at Hofstra University tells Newsday "He understands the importance of homeland security. He understands the significance of 9/11 and making sure that it doesn't happen again. King has increasingly been getting a more national image."
Feldman also says "His position on national security is as tough as anybody's,"
Yes, King is getting a more national image but it isn't a good one. His blatant lies and extremist talk isn't impressing anyone. Does King "understand" the importance of homeland security? Certainly not when he is defending the outing of an undercover CIA agent. King is tough where he wants to be tough and lets slide administion failures and crimes.
How has King's buddy-buddy act gone over with Bush and the rest of the republicans? Not so good for NY. We are still getting less than Wyoming in homeland security funds, our transit system will not be getting additional security and we still haven't gotten all the funds pledged back in 2001. In fact, congress took money back! "Congress moved late Thursday night to take back some $125 million in unspent September 11 aid to New York.New York lawmakers sought to persuade the House Appropriations Committee to reconsider, but the panel rejected an amendment offered by Rep. James Walsh, R-New York, that would have let the state keep the $125 million to treat ground zero workers who develop health problems in the future.The $125 million was first given to the New York state workers compensation board after September 11, 2001, to help pay administrative costs of handling claims from construction and recovery workers."
How effective is King? Not very.
King told Newsday "This is serious business. I'm campaigning, but not in the traditional sense because the issue is so serious,"
Which is not quite true. He has been trying to tear down opponent Youing using Young's vote for the Sanders Amendment that would protect citizens privacy. Young opposes some of the "Patriot Act" and supports protecting our freedoms first. Rep. Weldon would have alos voted for the amendment according The Hill "He missed that vote because he had a family emergency,” said Russ Caso, Weldon’s chief of staff. “He would have voted for the Sanders amendment."
King went after Young by saying "I can understand someone being against it, but it’s difficult to understand someone being against it and then being chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. There’s an underlying inconsistency in being chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and being against a basic provision of the Patriot Act.”
The is no inconsistency at all. The "Patriot Act" is extremely flawed and elected officials and scholars from across the political spectrum oppose much of it. Young and Weldon seem to want to fix the flaws while King will be a lapdog of Bush administration extremists.
What IS inconsistant is King defending the treason of Karl Rove, being a long-time supporter of the terrorist IRA, defending Bush adminsitration lies leading to war, and acting increasingly unstable, but wanting to be the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Laughably Leslie Feldman, a political scientist at Hofstra University tells Newsday "He understands the importance of homeland security. He understands the significance of 9/11 and making sure that it doesn't happen again. King has increasingly been getting a more national image."
Feldman also says "His position on national security is as tough as anybody's,"
Yes, King is getting a more national image but it isn't a good one. His blatant lies and extremist talk isn't impressing anyone. Does King "understand" the importance of homeland security? Certainly not when he is defending the outing of an undercover CIA agent. King is tough where he wants to be tough and lets slide administion failures and crimes.
How has King's buddy-buddy act gone over with Bush and the rest of the republicans? Not so good for NY. We are still getting less than Wyoming in homeland security funds, our transit system will not be getting additional security and we still haven't gotten all the funds pledged back in 2001. In fact, congress took money back! "Congress moved late Thursday night to take back some $125 million in unspent September 11 aid to New York.New York lawmakers sought to persuade the House Appropriations Committee to reconsider, but the panel rejected an amendment offered by Rep. James Walsh, R-New York, that would have let the state keep the $125 million to treat ground zero workers who develop health problems in the future.The $125 million was first given to the New York state workers compensation board after September 11, 2001, to help pay administrative costs of handling claims from construction and recovery workers."
How effective is King? Not very.
King and Karl: Loving a Traitor
King is absolutely unbelievable. (Yup, I've finally gotten to his most recent comments)
On MSNBC's Scarborough Country discussing the treason of Bush advisor Karl Rove, King said "And I think people like Tim Russert [host of NBC's "Meet the Press"] and the others who gave this guy such a free ride, and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove,"
What is coming out now is that Rove LIED to the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and might be facing more charges. A medal indeed.
This whole incident leads to one inescapable conclusion; King is increasingly unstable and should retire. Add this to his other extremist tirades and weird outbursts and we have a pattern.
On MSNBC's Scarborough Country discussing the treason of Bush advisor Karl Rove, King said "And I think people like Tim Russert [host of NBC's "Meet the Press"] and the others who gave this guy such a free ride, and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove,"
King even said "No, in fact, I think Karl Rove should get a medal, Joe. I really mean that."
So the media is helping expose the fact that Karl Rove committed treason by releasing the name of an undecover CIA agent deserves punishment. Karl Rove did nothing wrong and deserves a medal. The outing of Valerie Plame was political retribution against her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson who publiclly pointed out that what Bush was saying about Iraq and WMD's was false.
In King's world, it is Ambassador Wilson who should be investigated. The fact of the matter is that Wilson told the truth and his wife's life was put in danger.
And it was not just his wife's life. It was teh lives of any of her contacts and the Amercican people who she was working to protect. Valerie Plame was working on searching for rogue WMD's. Weapons that can be used against us. Her work is now destroyed.
King came under fire for his "shoot the media" comments but ran to Newsday to make cheap excuses "The congressman said he was making a literary allusion to Sophocles and Shakespeare about not shooting the messenger.
"Karl Rove is the messenger," King said. "He did nothing wrong in telling the truth that Joe Wilson's wife was in the CIA."
Hey King, Rove did EVERYTHING wrong. He outed an undercover CIA operative.
King makes the weakest and most laughable excuse "Joe Wilson listed his wife's name in his own bio. It was on—it was in his Web site. He listed his wife's name. So, it was no secret that she was his wife."
But Ambassador Wilson never said his wife was an undercover CIA agent. King is just grasping for straws here.
