Normally we would use that word to describe King but today it is reserved for the thugs/vandals/criminals that left a pipe bomb behind the building in Massapequa Park where King has his district office. According to Newsday;
"A pipe bomb exploded yesterday near Rep. Peter King's office in Massapequa Park, sending Nassau police and federal agents scrambling to determine whether it was a legitimate threat."
"No one was injured when the crude bomb exploded between 3 and 4 a.m. outside the rear of the building on Park Boulevard, just north of the LIRR train tracks, Nassau police said."
" The 3-foot pipe bomb was found yesterday about 12:30 p.m., four feet outside the rear door of investment firm Edward Jones, which shares the building with King's office and the post office. The building is temporarily closed while police investigate."
The building houses King's office, a Post Office, the investment firm and an Astoria Federal Savings Bank.
Newsday continues "Police said yesterday that they haven't determined if anyone was a target of the bombing."
We don't know why the bomb was set off or by whom. If they were trying to intimidate King, they are idiots and should face stiffer penalties for targeting an elected official.
We are not fans of Kings but we live in a democracy where opinions are free to give and the ballot box is where we judge our elected officials. There is no place in our country for violence in politics.
More likely than not, it was just a bunch of idiots who probably came close to blowing thier hands off than an oragnized effort against King, the bank or the investment firm. But any way you cut it, they are criminals and need to be caught before someone is hurt.
If anyone has any information please call the Nassau County Police or the District Attorney:
NCPD 7th Precinct: 516-573-6700
Crime Stoppers: 516-573-7326
District Attorney's Office: 516-571-2994
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
King writes a letter
This is from earlier this year when the noose started to tighten around Tom Delay.
Notice how the increasingly unstable King goes on the attack. Classic. Just classic.
"I am in receipt of your recent e-mail and am appalled by your ignorance.
My vote was based on the fundamental American principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Under our constitutional system an indictment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - but is merely a set of unproven charges. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of such prosecutorial abuses as the Nadjari investigations or the political indictments of Labor Secretary Donovan, Congressman Roncallo or Congressman McDade (each of whom was found innocent) would realize how much democracy is threatened by political prosecutions. Unfortunately, you seem to know nothing about anything.
Even Newsday, no friend of mine or Tom Delay, wrote in its recent editorial that "innocent until proven guilty is still the rule in the United States so...House Republicans were on solid ground this week when they rescinded a rule that forced members to give up any role in the leadership if indicted...Rep. Peter King got this one right."
In conclusion, I thank you for promising not to vote for me and I would suggest that you might want to consider checking yourself in for some anger management therapy.
Pete King"
Isn't this the same Peter King who said "I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,"
Notice how the increasingly unstable King goes on the attack. Classic. Just classic.
"I am in receipt of your recent e-mail and am appalled by your ignorance.
My vote was based on the fundamental American principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Under our constitutional system an indictment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - but is merely a set of unproven charges. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of such prosecutorial abuses as the Nadjari investigations or the political indictments of Labor Secretary Donovan, Congressman Roncallo or Congressman McDade (each of whom was found innocent) would realize how much democracy is threatened by political prosecutions. Unfortunately, you seem to know nothing about anything.
Even Newsday, no friend of mine or Tom Delay, wrote in its recent editorial that "innocent until proven guilty is still the rule in the United States so...House Republicans were on solid ground this week when they rescinded a rule that forced members to give up any role in the leadership if indicted...Rep. Peter King got this one right."
In conclusion, I thank you for promising not to vote for me and I would suggest that you might want to consider checking yourself in for some anger management therapy.
Pete King"
Isn't this the same Peter King who said "I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,"
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
King Delay
So Majority Leader, Rep. Tom Delay was indicted today on one count of criminal conspiracy.
Our dear King hasn't had the best relationship with Delay, with Delay's spokesperson saying "Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different." regarding King saying that "threats were made against me by the Republican leadership," when King made the politically expediant choice of voting No" to Clintons impeachment.
King has voted with Delay 92% of the time otherwise.
King came to Delay's defense last year when the republicans sought to repeal a rule they themselves passed that would require anyone in the leadership to resign their leadership position if they are indicted.
King said on voting for the change in the rules "You shouldn't allow a runaway prosecutor to decide who will be the majority leader,''
The republicans have been lashing out at Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle trying to smear him because he is a Democrat.
The problem is that King like the other republicans in congress have no idea what he is talking about.
Over his entire career, Earle has prosectuted more Democrats than Republicans. High-ranking Democrats at that.
From the Austin-American Statesman:
Past prosecutions by Ronnie Earle
Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995
Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995
House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992
Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985
State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978
King calls a Earle who has gone after politicans from all parties a "runaway prosecutor?"
As King was fond of saying "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Our dear King hasn't had the best relationship with Delay, with Delay's spokesperson saying "Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different." regarding King saying that "threats were made against me by the Republican leadership," when King made the politically expediant choice of voting No" to Clintons impeachment.
King has voted with Delay 92% of the time otherwise.
King came to Delay's defense last year when the republicans sought to repeal a rule they themselves passed that would require anyone in the leadership to resign their leadership position if they are indicted.
King said on voting for the change in the rules "You shouldn't allow a runaway prosecutor to decide who will be the majority leader,''
The republicans have been lashing out at Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle trying to smear him because he is a Democrat.
The problem is that King like the other republicans in congress have no idea what he is talking about.
Over his entire career, Earle has prosectuted more Democrats than Republicans. High-ranking Democrats at that.