King further disgraced himself when he answered the following:
"SCARBOROUGH: If I were a Democratic senator, what I would say was, the last thing you want to do, because you keep talking about the fact we are at a time of war.
KING: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: The last thing you want to do at a time of war is reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents.
KING: No.
Joe Wilson, she recommended—his wife recommended him for this. He said the vice president recommended him. To me, she took it off the table. Once she allowed him to go ahead and say that, write his op-ed in “The New York Times,” to have Tim Russert give him a full hour on “Meet the Press,” saying that he was sent there as a representative of the vice president, when she knew, she knew herself that she was the one that recommended him for it, she allowed that lie to go forward involving the vice president of the United States, the president of the United States, then to me she should be the last one in the world who has any right to complain."
Again King says it is alright to destroy years of intelligence work for retribution. What Rove did was illegal and King defending him makes King a defender of treason.
King keeps digging a hole by saying "KING: Let's at least stand by the guy (Rove). He was trying to set the record straight for historical purposes and to save American lives. And if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she should have come out and said that her husband was a liar, when he was."
Rove was trying to "save american lives" by destrying the work of an agent who is searching for rogue WMD's?????
What is coming out now is that Rove LIED to the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and might be facing more charges. A medal indeed.
This whole incident leads to one inescapable conclusion; King is increasingly unstable and should retire. Add this to his other extremist tirades and weird outbursts and we have a pattern.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
King and Karl Pt. 3
We really haven't delved into the new King comments on Rove but plan to shortly.
King sees no problem in an undercover CIA agents name being revealed and her life and the lives of those she worked with put in danger.
Here though is an interesting quote from a personal hero of King's: (special thanks to Spanner Jaxs Low Rent Rat)
"Whether you work in Langley or a faraway nation, whether your tasks are in operations or analysis sections, it is upon your intellect and integrity, your wit and intuition that the fate of freedom rests for millions of your countrymen and for many millions more all around the globe. You are the trip-wire across which the forces of repression and tyranny must stumble in their quest for global domination. You, the men and women of the CIA, are the eyes and ears of the free world.
Like those who are part of any silent service, your sacrifices are sometimes unappreciated; your work is sometimes misunderstood. Because you're professionals, you understand and accept this. But because you're human and because you deal daily in the dangers that confront this nation, you must sometimes question whether some of your countrymen appreciate the value of your accomplishments, the sacrifices you make, the dangers you confront, the importance of the warnings that you issue.
And that's why I have come here today; first, to sign an important piece of legislation that bears directly on your work, an act of Congress whose overwhelming passsage by the representatives of the American people is a symbol of their support for the job that you do every day. But even more than this, I've come here today to say to you what the vast majority of Americans would say if they had this opportunity to stand here before you. We're grateful to you. We thank you. We're proud of you......
The Congress has carefully drafted this bill so that it focuses only on those who would transgress the bounds of decency; not those who would exercise their legitimate right of dissent. This carefully drawn act recognizes that the revelation of the names of secret agents adds nothing to legitimate public debate over intelligence policy. It is also a signal to the world that while we in this democratic nation remain tolerant and flexible, we also retain our good sense and our resolve to protect our own security and that of the brave men and women who serve us in difficult and dangerous intelligence assignments."
-Ronald Reagan
King sees no problem in an undercover CIA agents name being revealed and her life and the lives of those she worked with put in danger.
Here though is an interesting quote from a personal hero of King's: (special thanks to Spanner Jaxs Low Rent Rat)
"Whether you work in Langley or a faraway nation, whether your tasks are in operations or analysis sections, it is upon your intellect and integrity, your wit and intuition that the fate of freedom rests for millions of your countrymen and for many millions more all around the globe. You are the trip-wire across which the forces of repression and tyranny must stumble in their quest for global domination. You, the men and women of the CIA, are the eyes and ears of the free world.
Like those who are part of any silent service, your sacrifices are sometimes unappreciated; your work is sometimes misunderstood. Because you're professionals, you understand and accept this. But because you're human and because you deal daily in the dangers that confront this nation, you must sometimes question whether some of your countrymen appreciate the value of your accomplishments, the sacrifices you make, the dangers you confront, the importance of the warnings that you issue.
And that's why I have come here today; first, to sign an important piece of legislation that bears directly on your work, an act of Congress whose overwhelming passsage by the representatives of the American people is a symbol of their support for the job that you do every day. But even more than this, I've come here today to say to you what the vast majority of Americans would say if they had this opportunity to stand here before you. We're grateful to you. We thank you. We're proud of you......
The Congress has carefully drafted this bill so that it focuses only on those who would transgress the bounds of decency; not those who would exercise their legitimate right of dissent. This carefully drawn act recognizes that the revelation of the names of secret agents adds nothing to legitimate public debate over intelligence policy. It is also a signal to the world that while we in this democratic nation remain tolerant and flexible, we also retain our good sense and our resolve to protect our own security and that of the brave men and women who serve us in difficult and dangerous intelligence assignments."
-Ronald Reagan
King and Karl Pt. 2
Back in June, before Rove became the focus of the Treason investigation he made comments about how liberals reacted to 9/11.
Rove said "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Senator Clinton among other Democrats demanded an apology or a resignation. She said "I would call on anyone who was at that dinner who is a New Yorker who cares about the unity of not only New York City but of our country to say we may have disagreements about what the best way is to win the war against terror, but we have no disagreements about our unity and our resolve and the goals we seek,"
So first in chimes our half-witted Governor Pataki to say "I think it's a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments. Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue _ insulting every Republican, comparing our soldiers to Nazis or Soviet gulag guards _ and never protesting when she serves with them,"
Pataki was of course refering to the Durbin remarks taken way out of context by the republicans. Durbin never called our soldiers "nazis." He did however point out that there was brutal treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib. Turns out that as this is being written, more photos and video releases are bveing sought. These images show brutal beatings and rape.
King then piped up to say "Karl Rove deserves a medal. Hillary Clinton, she's the one who went to the floor of the Senate and implied President Bush knew about Sept. 11 and let it happen."
That is of course a lie only an extremist with increasingly unstable tendencies would say. We know that Senator Clinton said no such thing.
Now for the round-up.
Pataki takes Clinton to task for not repudiating statements about "Nazi's" yet Pataki has yet to repudiate Peter King for saying on the House floor September 8, 2004 opposing a court's pro-choice ruling "That, Mr. Speaker, is a modern-day equivalent of the Nazi prison guard saying ‘I was just following orders.’ It was all legal in Nazi Germany at the time.”
And on WNBC's Gabe Pressman show September 5th, 2004, King blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 by saying "... and 'cause Bill Clinton put it off for eight years, and that's why we had the twin towers on 9/11."
So King is a hypocrite and so is Pataki. Nothing new here really.
A side note: Why is Pataki a dim-wit as we said earlier?
During the 2000 NY Senate campaign (which King laughingly toyed with) there was a debate on WCBS where Hillary Clinton was asked about what it means to be a New Yorker. Her response included a quote from author E.B. White who wrote "Charlotte's Web" and many other fine works and was born and raised in New York.
To a reporter after the debate, Pataki said
"Rick Lazio looks, sounds and talks like a New Yorker. Mrs. Clinton quoted some guy, Wyatt or somebody—I don't think he was from Brooklyn—with some definition of a New Yorker that she must have read somewhere. I don't know who that guy was. I don't know what he wrote. I don't know where he was from. But it sure doesn't sound to me like that guy was a New Yorker or understood New York the way we do."
A reporter then asked Wacky Pataki:
“Governor, you’ve never heard of E. B. White?”
Pataki responded: “Where’s he from? Well, maybe the average member of the media who lives in Manhattan, when they’re quoting New York, would use E. B. White, or whatever his name is. I don’t think people from Brooklyn or Peekskill would have quoted that person.”
And there you have it.
Rove said "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Senator Clinton among other Democrats demanded an apology or a resignation. She said "I would call on anyone who was at that dinner who is a New Yorker who cares about the unity of not only New York City but of our country to say we may have disagreements about what the best way is to win the war against terror, but we have no disagreements about our unity and our resolve and the goals we seek,"
So first in chimes our half-witted Governor Pataki to say "I think it's a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments. Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue _ insulting every Republican, comparing our soldiers to Nazis or Soviet gulag guards _ and never protesting when she serves with them,"
Pataki was of course refering to the Durbin remarks taken way out of context by the republicans. Durbin never called our soldiers "nazis." He did however point out that there was brutal treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib. Turns out that as this is being written, more photos and video releases are bveing sought. These images show brutal beatings and rape.
King then piped up to say "Karl Rove deserves a medal. Hillary Clinton, she's the one who went to the floor of the Senate and implied President Bush knew about Sept. 11 and let it happen."
That is of course a lie only an extremist with increasingly unstable tendencies would say. We know that Senator Clinton said no such thing.
Now for the round-up.
Pataki takes Clinton to task for not repudiating statements about "Nazi's" yet Pataki has yet to repudiate Peter King for saying on the House floor September 8, 2004 opposing a court's pro-choice ruling "That, Mr. Speaker, is a modern-day equivalent of the Nazi prison guard saying ‘I was just following orders.’ It was all legal in Nazi Germany at the time.”
And on WNBC's Gabe Pressman show September 5th, 2004, King blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 by saying "... and 'cause Bill Clinton put it off for eight years, and that's why we had the twin towers on 9/11."
So King is a hypocrite and so is Pataki. Nothing new here really.
A side note: Why is Pataki a dim-wit as we said earlier?
During the 2000 NY Senate campaign (which King laughingly toyed with) there was a debate on WCBS where Hillary Clinton was asked about what it means to be a New Yorker. Her response included a quote from author E.B. White who wrote "Charlotte's Web" and many other fine works and was born and raised in New York.
To a reporter after the debate, Pataki said
"Rick Lazio looks, sounds and talks like a New Yorker. Mrs. Clinton quoted some guy, Wyatt or somebody—I don't think he was from Brooklyn—with some definition of a New Yorker that she must have read somewhere. I don't know who that guy was. I don't know what he wrote. I don't know where he was from. But it sure doesn't sound to me like that guy was a New Yorker or understood New York the way we do."
A reporter then asked Wacky Pataki:
“Governor, you’ve never heard of E. B. White?”
Pataki responded: “Where’s he from? Well, maybe the average member of the media who lives in Manhattan, when they’re quoting New York, would use E. B. White, or whatever his name is. I don’t think people from Brooklyn or Peekskill would have quoted that person.”
And there you have it.
King and Karl Pt. 1
Over a year ago we covered the CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing by the Bush administration. At that time King was making some pretty stupid remarks like he is doing now.
We reported that King was saying Ambassador Joe Wilson should be investigated for his exposing of Bush's WMD lies. 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."
Now we all know what happens when you "assume." King was wrong as usual and there was no confidentiality agreement.
Ambassador Wilson responded to King's wacky and increasingly unstable remarks by saying "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."
We reported that King was saying Ambassador Joe Wilson should be investigated for his exposing of Bush's WMD lies. 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."
Now we all know what happens when you "assume." King was wrong as usual and there was no confidentiality agreement.
Ambassador Wilson responded to King's wacky and increasingly unstable remarks by saying "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."
Monday, July 25, 2005
King and Labor
For some reason, King has had support from local unions and gotten money from national groups.
For some reason, Labor Unions think that King is thier friend.
According to the AFL-CIO this isn't very true. On their website in the area that tracks congressional action on pro-labor, pro-working families, King does abysmally.