From the Austin-American Statesman:
Past prosecutions by Ronnie Earle
Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995
Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995
House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992
Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985
State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978
King calls a Earle who has gone after politicans from all parties a "runaway prosecutor?"
As King was fond of saying "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Monday, September 19, 2005
King Takes Charge
Boy, King sure hit the ground running. King tells the NYPost "It's a great opportunity and a great challenge."
King continues "By being chairman, I have the opportunity to do what millions of Americans want to do, and that is fight terrorism and rebuild the Gulf Coast."
King will rebuild the Gulf Coast and fight terrorism?
Is he Superman? Nah, it's all just hyperbole.
King is doing a victory lap and was gushing like a school girl after her first kiss. He tells the NYDaily News "I feel good. It's a great country."
"If someone told me on Sept. 12, 2001, that I'd be chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security four years later, I'd consider it a gift,"
Who is he, Sally Field at the Oscars? "You like me, you really like me."
In his first official act as Chairman, King took flight down to New Orleans. He wante dto see first hand what inept oversight sows.
We once again remind our dear readers that King was Chairman of the Emergency Preparadness Sub-Committee.
King tells the NYPost "I want to see how the relief efforts are going, and I want to see what went wrong"
What went wrong???
There was no EMERGENCY PREPERADNESS.
According to the Post, "King has vowed to overhaul the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency's operations."
What was King doing with his sub-committee?
In Newsday, King says "We're a lot more ready than we were before Sept. 11. ... But we're not ready enough... Seventy-two hours is way too long. What we have to do is really re-evaluate the whole concept of a national response."
What sub-committee is tasked with oversight of Emergency Prepaeradness?
Why, it was King's sub-commitee. Where was he on all the plans for national emergencies?
If he couldn't handle the sub-commitee, how can he head an entire committee.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert tells Newsday "Thoughtful, detailed leadership is critical right now."
Where was the "detailed leadership" on the sub-committee?
And "thoughtful?" King is the least thoughtful congressman up for the job. This is a guy who didn't know France had an aircraft carrier or that it was assisting the US in the war in Afghanistan.
King also excuses treason and would have the media shot for exposing the treason.
New York State Sen. Mike Balboni tells Newsday "I think this is going to be very good for New York and very good for Peter personally because he's invested some time and passion on this subject." Yup, he invested 30 odd-years supporting the terrrorism of the IRA. He certainly was passionate in his support of killers.
More on King's victory lap, his appearance on WNBC's News Forum with Gabe Pressman and why King is opposed to an independent investigation into Katrina relief effort failures like he was opposed to the 9/11 commission tomorrow....
King continues "By being chairman, I have the opportunity to do what millions of Americans want to do, and that is fight terrorism and rebuild the Gulf Coast."
King will rebuild the Gulf Coast and fight terrorism?
Is he Superman? Nah, it's all just hyperbole.
King is doing a victory lap and was gushing like a school girl after her first kiss. He tells the NYDaily News "I feel good. It's a great country."
"If someone told me on Sept. 12, 2001, that I'd be chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security four years later, I'd consider it a gift,"
Who is he, Sally Field at the Oscars? "You like me, you really like me."
In his first official act as Chairman, King took flight down to New Orleans. He wante dto see first hand what inept oversight sows.
We once again remind our dear readers that King was Chairman of the Emergency Preparadness Sub-Committee.
King tells the NYPost "I want to see how the relief efforts are going, and I want to see what went wrong"
What went wrong???
There was no EMERGENCY PREPERADNESS.
According to the Post, "King has vowed to overhaul the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency's operations."
What was King doing with his sub-committee?
In Newsday, King says "We're a lot more ready than we were before Sept. 11. ... But we're not ready enough... Seventy-two hours is way too long. What we have to do is really re-evaluate the whole concept of a national response."
What sub-committee is tasked with oversight of Emergency Prepaeradness?
Why, it was King's sub-commitee. Where was he on all the plans for national emergencies?
If he couldn't handle the sub-commitee, how can he head an entire committee.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert tells Newsday "Thoughtful, detailed leadership is critical right now."
Where was the "detailed leadership" on the sub-committee?
And "thoughtful?" King is the least thoughtful congressman up for the job. This is a guy who didn't know France had an aircraft carrier or that it was assisting the US in the war in Afghanistan.
King also excuses treason and would have the media shot for exposing the treason.
New York State Sen. Mike Balboni tells Newsday "I think this is going to be very good for New York and very good for Peter personally because he's invested some time and passion on this subject." Yup, he invested 30 odd-years supporting the terrrorism of the IRA. He certainly was passionate in his support of killers.
More on King's victory lap, his appearance on WNBC's News Forum with Gabe Pressman and why King is opposed to an independent investigation into Katrina relief effort failures like he was opposed to the 9/11 commission tomorrow....
Friday, September 16, 2005
King of the Commitee
A quick reaction.. more later...
Is Peter King’s ascension to Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee a good thing?
Newsday thinks yes but the facts say"Not Really."
Since 9/11/2001 Peter King has made himself out to be tough on terrorism, Bush’s biggest New York area defender, and the one person who can bring money to the area. The only place King has succeeded is as Bush’s defender and lap dog. But unlike real lap dogs, Bush hasn’t given King any treats.
After four years and endless schmoozing with Bush, New York is still getting less than Wyoming in Homeland Security dollars. King delivered the New York firefighters union endorsement for Bush on the eve of the GOP convention last year but six firehouses in the city are still closed. If King can’t convince his fellow republicans to change funding to protect a city
that suffered the worst attack on US soil after four years, what is he going to do now?