From the website intro:
"This electronic AFL-CIO Voting Record will let you know where your lawmakers stand on working family issues such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare, freedom to join a union, workplace safety and more.
All votes were selected for inclusion because of their importance to working families. "W" indicates a "wrong" vote that would hurt working families; "R" indicates a "right," or pro-working families, vote. The Voting Record also shows each member's lifetime record of support for working families."
King's 2004 record on issues of concern to the AFL-CIO show he voted with Labor only 50% of the time.
His lifetime votes with Labor are only 37%.
This is not the record of a pro-labor congressman.
So why does Labor support King?
That is a mystery we need to ask the Unions about. In the coming weeks we will be contacting area Locals and ask them why they endorse and monetarily support a congressman who votes in opposition to thier concerns.
For some reason, Labor Unions think that King is thier friend.
According to the AFL-CIO this isn't very true. On their website in the area that tracks congressional action on pro-labor, pro-working families, King does abysmally.
From the website intro:
"This electronic AFL-CIO Voting Record will let you know where your lawmakers stand on working family issues such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare, freedom to join a union, workplace safety and more.
All votes were selected for inclusion because of their importance to working families. "W" indicates a "wrong" vote that would hurt working families; "R" indicates a "right," or pro-working families, vote. The Voting Record also shows each member's lifetime record of support for working families."
King's 2004 record on issues of concern to the AFL-CIO show he voted with Labor only 50% of the time.
His lifetime votes with Labor are only 37%.
This is not the record of a pro-labor congressman.
So why does Labor support King?
That is a mystery we need to ask the Unions about. In the coming weeks we will be contacting area Locals and ask them why they endorse and monetarily support a congressman who votes in opposition to thier concerns.
Back from Vacation
We took an unannouced vacation to europe for ten days and the mail bag filled up fast. We missed King's meltdown on Scarborough Country and the subsequent cheap excuse. We'll cover that tomorrow with some added info about King's instability and extremism.
More attacks on King in Newsday Letters
Newsday July 22nd, 2005
The quote from Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) says it all ("King: Leave the guy alone," News, July 16)."Karl Rove is the messenger," King said. "He did nothing wrong in telling the truth that Joe Wilson's wife was in the CIA."The president's close personal adviser did nothing wrong? Since when is outing a covert CIA operative nothing wrong?The hubris and the arrogance of this administration overwhelm me.
Vicki Alspector
Lynbrook
The quote from Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) says it all ("King: Leave the guy alone," News, July 16)."Karl Rove is the messenger," King said. "He did nothing wrong in telling the truth that Joe Wilson's wife was in the CIA."The president's close personal adviser did nothing wrong? Since when is outing a covert CIA operative nothing wrong?The hubris and the arrogance of this administration overwhelm me.
Vicki Alspector
Lynbrook
King Sends Another Letter
Via Daily Kos diaries, reprinted by permission from author:
Rep. Peter King, Karl Rove, and me
by Cynicor
Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:01:47 PDT
When Karl Rove made his intemperate comments about liberals two weeks ago, I sent email to my congressman, Peter King (R-NY) asking if he would rise above partisan trash and take a stand against this divisiveness. Over the weekend, I got my answer. Rep. King sent me a lengthy (two pages typed) note that was, well, I will let the letters speak for themselves. (They're below the fold.)
-->
My email letter to Rep. Peter King:
Sent: 6/23/05
Subject: How do you view Iraq war dissenters?
Dear Rep. King,
I was quite disturbed by a passage I just read in the New York Times:
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
I am a liberal in your district, and I know you as a public servant who is not afraid to take a principled, rather than partisan, stand on issues - even when I don't agree with you. However, I find this statement emanating from a senior member of the White House staff to be deeply offensive and troubling. I am being accused of wanting our troops to die! This is not the sort of rhetoric we need during a time of war, and I strongly resent the idea that I would ever want any of our soldiers to be put in greater danger. Mr. Rove is going beyond mere politics by making personally slanderous and degrading comments like this.
As a constituent of yours, I would like to know, sir, if you agree with Mr. Rove's statements. Does he speak for you? Or are you willing to take a public stand against this type of gross partisan attack?
Sincerely,
(name, address and phone supplied)
Rep. King quickly replied via postal mail, and his response was not only long (two typed pages), it was quite clearly not auto-generated. Here's what Rep. King had to say to me. Comments welcome.
Dear (my name):
I am in receipt of your June 23rd e-mail and disagree in toto with your accusations regarding Karl Rove's speech.
If you are capable of such indignant outrage, I am surprised you didn't contact me to express your disgust when Senator Durbin scandalously attempted to juxtapose Guantanamo with Hitler and Stalin.
What Karl Rove did do was deliver a speech which was politically incorrect but entirely factual. He pointed out inter alia that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks a number of prominent liberals such as MoveOn.org urged "moderation and restraint" in response to the terrorist attacks rather than "war, violence or destruction." Even more egregious was Michael Moore whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" film hypothesized that the war against Afghanistan resulted from collusion between President Bush and the oil industry.
I have been in politics long enough to know that wacko elements are always attempting to attach themselves to our main political parties. This only becomes significant when the political party in question fails to reject that fringe element or, even worse, accepts its support. Responsible political leaders are expected to act quickly and decisively. For instance, in 1948, Harry Truman risked reelection but did the right thing by severing all connections with Henry Wallace and the pro-communists in the Progressive Party. Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society.
Considering the horror of 9/11, I would have expected today's Democrats to emulate Harry Truman. Instead, Democratic leaders such as harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin actually speak at MoveOn rallies, giving encouragement and support to this fringe movement. ("We are depending on you" said Harry Reid; "MoveOn.org, you're changing America for the better," added Senator Durbin.) Democratic candidates have also accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from MoveOn.org's PAC. As for Michael Moore, the Democrats gave him a seat of honor at their national convention-- in a luxury box next to President Carter. (As a New Yorker weren't you outraged that a man who had so shamefully defiled 9/11 was treated with such respect and dignity by the Democratic leaders?) Then, or course there was Howard Dean, the National Chairman of the Democratic Party, saying he didn't want to "prejudge" Bin Laden's guilt prior to a "jury trial."