King also does not have the temperment to serve as head of such an important commitee. From comparing John Kerry and the New York Times to terrorists to attacking constituents who do not agree with him, King has become increasingly unstable.
When it comes to terrorism, after 9/11 King tried to extricate himself from his decades long ties to the terrorist IRA. After years of fundraising and being the IRA’s main apologist in the United States, King stopped going to Ireland and recently called for the IRA to disband.
This is about 20 years too late.
When King defended DHS head Chertoff by saying he would not “second guess him” you can see where King’s true allegiance lies.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, it was King’s job t0 second-guess. He didn’t do that. FEMA is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security but was left to rot as terrorism became their only concern.
King’s subcommittee and the full committee should have be more vigilant but they were not. If it had been a terrorist attack instead of a hurricane in the Gulf two weeks ago, the failure of the subcommittee would have been just as great.
Also, it looks like King is going to try to take credit for former committee chairman Rep. Chris Cox's work and legislation.
Is Peter King’s ascension to Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee a good thing?
Newsday thinks yes but the facts say"Not Really."
Since 9/11/2001 Peter King has made himself out to be tough on terrorism, Bush’s biggest New York area defender, and the one person who can bring money to the area. The only place King has succeeded is as Bush’s defender and lap dog. But unlike real lap dogs, Bush hasn’t given King any treats.
After four years and endless schmoozing with Bush, New York is still getting less than Wyoming in Homeland Security dollars. King delivered the New York firefighters union endorsement for Bush on the eve of the GOP convention last year but six firehouses in the city are still closed. If King can’t convince his fellow republicans to change funding to protect a city
that suffered the worst attack on US soil after four years, what is he going to do now?
King also does not have the temperment to serve as head of such an important commitee. From comparing John Kerry and the New York Times to terrorists to attacking constituents who do not agree with him, King has become increasingly unstable.
When it comes to terrorism, after 9/11 King tried to extricate himself from his decades long ties to the terrorist IRA. After years of fundraising and being the IRA’s main apologist in the United States, King stopped going to Ireland and recently called for the IRA to disband.
This is about 20 years too late.
When King defended DHS head Chertoff by saying he would not “second guess him” you can see where King’s true allegiance lies.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, it was King’s job t0 second-guess. He didn’t do that. FEMA is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security but was left to rot as terrorism became their only concern.
King’s subcommittee and the full committee should have be more vigilant but they were not. If it had been a terrorist attack instead of a hurricane in the Gulf two weeks ago, the failure of the subcommittee would have been just as great.
Also, it looks like King is going to try to take credit for former committee chairman Rep. Chris Cox's work and legislation.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
What the FEMA is up with Peter King?
We've been going over King wanting to be the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee during the past few weeks hee at King Watch Central and with ech passing day, more question arise about his qualification. Right now, he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology. Notice the words "Emergency Preparedness." What just recently occured that showed us we are NOT prepared? A devasting hurricane.
Before we go any further though, we have to throw some history in here...
Back in the day - before Bush - FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was made a Cabinet level position by President Clinton. Clinton appointed James Lee Witt, a man with a decade of Emergency Management experience, as head of FEMA.
After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was created and Bush drop-kicked FEMA out of the Cabinet and into DHS. Bush then took a man with no emergency management experience and put him on charge of FEMA. Director Micheal Brown is a political hack with a patronage job
Back to today... DHS and FEMA are answerable to congress. The Homeland Security Committee has oversight of the department. FEMA is now deep in the bowels of a department created to protect us from terrorism.
Do you see the emerging problem?
FEMA which deals with all sorts of crisis from natural to man-made disasters is placed under the control of a department charged dealing with only man-made disasters.
So where are we going with this and what does King have it do with it?
King's sub-commitee over-sees "Emergency Preparedness." BUT the problem seems to be the focus is only on terrorism. From the sub-commitees website:
"Preparedness for and collective response to terrorism, including federal support to first responders; terrorism-related incident management and response; consequence mitigation; Department of Homeland Security-administered homeland security grants to first responders; conduct and coordination of exercises and training relating to mitigating the effects of and responding to terrorist attacks (including nuclear, biological, radiological, and chemical attacks on civilian populations); federal government coordination of terrorism-related emergency preparedness and response with and among state and local governments, the private sector, and the public; research, development and deployment of technology for combating terrorism; adaptation of existing technologies to homeland security prevention priorities; coordination and enhancement of Department of Homeland Security interaction on science and technology matters with the private sector, federally funded research and development centers, educational institutions, the National Laboratories, and other scientific resources; Department of Homeland Security-based science and technology entities and initiatives; conducting relevant oversight; and other matters referred to the Subcommittee by the Chairman."
See the many uses of the words "terrorism" and nothing about "natural disasters?"
That is a big issue.
What is the sub-commitees role in over-seeing FEMA and natural disaster preparedness?
Go through the full commitee website and the stated mission for each sub-commitee is all about "terrorism."
Now King's sub-commitee should be dealing with the over-sight of FEMA disaster plans right?
What exactly was the sub-commitee's role in making sure FEMA natural disaster planes were up to snuff?
If King wants to be chairman of the full Homeland Security Commitee he needs to show he was an effective sub-commitee chairman.
Keep checking for more updates.
Before we go any further though, we have to throw some history in here...
Back in the day - before Bush - FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was made a Cabinet level position by President Clinton. Clinton appointed James Lee Witt, a man with a decade of Emergency Management experience, as head of FEMA.
After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was created and Bush drop-kicked FEMA out of the Cabinet and into DHS. Bush then took a man with no emergency management experience and put him on charge of FEMA. Director Micheal Brown is a political hack with a patronage job
Back to today... DHS and FEMA are answerable to congress. The Homeland Security Committee has oversight of the department. FEMA is now deep in the bowels of a department created to protect us from terrorism.
Do you see the emerging problem?
FEMA which deals with all sorts of crisis from natural to man-made disasters is placed under the control of a department charged dealing with only man-made disasters.
So where are we going with this and what does King have it do with it?
King's sub-commitee over-sees "Emergency Preparedness." BUT the problem seems to be the focus is only on terrorism. From the sub-commitees website:
"Preparedness for and collective response to terrorism, including federal support to first responders; terrorism-related incident management and response; consequence mitigation; Department of Homeland Security-administered homeland security grants to first responders; conduct and coordination of exercises and training relating to mitigating the effects of and responding to terrorist attacks (including nuclear, biological, radiological, and chemical attacks on civilian populations); federal government coordination of terrorism-related emergency preparedness and response with and among state and local governments, the private sector, and the public; research, development and deployment of technology for combating terrorism; adaptation of existing technologies to homeland security prevention priorities; coordination and enhancement of Department of Homeland Security interaction on science and technology matters with the private sector, federally funded research and development centers, educational institutions, the National Laboratories, and other scientific resources; Department of Homeland Security-based science and technology entities and initiatives; conducting relevant oversight; and other matters referred to the Subcommittee by the Chairman."
See the many uses of the words "terrorism" and nothing about "natural disasters?"
That is a big issue.
What is the sub-commitees role in over-seeing FEMA and natural disaster preparedness?
Go through the full commitee website and the stated mission for each sub-commitee is all about "terrorism."
Now King's sub-commitee should be dealing with the over-sight of FEMA disaster plans right?
What exactly was the sub-commitee's role in making sure FEMA natural disaster planes were up to snuff?
If King wants to be chairman of the full Homeland Security Commitee he needs to show he was an effective sub-commitee chairman.
Keep checking for more updates.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
King and Katrina
King just doesn't get it. He wants to be Homeland Security Committee Chairman and he is completely clueless.
King was on WABC Radio's John Gambling show and said "The main problem in obstructing the relief operation - it's almost like a Mogadishu-like gang situation that's prevailing in New Orleans,"
This is of course more water-carrying for the complete failure of the Bush Administration, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. How many more excuses can Bush supporters make?
According to the New Orleans Time Picayune "Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It's accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.
How much easier it is to access in 2005 now that there are interstates and bridges, airports and helipads, cruise ships, barges, buses and diesel-powered trucks.
Despite the city's multiple points of entry, our nation's bureaucrats spent days after last week's hurricane wringing their hands, lamenting the fact that they could neither rescue the city's stranded victims nor bring them food, water and medical supplies.
Meanwhile there were journalists, including some who work for The Times-Picayune, going in and out of the city via the Crescent City Connection. On Thursday morning, that crew saw a caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers headed into town to bring food, water and supplies to a dying city.
Television reporters were doing live reports from downtown New Orleans streets. Harry Connick Jr. brought in some aid Thursday, and his efforts were the focus of a "Today" show story Friday morning.
Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent. Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach.
So how full of Bull---- is King? Really very full.
According to Newsday, Gary Flowers of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition denounced King's comments. "It is un-American to blame the victim. It was the citizens who were abandoned by the United States government,"
And King compares New Orleans to Mogadishu? Interesting that he picks a city in Somali, East Africa to make his point.
To go further with his analogy, let's examine what happend in Mogadishu; there was no help from the countries government to quell the violence. I am glad King sees Bush as ineffective as the leaders of Somalia which is to say there are no real leaders in Somalia.
King continues his uninformed comments with "It's hard to get federal troops in to bring about order when the local police have broken down,"
The local police are stretch to the limit evacuating citizens, trying to keep order, and trying to get relief to those left in the city. How much does King expect a force of 2000 or so to do? The fact is, federal troops would have had no problem getting into the city and helping in the relief efforts simply because journalists and relief aganecies were already getting in without a problem.
king caps off his jibber-jabber with this gem; "I just think the situation would have gone a lot better if there were a Rudy Giuliani down there - someone who could have set a firm tone from day one."
Yeah, right. You can't compare 9/11 with this new disaster. They are not the same. The incredible loss of life might be the same but the situations are very different. 80% of New York City was not devestated on 9/11. If that had happend and most of Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island had been wiped out, we would have seen mush the same situation as we do now in New Orleans. Unless adequete food, water, shelter and medical services reach teh affected people, there will be huge problems.
King wants to be Homeland Security COmmiteee Chairman. This committee overseas the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA. If King is so ignorant as he has proven with these few sentences, imagine the mess he'll make as chairman.
He is making excuses for a complete break-down in emergency federal disaster response. We can't have an oversight committee chairman who will just make excuses to protect Bush.
King was on WABC Radio's John Gambling show and said "The main problem in obstructing the relief operation - it's almost like a Mogadishu-like gang situation that's prevailing in New Orleans,"
This is of course more water-carrying for the complete failure of the Bush Administration, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. How many more excuses can Bush supporters make?
According to the New Orleans Time Picayune "Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It's accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.
How much easier it is to access in 2005 now that there are interstates and bridges, airports and helipads, cruise ships, barges, buses and diesel-powered trucks.
Despite the city's multiple points of entry, our nation's bureaucrats spent days after last week's hurricane wringing their hands, lamenting the fact that they could neither rescue the city's stranded victims nor bring them food, water and medical supplies.