What all of this means is that too many Democrats, in their zeal to bring down President Bush, are aligning themselves with the most radical left-wing fringe elements and ignoring the damage this could do to our country in time of war. This is why Democrats such as Ed Koch supported President Bush for reelection because he did not believe Democratic leaders "had the stomach" to effectively fight terrorism.
Karl Rove did not challenge the patriotism of liberals. He questioned their judgment and their ability to do what has to be done to win a long and difficult war that must be fought in many place and in many ways.
Democrats should welcome Karl Rove's speech as a clarion call to save their party from the left-wing fringe elements. If they do, perhaps in the future Democrats will not again stand mute when their leaders such as Senator Durbin shamefully slander.
Two years ago Andrew Cuomo wrote that Democrats "handled 9/11 like it was a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives. We fumbled the seminal movement of our lives- the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The President exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader. He deserves credit, as to Congressional Republicans, for recognizing the challenge of 9/11 and rising to it."
The time has come for you to accept the challenge and acknowledge that Karl Rove is right. By doing so, you will save your party, and, much more importantly, your country.
Very truly yous, [sic]
PETER T. KING Member of Congress
P.S. I would suggest that you broaden your horizons and read something besides the New York Times.
A sample of comments that easily refute King's letter:
out of context
This was the intro to his book Crossroads; what is left out is that Cuomo's criticisms are POLITICAL: Democrats lost elections in 2000 and 2002 because "we were lost in time...To voters, we seemed bloodless, soulless and clueless."
In other words, the Dems were really stupid not to pander. This does not question their patriotism.
My favorite parts....
(Not to reply to my own diary, but I'm replying to my own diary.)
My favorite parts of the letter were:
The unnecessary use of Latin phrases to sound learned.
The scolding about terrorism. Don't forget that Rep. King has long been seen as Sinn Fein's strongest proponent in the United States, whether you believe that the IRA is a terrorist organization or not.
The completely gratuitous P.S. he tacked on the end. Dude, I totally read the Guardian and Greg Palast's site too! Besides, if I only had the perspectives offered by the New York Times, I'd have believed that there were WMD in Iraq and that Whitewater was a real scandal.
by Cynicor
What Peter King just wrote...
is a talking point that the GOP conspiracy machine is passing around to it's members... I have met (I live in a red state) at least 7 republicans who used exactly the same arguments to defend the remarks made by Rove. So, it looks like they are trying to frame the foreign policy debate for 2006 elections and if Democrats do no counter-attack this kind of msg ASAP, then I'm affraid that we are gonna see the Democrats loose the foreign policy debate once again, despite the obvious foreign policy failure of this administration...
the new mccarthyism
the reference to truman is telling. he's letting us in on the GOP's strategy there.
"For instance, in 1948, Harry Truman risked reelection but did the right thing by severing all connections with Henry Wallace and the pro-communists in the Progressive Party. Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society.
Considering the horror of 9/11, I would have expected today's Democrats to emulate Harry Truman."
What he is referring to is truman's capitulation to the republican red-baiting of the time. after signing a law prohibiting communists from government employment, truman declared "no one will be able to call democrats soft on communism anymore." but of course the republicans, led by mccarthy, did exactly that. and democrats took a political hit because they didn't stand up to mccarthy.
it's pretty clear the GOP's strategists are hoping to get history to repeat itself here.
we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.— e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association
My favorite turd from that pile...
"What Karl Rove did do was deliver a speech which was politically incorrect but entirely factual. He pointed out inter alia that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks a number of prominent liberals such as MoveOn.org urged "moderation and restraint" in response to the terrorist attacks rather than "war, violence or destruction." Even more egregious..."
Whoa- is he actually saying it's egregious that democrats wanted something other than "war, violence or destruction"? Is he on uber-crack? I can't believe these people. This is what this man stands for. It should be paraded in front of every one of his constituents.
When will you be "ready to fight fifty years to win"?
Outrageous and astonishing
This is flawed on so many levels.
Aside from the obvious, which has been pointed out several times already, I noticed he uses the "yes but he did it first" defence, which is meaningless and shows the arguer to be devoid of any solid basis for their actions or beliefs.
In fact, by using this "defence" he basically is attacking his own argument. He decries statements by Michael Moore and Durbin and MoveOn.org while at the same time using this (apparently) as a justification that what Rove said is fine. Well, which is it? How can you hold those up as examples of what is OKAY TO DO while at the same time breaking them down as being WRONG?
If they are related, as he says, and they are bad, then Rove`s are also bad.
If, however, they are not related, then bringing them up as a "yes but he said it first" argument is absolutely null, since they would have nothing to do with each other.
Logically, it cannot be both ways, if these are identical behaviours. Either doing something is right, or it is wrong.
Of course, I do not believe they are the same thing, I am simply pointing out how this idiot cannot even argue logically to defend away Herr Direktor`s ludicrous nonsense, and defend his own attachment to it.
At the very least, this is a blatant - if lengthy - insult, thinly disguised as an attempt to persuade. However, I doubt that these were his intentions, and any doubts I had as to his actual intent were wiped away with the "PS".
Pathetic. Absolutely, completely, and worthlessly pathetic.
It is telling
that King's response to a measured and respectful letter is a malignant rehash of the administration's talking points.
Clearly, he has no interest in representing his constituents, which is certainly something that is newsworthy.
Rather than admit that Rove was over the top, or even that partisan rhetoric on both sides was out of control, he does little but attack you. Sounds like business as usual for the modern neocon.
Response suggestions:
re: Durbin and Guantanamo. What exactly is king's point? That Durbin was stupid for drawing a (perhaps spurious) parallel? That the quoted FBI agent was actually lying? That the described activities are a-ok? That Durbin's smear of soon-to-be jailed interrogators at Gitmo gives Rove to the right to accuse "liberals" of hating america? And why the hell would you write to mr king re: Durbin's comments anyway?... is mr king suggesting that he has some previously secret special influence with Durbin? That Rove ought to be as much of a man as Durbin and admit that he got a little out of control?... Or was this a complete non sequitor?
re: broad brushing liberals as being anti-american, stupid and evil, is, well, itself anti-american, stupid and evil. If mr rove wanted to complain about Mr Moore and MoveOn, then he could have done so directly. Instead he slandered something like half the country.
re: rewriting history. Perhaps mr king forgets that there was near universal (liberal included!) support of going after ObL/AQ no matter what it took, no matter the cost. Heck, pretty much the whole world was willing to do nearly anything to help us get justice. It isn't at all that liberals have lost the will for getting the job done, it is that we have lost all confidence that the adminstration and the republican establishment is capable of anything more than abject failure. We liberals think "the troops" are doing amazingly well trying to keep the counterproductive orders of the policymakers from becoming a total disaster: as is, W et al have squandered every bit of good will lent to the US post 9/11 and are hard at work alienating our remaining friends and allies.
re: "fringe elements". Gee, I don't see any mention of "fringe elements" in your letter - is mr king merely playing the same transparently partisan smear games, or is he seriously accusing all democrats and all liberals (all non-neocons republicans) of guilt by association?
re: NYT. Wow! mr king must be illegally abusing some pretty serious intelligence resources to know that you read only the NYT! Perhaps he is suggesting that the NYT misquoted Rove? or is this just another attempt to make a bizarre partisan attack on a member of his own constituency?
sigh - who elects these bozos?
Buckley?
"Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society."
Send this back to King.
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war." -- William F. Buckley, Jr., June 29, 2004
Mr. King, you sir are the the modern day poster child metaphor for John Birch Society, and you are wrong on every major point surrounding the war and Rove's hypocritical and disgusting behavior.
Not that this butt-truffle would ever recognize what a hypocritical traitorous scum-bag he is and accept responsibility for his errors and attack against you (and by proxy many of us here) and own up to the disaster he and his party have created.
Rep. Peter King, Karl Rove, and me
by Cynicor
Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:01:47 PDT
When Karl Rove made his intemperate comments about liberals two weeks ago, I sent email to my congressman, Peter King (R-NY) asking if he would rise above partisan trash and take a stand against this divisiveness. Over the weekend, I got my answer. Rep. King sent me a lengthy (two pages typed) note that was, well, I will let the letters speak for themselves. (They're below the fold.)
-->
My email letter to Rep. Peter King:
Sent: 6/23/05
Subject: How do you view Iraq war dissenters?
Dear Rep. King,
I was quite disturbed by a passage I just read in the New York Times:
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
I am a liberal in your district, and I know you as a public servant who is not afraid to take a principled, rather than partisan, stand on issues - even when I don't agree with you. However, I find this statement emanating from a senior member of the White House staff to be deeply offensive and troubling. I am being accused of wanting our troops to die! This is not the sort of rhetoric we need during a time of war, and I strongly resent the idea that I would ever want any of our soldiers to be put in greater danger. Mr. Rove is going beyond mere politics by making personally slanderous and degrading comments like this.
As a constituent of yours, I would like to know, sir, if you agree with Mr. Rove's statements. Does he speak for you? Or are you willing to take a public stand against this type of gross partisan attack?
Sincerely,
(name, address and phone supplied)
Rep. King quickly replied via postal mail, and his response was not only long (two typed pages), it was quite clearly not auto-generated. Here's what Rep. King had to say to me. Comments welcome.
Dear (my name):
I am in receipt of your June 23rd e-mail and disagree in toto with your accusations regarding Karl Rove's speech.
If you are capable of such indignant outrage, I am surprised you didn't contact me to express your disgust when Senator Durbin scandalously attempted to juxtapose Guantanamo with Hitler and Stalin.
What Karl Rove did do was deliver a speech which was politically incorrect but entirely factual. He pointed out inter alia that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks a number of prominent liberals such as MoveOn.org urged "moderation and restraint" in response to the terrorist attacks rather than "war, violence or destruction." Even more egregious was Michael Moore whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" film hypothesized that the war against Afghanistan resulted from collusion between President Bush and the oil industry.
I have been in politics long enough to know that wacko elements are always attempting to attach themselves to our main political parties. This only becomes significant when the political party in question fails to reject that fringe element or, even worse, accepts its support. Responsible political leaders are expected to act quickly and decisively. For instance, in 1948, Harry Truman risked reelection but did the right thing by severing all connections with Henry Wallace and the pro-communists in the Progressive Party. Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society.
Considering the horror of 9/11, I would have expected today's Democrats to emulate Harry Truman. Instead, Democratic leaders such as harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin actually speak at MoveOn rallies, giving encouragement and support to this fringe movement. ("We are depending on you" said Harry Reid; "MoveOn.org, you're changing America for the better," added Senator Durbin.) Democratic candidates have also accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from MoveOn.org's PAC. As for Michael Moore, the Democrats gave him a seat of honor at their national convention-- in a luxury box next to President Carter. (As a New Yorker weren't you outraged that a man who had so shamefully defiled 9/11 was treated with such respect and dignity by the Democratic leaders?) Then, or course there was Howard Dean, the National Chairman of the Democratic Party, saying he didn't want to "prejudge" Bin Laden's guilt prior to a "jury trial."
What all of this means is that too many Democrats, in their zeal to bring down President Bush, are aligning themselves with the most radical left-wing fringe elements and ignoring the damage this could do to our country in time of war. This is why Democrats such as Ed Koch supported President Bush for reelection because he did not believe Democratic leaders "had the stomach" to effectively fight terrorism.