Meanwhile there were journalists, including some who work for The Times-Picayune, going in and out of the city via the Crescent City Connection. On Thursday morning, that crew saw a caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers headed into town to bring food, water and supplies to a dying city.
Television reporters were doing live reports from downtown New Orleans streets. Harry Connick Jr. brought in some aid Thursday, and his efforts were the focus of a "Today" show story Friday morning.
Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent. Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach.
So how full of Bull---- is King? Really very full.
According to Newsday, Gary Flowers of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition denounced King's comments. "It is un-American to blame the victim. It was the citizens who were abandoned by the United States government,"
And King compares New Orleans to Mogadishu? Interesting that he picks a city in Somali, East Africa to make his point.
To go further with his analogy, let's examine what happend in Mogadishu; there was no help from the countries government to quell the violence. I am glad King sees Bush as ineffective as the leaders of Somalia which is to say there are no real leaders in Somalia.
King continues his uninformed comments with "It's hard to get federal troops in to bring about order when the local police have broken down,"
The local police are stretch to the limit evacuating citizens, trying to keep order, and trying to get relief to those left in the city. How much does King expect a force of 2000 or so to do? The fact is, federal troops would have had no problem getting into the city and helping in the relief efforts simply because journalists and relief aganecies were already getting in without a problem.
king caps off his jibber-jabber with this gem; "I just think the situation would have gone a lot better if there were a Rudy Giuliani down there - someone who could have set a firm tone from day one."
Yeah, right. You can't compare 9/11 with this new disaster. They are not the same. The incredible loss of life might be the same but the situations are very different. 80% of New York City was not devestated on 9/11. If that had happend and most of Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island had been wiped out, we would have seen mush the same situation as we do now in New Orleans. Unless adequete food, water, shelter and medical services reach teh affected people, there will be huge problems.
King wants to be Homeland Security COmmiteee Chairman. This committee overseas the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA. If King is so ignorant as he has proven with these few sentences, imagine the mess he'll make as chairman.
He is making excuses for a complete break-down in emergency federal disaster response. We can't have an oversight committee chairman who will just make excuses to protect Bush.
Two Letters to Newsday
Newsday August 30, 2005
King knows not what he does
An interfaith delegation (of which I was one) asked Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) to oppose attempts to privatize Social Security. His reaction, which we read in Newsday, was to wail: "God forgive them, for they know not what they do," and to decry what he called "left-wing pseudo-theology" ["Faithful hope to sway King," News, Aug. 24]. The delegation had presented him with a copy of "A Commitment to All Generations: Social Security and the Common Good," a statement strongly opposing the privatizing of Social Security. It was issued by the administrative board of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Left-wing pseudo-theologians? I think not.
Nancy Dwyer
Valley Stream
Newsday September 4, 2005
King's hubrisis astonishing
Regarding "Faithful hope to sway King" [News, Aug. 24]: I continue to be astonished by the hubris displayed by Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford). His latest diatribe is directed against constituents who happen to disagree with him regarding the privatization of Social Security.King suggests that the religious leaders praying outside his Massapequa Park office need to be forgiven by God "for they know not what they do."He further states that his position is based on "facts, reason and informed social conscience," thus implying that the demonstrators lack such attributes. How presumptuous and insulting.
Janet Pucciarelli
Glen Head
King knows not what he does
An interfaith delegation (of which I was one) asked Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) to oppose attempts to privatize Social Security. His reaction, which we read in Newsday, was to wail: "God forgive them, for they know not what they do," and to decry what he called "left-wing pseudo-theology" ["Faithful hope to sway King," News, Aug. 24]. The delegation had presented him with a copy of "A Commitment to All Generations: Social Security and the Common Good," a statement strongly opposing the privatizing of Social Security. It was issued by the administrative board of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Left-wing pseudo-theologians? I think not.
Nancy Dwyer
Valley Stream
Newsday September 4, 2005
King's hubrisis astonishing
Regarding "Faithful hope to sway King" [News, Aug. 24]: I continue to be astonished by the hubris displayed by Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford). His latest diatribe is directed against constituents who happen to disagree with him regarding the privatization of Social Security.King suggests that the religious leaders praying outside his Massapequa Park office need to be forgiven by God "for they know not what they do."He further states that his position is based on "facts, reason and informed social conscience," thus implying that the demonstrators lack such attributes. How presumptuous and insulting.
Janet Pucciarelli
Glen Head
Katrina Relief Organizations
With thanks to The Community Alliance
Red Cross:Telephone: 1-800-HELP-NOW
https://www.redcross.org/
Secure E-Donations: Red Cross' Donate Now Page
AmeriCares:americares.org
United Jewish Communities: 1-877-277-2477 or http://www.ujc.org/
Episcopal Relief & Development: 1-800-334-7626 or http://www.er-d.org/
United Methodist Committee on Relief: 1-800-554-8583 or http://gbgm-umc.org/umcor/emergency/hurricanes/2005/
Salvation Army: 1-800-SAL-ARMY or http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/
Catholic Charities: 1-800-919-9338 or http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
Operation Blessing: 1-800-436-6348 or www.ob.org
America's Second Harvest: 1-800-344-8070 or www.secondharvest.org
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster: www.nvoad.org
FEMA Charity tips: http://www.fema.gov/rrr/help2.shtm
Red Cross:Telephone: 1-800-HELP-NOW
https://www.redcross.org/
Secure E-Donations: Red Cross' Donate Now Page
AmeriCares:americares.org
United Jewish Communities: 1-877-277-2477 or http://www.ujc.org/
Episcopal Relief & Development: 1-800-334-7626 or http://www.er-d.org/
United Methodist Committee on Relief: 1-800-554-8583 or http://gbgm-umc.org/umcor/emergency/hurricanes/2005/
Salvation Army: 1-800-SAL-ARMY or http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/
Catholic Charities: 1-800-919-9338 or http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
Operation Blessing: 1-800-436-6348 or www.ob.org
America's Second Harvest: 1-800-344-8070 or www.secondharvest.org
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster: www.nvoad.org
FEMA Charity tips: http://www.fema.gov/rrr/help2.shtm
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
King Attacks Religious Leaders
King is getting increasingly unstable in his public comments. The heat is on King for his position on privitization of Social Security and King is having a problem dealing with his constituents. From the nasty letters to avoiding town hall meetings, King continues to cower from answering questions.
According to Newsday "About a half-dozen Long Island religious leaders prayed outside the Massapequa Park office of Rep. Peter King yesterday, asking the congressman to oppose efforts to privatize Social Security."
"It's our duty as Christians to take care of the elderly, widows, orphans and persons with disabilities and Mr. King knows that," said Mary Dewar, of the Long Island Council of Churches. "It is this deep moral concern for maintaining and building a compassionate society that brings us together."
Rabbi Michael Kramer, of Temple Judea in Massapequa, said Social Security is a "covenant that one generation has with the next to take care of those in need."
"Richard Goodman, a member of Religious Society of Friends in Westbury, also called Quakers, said government should "provide for the common good. Privatize Social Security and the people will become selfish."
How does King respond?
"God forgive them for they know not what they do. I base my decision on facts, reason and informed social conscious and not left-wing pseudo-theology."
How dare King use a religous allusion to respond to these people.
King has continualy LIED about Social Security in letters to constituents and has yet to meet with his constituents to to answer thier questions.
And "left-wing pseudo-theology?" I don't know Rabbi Kramer or the other leaders quoted in the article but I don't think they or their congregations like their faiths being dengrated like that.
King has no shame what-so-ever. Each time he opens his mouth he insults decent, caring people and proves over and over that he should not be our representative in the US Congress.
King needs to apologize immediately and resign.
According to Newsday "About a half-dozen Long Island religious leaders prayed outside the Massapequa Park office of Rep. Peter King yesterday, asking the congressman to oppose efforts to privatize Social Security."
"It's our duty as Christians to take care of the elderly, widows, orphans and persons with disabilities and Mr. King knows that," said Mary Dewar, of the Long Island Council of Churches. "It is this deep moral concern for maintaining and building a compassionate society that brings us together."
Rabbi Michael Kramer, of Temple Judea in Massapequa, said Social Security is a "covenant that one generation has with the next to take care of those in need."
"Richard Goodman, a member of Religious Society of Friends in Westbury, also called Quakers, said government should "provide for the common good. Privatize Social Security and the people will become selfish."
How does King respond?
"God forgive them for they know not what they do. I base my decision on facts, reason and informed social conscious and not left-wing pseudo-theology."
How dare King use a religous allusion to respond to these people.
King has continualy LIED about Social Security in letters to constituents and has yet to meet with his constituents to to answer thier questions.
And "left-wing pseudo-theology?" I don't know Rabbi Kramer or the other leaders quoted in the article but I don't think they or their congregations like their faiths being dengrated like that.
King has no shame what-so-ever. Each time he opens his mouth he insults decent, caring people and proves over and over that he should not be our representative in the US Congress.
King needs to apologize immediately and resign.
Monday, August 08, 2005
August is a slow month
With Congress in recess until after labor day, we'll be playing catch-up with old stuff we've wanted to get more in-depth with and add new stuff as it comes along. We're not on vacation so we'll be updating through the recess.
We're keeping an eye on King's attempt to become the Homeland Security Committee Chairman and will be updating on that shortly.
Check out our archives if you haven't already.
We're keeping an eye on King's attempt to become the Homeland Security Committee Chairman and will be updating on that shortly.
Check out our archives if you haven't already.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Homeland Security Committee Part Deux
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Quick Post - Re: King's letters to constituents.
Much more to add later but here are links to the letters the Newsday article was talking about.
Kings Letter March 1st page 1
Kings Letter March 1st page 2
Letter to King March 5th
King's Response March 10th
Response to King March 15th by a constituent. It is admittedly not very polite. It refutes what King said in his letter to a constituent.
King's Response #1 - Incomplete. Why? Who knows. It was sent this way.
King's Response #2 - Okay, so maybe that's all he wanted to write.
Response to King - Which was never acknowledged. Oh well.
Kings Letter March 1st page 1
Kings Letter March 1st page 2
Letter to King March 5th
King's Response March 10th
Response to King March 15th by a constituent. It is admittedly not very polite. It refutes what King said in his letter to a constituent.
King's Response #1 - Incomplete. Why? Who knows. It was sent this way.
King's Response #2 - Okay, so maybe that's all he wanted to write.
Response to King - Which was never acknowledged. Oh well.
KIng Gets a Spanking in Newsday Letter
King all wrong for security post
I was shocked to read on the editorial page that Newsday thinks that Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is the right man to be chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security ["The man for the job," Editorial, June 10]. In reaching this conclusion, someone at Newsday failed to do his or her homework.
From 1990 through 1999, the Coast Guard, a vital part of our homeland security program, transferred 79 percent of its personnel from our area to locations outside New York. When Governors Island was abandoned, we lost the services of 1,097 Coast Guard personnel and seven large cutters.