Karl Rove did not challenge the patriotism of liberals. He questioned their judgment and their ability to do what has to be done to win a long and difficult war that must be fought in many place and in many ways.
Democrats should welcome Karl Rove's speech as a clarion call to save their party from the left-wing fringe elements. If they do, perhaps in the future Democrats will not again stand mute when their leaders such as Senator Durbin shamefully slander.
Two years ago Andrew Cuomo wrote that Democrats "handled 9/11 like it was a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives. We fumbled the seminal movement of our lives- the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The President exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader. He deserves credit, as to Congressional Republicans, for recognizing the challenge of 9/11 and rising to it."
The time has come for you to accept the challenge and acknowledge that Karl Rove is right. By doing so, you will save your party, and, much more importantly, your country.
Very truly yous, [sic]
PETER T. KING Member of Congress
P.S. I would suggest that you broaden your horizons and read something besides the New York Times.
A sample of comments that easily refute King's letter:
out of context
This was the intro to his book Crossroads; what is left out is that Cuomo's criticisms are POLITICAL: Democrats lost elections in 2000 and 2002 because "we were lost in time...To voters, we seemed bloodless, soulless and clueless."
In other words, the Dems were really stupid not to pander. This does not question their patriotism.
My favorite parts....
(Not to reply to my own diary, but I'm replying to my own diary.)
My favorite parts of the letter were:
The unnecessary use of Latin phrases to sound learned.
The scolding about terrorism. Don't forget that Rep. King has long been seen as Sinn Fein's strongest proponent in the United States, whether you believe that the IRA is a terrorist organization or not.
The completely gratuitous P.S. he tacked on the end. Dude, I totally read the Guardian and Greg Palast's site too! Besides, if I only had the perspectives offered by the New York Times, I'd have believed that there were WMD in Iraq and that Whitewater was a real scandal.
by Cynicor
What Peter King just wrote...
is a talking point that the GOP conspiracy machine is passing around to it's members... I have met (I live in a red state) at least 7 republicans who used exactly the same arguments to defend the remarks made by Rove. So, it looks like they are trying to frame the foreign policy debate for 2006 elections and if Democrats do no counter-attack this kind of msg ASAP, then I'm affraid that we are gonna see the Democrats loose the foreign policy debate once again, despite the obvious foreign policy failure of this administration...
the new mccarthyism
the reference to truman is telling. he's letting us in on the GOP's strategy there.
"For instance, in 1948, Harry Truman risked reelection but did the right thing by severing all connections with Henry Wallace and the pro-communists in the Progressive Party. Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society.
Considering the horror of 9/11, I would have expected today's Democrats to emulate Harry Truman."
What he is referring to is truman's capitulation to the republican red-baiting of the time. after signing a law prohibiting communists from government employment, truman declared "no one will be able to call democrats soft on communism anymore." but of course the republicans, led by mccarthy, did exactly that. and democrats took a political hit because they didn't stand up to mccarthy.
it's pretty clear the GOP's strategists are hoping to get history to repeat itself here.
we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.— e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association
My favorite turd from that pile...
"What Karl Rove did do was deliver a speech which was politically incorrect but entirely factual. He pointed out inter alia that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks a number of prominent liberals such as MoveOn.org urged "moderation and restraint" in response to the terrorist attacks rather than "war, violence or destruction." Even more egregious..."
Whoa- is he actually saying it's egregious that democrats wanted something other than "war, violence or destruction"? Is he on uber-crack? I can't believe these people. This is what this man stands for. It should be paraded in front of every one of his constituents.
When will you be "ready to fight fifty years to win"?
Outrageous and astonishing
This is flawed on so many levels.
Aside from the obvious, which has been pointed out several times already, I noticed he uses the "yes but he did it first" defence, which is meaningless and shows the arguer to be devoid of any solid basis for their actions or beliefs.
In fact, by using this "defence" he basically is attacking his own argument. He decries statements by Michael Moore and Durbin and MoveOn.org while at the same time using this (apparently) as a justification that what Rove said is fine. Well, which is it? How can you hold those up as examples of what is OKAY TO DO while at the same time breaking them down as being WRONG?
If they are related, as he says, and they are bad, then Rove`s are also bad.
If, however, they are not related, then bringing them up as a "yes but he said it first" argument is absolutely null, since they would have nothing to do with each other.
Logically, it cannot be both ways, if these are identical behaviours. Either doing something is right, or it is wrong.
Of course, I do not believe they are the same thing, I am simply pointing out how this idiot cannot even argue logically to defend away Herr Direktor`s ludicrous nonsense, and defend his own attachment to it.
At the very least, this is a blatant - if lengthy - insult, thinly disguised as an attempt to persuade. However, I doubt that these were his intentions, and any doubts I had as to his actual intent were wiped away with the "PS".
Pathetic. Absolutely, completely, and worthlessly pathetic.
It is telling
that King's response to a measured and respectful letter is a malignant rehash of the administration's talking points.
Clearly, he has no interest in representing his constituents, which is certainly something that is newsworthy.
Rather than admit that Rove was over the top, or even that partisan rhetoric on both sides was out of control, he does little but attack you. Sounds like business as usual for the modern neocon.
Response suggestions:
re: Durbin and Guantanamo. What exactly is king's point? That Durbin was stupid for drawing a (perhaps spurious) parallel? That the quoted FBI agent was actually lying? That the described activities are a-ok? That Durbin's smear of soon-to-be jailed interrogators at Gitmo gives Rove to the right to accuse "liberals" of hating america? And why the hell would you write to mr king re: Durbin's comments anyway?... is mr king suggesting that he has some previously secret special influence with Durbin? That Rove ought to be as much of a man as Durbin and admit that he got a little out of control?... Or was this a complete non sequitor?
re: broad brushing liberals as being anti-american, stupid and evil, is, well, itself anti-american, stupid and evil. If mr rove wanted to complain about Mr Moore and MoveOn, then he could have done so directly. Instead he slandered something like half the country.
re: rewriting history. Perhaps mr king forgets that there was near universal (liberal included!) support of going after ObL/AQ no matter what it took, no matter the cost. Heck, pretty much the whole world was willing to do nearly anything to help us get justice. It isn't at all that liberals have lost the will for getting the job done, it is that we have lost all confidence that the adminstration and the republican establishment is capable of anything more than abject failure. We liberals think "the troops" are doing amazingly well trying to keep the counterproductive orders of the policymakers from becoming a total disaster: as is, W et al have squandered every bit of good will lent to the US post 9/11 and are hard at work alienating our remaining friends and allies.
re: "fringe elements". Gee, I don't see any mention of "fringe elements" in your letter - is mr king merely playing the same transparently partisan smear games, or is he seriously accusing all democrats and all liberals (all non-neocons republicans) of guilt by association?
re: NYT. Wow! mr king must be illegally abusing some pretty serious intelligence resources to know that you read only the NYT! Perhaps he is suggesting that the NYT misquoted Rove? or is this just another attempt to make a bizarre partisan attack on a member of his own constituency?
sigh - who elects these bozos?
Buckley?
"Similarly, in 1962, the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Robert Welch and the John Birch Society."
Send this back to King.
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war." -- William F. Buckley, Jr., June 29, 2004
Mr. King, you sir are the the modern day poster child metaphor for John Birch Society, and you are wrong on every major point surrounding the war and Rove's hypocritical and disgusting behavior.
Not that this butt-truffle would ever recognize what a hypocritical traitorous scum-bag he is and accept responsibility for his errors and attack against you (and by proxy many of us here) and own up to the disaster he and his party have created.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Unhappy 5th for King - Letters to the Editor
From Today's Newsday:
Peter King thin-skinned
Obviously Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) doesn't care for his constituency asking him questions about issues that are raising concerns across America, not just Long Island. When a letter writer questioned the Bush administration, King said that the writer was "morally, intellectually and politically wrong" ["Fightin' words," News, June 30].
I wonder if Rep. King says the same thing about the Republican senators who are asking these same questions. Has he told this to Vietnam veterans Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), both of whom have said that they have "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?
Or perhaps he has written similar letters to his own House colleagues Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who have called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
He told another writer, "You don't know as much about Social Security as you pretend." Is this King's attempt to bully dissenters in his neighborhood, or is he completely out of touch with the questions that are being asked across New York and America on this very day?
P.C.
Glen Cove
Constituents who receive abusive letters from Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) should consider themselves lucky they get a response at all. I've resided in his district for a number of years and have yet to receive a reply to any of the messages I've sent to him. In contrast, I have received thoughtful - and sometimes personalized - replies from Sens. John McCain, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and other members of Congress from both parties. Even when they don't agree with me, they express respect for my opinions and go on to explain their own positions without resorting to negative language. Legislators of any party who don't respect and listen to all of their constituents should be turned out. I trust the voters will remember Rep. King's nasty letters - and equally nasty comments in Newsday - when we go to the polls in his district next year.
D.F.
Locust Valley
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) may have thought he was doing the Bush administration a favor when he said, "We would not have invaded Iraq without 9/11" ["Linking Iraq with 9/11," News, June 29]. Instead, he neatly summarized Bush's deception. No one in 2001, and no one now, could or can produce any evidence that Iraq had any role, even indirectly, in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. King reminds us that the attacks served as a handy pretext for an administration already hell-bent on making war with Saddam Hussein. It is a horrible, but foreseeable, irony that now there are plenty of terrorists in Iraq, because Bush's war put them there.
D.S.
Ridgewood
Peter King thin-skinned
Obviously Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) doesn't care for his constituency asking him questions about issues that are raising concerns across America, not just Long Island. When a letter writer questioned the Bush administration, King said that the writer was "morally, intellectually and politically wrong" ["Fightin' words," News, June 30].
I wonder if Rep. King says the same thing about the Republican senators who are asking these same questions. Has he told this to Vietnam veterans Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), both of whom have said that they have "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?
Or perhaps he has written similar letters to his own House colleagues Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who have called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
He told another writer, "You don't know as much about Social Security as you pretend." Is this King's attempt to bully dissenters in his neighborhood, or is he completely out of touch with the questions that are being asked across New York and America on this very day?
P.C.
Glen Cove
Constituents who receive abusive letters from Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) should consider themselves lucky they get a response at all. I've resided in his district for a number of years and have yet to receive a reply to any of the messages I've sent to him. In contrast, I have received thoughtful - and sometimes personalized - replies from Sens. John McCain, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and other members of Congress from both parties. Even when they don't agree with me, they express respect for my opinions and go on to explain their own positions without resorting to negative language. Legislators of any party who don't respect and listen to all of their constituents should be turned out. I trust the voters will remember Rep. King's nasty letters - and equally nasty comments in Newsday - when we go to the polls in his district next year.
D.F.
Locust Valley
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) may have thought he was doing the Bush administration a favor when he said, "We would not have invaded Iraq without 9/11" ["Linking Iraq with 9/11," News, June 29]. Instead, he neatly summarized Bush's deception. No one in 2001, and no one now, could or can produce any evidence that Iraq had any role, even indirectly, in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. King reminds us that the attacks served as a handy pretext for an administration already hell-bent on making war with Saddam Hussein. It is a horrible, but foreseeable, irony that now there are plenty of terrorists in Iraq, because Bush's war put them there.
D.S.
Ridgewood
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Happy 4th
Enjoy the day as we celebrate the founding of this great nation.
See you on the 5th for more Peter King fun.
See you on the 5th for more Peter King fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