Today, there are only two cutters in the entire state. When the vital air station in Brooklyn was closed, we lost three helicopters and 89 flight and support personnel. And the Coast Guard compromised the safety of air travelers at JFK and LaGuardia airports by closing stations at Fort Totten and Rockaway.
It would seem that King, who claims homeland security is his top priority, was asleep at the wheel when the Coast Guard deserted New York. He also vigorously supported Bernard Kerik for director of homeland security, even after the disclosures by the press of Kerik's questionable activities.
John J. Tarpey Jr.
Massapequa
I was shocked to read on the editorial page that Newsday thinks that Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is the right man to be chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security ["The man for the job," Editorial, June 10]. In reaching this conclusion, someone at Newsday failed to do his or her homework.
From 1990 through 1999, the Coast Guard, a vital part of our homeland security program, transferred 79 percent of its personnel from our area to locations outside New York. When Governors Island was abandoned, we lost the services of 1,097 Coast Guard personnel and seven large cutters.
Today, there are only two cutters in the entire state. When the vital air station in Brooklyn was closed, we lost three helicopters and 89 flight and support personnel. And the Coast Guard compromised the safety of air travelers at JFK and LaGuardia airports by closing stations at Fort Totten and Rockaway.
It would seem that King, who claims homeland security is his top priority, was asleep at the wheel when the Coast Guard deserted New York. He also vigorously supported Bernard Kerik for director of homeland security, even after the disclosures by the press of Kerik's questionable activities.
John J. Tarpey Jr.
Massapequa
Friday, June 17, 2005
King Cares Little for Court Rulings
The religious right in the country is trying by hook or by crook to bring about a theocracy. From the Ten Commandments in public buildings to teaching Creationism as a science in the classroom, the divide between church and state is being torn asunder.
First lets talk about what the perception of the religious right is; the believe this country was founded as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Now beofre I go further, it is worthy to point out that only recently have they called it "Judeo-Christian." Before it was just "Christian." Because the biblical apocalypse requires a re-built Temple in Jerusalem and a unified Israel, formerly jew-hating right-wingers have found a new love for Judaism. Of course it's just an ends to a means. The fact is that the founding fathers were Diests. On top of that, our laws were not "based on the Ten Commandments" as they would want you to believe.
Courts have been ruling across the country against displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. And you would think Congress and King would respect the ruling. Even if they disagree with the ruling, you would expect them to go through the proper channels to appeal the rulings. Nope. King and his cronies passed Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) amendment to H.R.2862; Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce.
The Amendment H.AMDT.278; prohibits funds from being used to enforce the judgement of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005, concerning a display of a monument of the Ten Commandments.
How did King vote?
King Vote YES
---- AYES 242 ---
King (NY)
Everyone should be concerned that Congress is prohibiting the enforcement of a court ruling. This republican congress with King's acquiescence has been playing fast and loose with the courts, ignoring the seperation of powers.
King supported S. 686 which stripped the rulings of 12 Judges in the Terri Schaivo case and put congress in charge.
This is one more reason we need to get rid of King.
First lets talk about what the perception of the religious right is; the believe this country was founded as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Now beofre I go further, it is worthy to point out that only recently have they called it "Judeo-Christian." Before it was just "Christian." Because the biblical apocalypse requires a re-built Temple in Jerusalem and a unified Israel, formerly jew-hating right-wingers have found a new love for Judaism. Of course it's just an ends to a means. The fact is that the founding fathers were Diests. On top of that, our laws were not "based on the Ten Commandments" as they would want you to believe.
Courts have been ruling across the country against displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. And you would think Congress and King would respect the ruling. Even if they disagree with the ruling, you would expect them to go through the proper channels to appeal the rulings. Nope. King and his cronies passed Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) amendment to H.R.2862; Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce.
The Amendment H.AMDT.278; prohibits funds from being used to enforce the judgement of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005, concerning a display of a monument of the Ten Commandments.
How did King vote?
King Vote YES
---- AYES 242 ---
King (NY)
Everyone should be concerned that Congress is prohibiting the enforcement of a court ruling. This republican congress with King's acquiescence has been playing fast and loose with the courts, ignoring the seperation of powers.
King supported S. 686 which stripped the rulings of 12 Judges in the Terri Schaivo case and put congress in charge.
This is one more reason we need to get rid of King.
And who is King in bed with? What does the author of the amendment say about our courts?
"The judiciary ..., has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment ...'
"Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will."
Even the defendants in the case oppose what this amendment does.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
King Votes Against Freedom
A few months ago, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) introduced a bill H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act; To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to exempt bookstores and libraries from orders requiring the production of any tangible things for certain foreign intelligence investigations, and for other purposes.
Yesterday, in the House, Freedom prevailed when H.AMDT.280 an amendment to H.R.2862; 2006 Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce passed the House 238 - 187.
H.AMDT.280 (A033)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] (offered 6/15/2005)
"An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
The American Library Association hails the vote and encourages people to call their representative who voted for the amendment and thank them.
So how did King vote?
He voted NO.
---- NOES 187 ---
King (NY)
King voted against the freedom to go to the library or bookstore and know you can read whatever you want and the government cannot find out.
Check out Rep. Sanders site for more background on the freedom King wants to deny you.
Yesterday, in the House, Freedom prevailed when H.AMDT.280 an amendment to H.R.2862; 2006 Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce passed the House 238 - 187.
H.AMDT.280 (A033)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] (offered 6/15/2005)
"An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
The American Library Association hails the vote and encourages people to call their representative who voted for the amendment and thank them.
So how did King vote?
He voted NO.
---- NOES 187 ---
King (NY)
King voted against the freedom to go to the library or bookstore and know you can read whatever you want and the government cannot find out.
Check out Rep. Sanders site for more background on the freedom King wants to deny you.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
King fails to protect EEOC
The EEOC is in place to protect workers from discrimination. As usual, King votes against workers. It would be nice if the unions that support him pay attention to these kinds of votes.
H.AMDT.277 (A030)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] (offered 6/15/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to close or consolidate any office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or to make any reductions in the number of full-time officers or employees in any such office, or to reduce the number of full-time officers or employees serving as supervisors, management officials, mediators, examiners, investigators, or attorney in such office, as part of any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganizing of the Commission that is authorized under law.
STATUS:
6/15/2005 3:04pm:
Amendment (A030) offered by Mrs. Jones (OH).
6/15/2005 5:33pm:
On agreeing to the Jones (OH) amendment (A030) Failed by recorded vote: 201 - 222 (Roll no. 256).
---- NOES 222 ---
King (NY)
H.AMDT.277 (A030)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] (offered 6/15/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to close or consolidate any office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or to make any reductions in the number of full-time officers or employees in any such office, or to reduce the number of full-time officers or employees serving as supervisors, management officials, mediators, examiners, investigators, or attorney in such office, as part of any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganizing of the Commission that is authorized under law.
STATUS:
6/15/2005 3:04pm:
Amendment (A030) offered by Mrs. Jones (OH).
6/15/2005 5:33pm:
On agreeing to the Jones (OH) amendment (A030) Failed by recorded vote: 201 - 222 (Roll no. 256).
---- NOES 222 ---
King (NY)
King losing more support
Letter to Newsday 6/15/05
Getting off the Peter King Train
Is Peter King really "The man for the job" [Editorial, June 10]? Although it would be a good idea to have as the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security a person who has New York's interest at heart, Peter King is not he.
I base this statement on the fact of his endorsement of and his voting for the Bush administration's prescription-drug plan. If King can turn his back on his elderly constituents when it comes to choosing between corporate greed and eldercare, how can we think he would support the interests of New Yorkers in anything? I voted for him every time he ran because he hadn't sold the seniors of New York out yet. But because he has shown to whom his loyalty really lies, I can no longer back him.
D. R.
Levittown
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Another News Conference/Protest at King's office
Opponents of the Broadwater Liquefied Natural Gas project proposed for the Long Island Sound are urged to attend a news conference demonstration next Wednesday to show their dissatisfaction with Congressman Peter T. King's (R) approval of an addition to an energy bill that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington sole authority to approve Liquefied Natural Gas facilities.
If approved by the Senate and signed by the President, the House bill will give complete siting authority to FERC without local input. It is important that those of us concerned about this issue express to our elected officials that this is unacceptable. Long Islanders and New York State need their voices heard in the FERC review process.
The demonstration will be hosted by the Anti Broadwater Coaltion:
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: In front of Congressman King's office at1003 Park Blvd. Massapequa, NY 11762
Please spread the word! RSVPs can be made to Jennifer Hartnagel at hartnagel@pinebarrens .org or call (631) 369-3300.
You can contact Congressman King's office at (516) 544-4225 to tell him your disappointment with his decision on this crucial issue.
Directions to Congressman King's office
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling East.Take Exit 28A (Seaford/Rt 135 South) Continue South on Rt 135 for approx. 3.5 miles and bear left onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 3.5 miles on Rt 27 and make a left onto Park Blvd.
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling WestTake Exit Rt 110 South (Amityville) Continue South on Rt110 for approx. 3 miles and bear right onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 2 miles on Rt 27 and make a right onto Park Blvd
If approved by the Senate and signed by the President, the House bill will give complete siting authority to FERC without local input. It is important that those of us concerned about this issue express to our elected officials that this is unacceptable. Long Islanders and New York State need their voices heard in the FERC review process.
The demonstration will be hosted by the Anti Broadwater Coaltion:
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: In front of Congressman King's office at1003 Park Blvd. Massapequa, NY 11762
Please spread the word! RSVPs can be made to Jennifer Hartnagel at hartnagel@pinebarrens .org or call (631) 369-3300.
You can contact Congressman King's office at (516) 544-4225 to tell him your disappointment with his decision on this crucial issue.
Directions to Congressman King's office
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling East.Take Exit 28A (Seaford/Rt 135 South) Continue South on Rt 135 for approx. 3.5 miles and bear left onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 3.5 miles on Rt 27 and make a left onto Park Blvd.
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling WestTake Exit Rt 110 South (Amityville) Continue South on Rt110 for approx. 3 miles and bear right onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 2 miles on Rt 27 and make a right onto Park Blvd
Monday, June 06, 2005
Readers respond to LI Press Story
I forgot to post this.... go figure.
From the May 12, 2005 Issue
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Long Island Press political writer Elizabeth Cady Brown's April 28 story, "Kingly Fashion," generated many letters reproaching Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa) for comments he made on Cablevision's News 12 Long Island. He described In This Together Campaign (ITTC), the new multi-union coalition opposing Social Security overhaul, as "partisan hit men" and "wacko malcontents."
Dear Editor,
In my experience, it's the media, not constituents, who have "respected" King Peter's over-the-top remarks. I was ashamed for all of Long Island when King made disparaging and outright hostile comments last summer regarding the New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. So I'm not surprised that he called those of us who care about preserving Social Security "wacko malcontents." But he is right about one thing -- I'm definitely not content with my representation in Congress!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
I am a constituent of Peter King's, and I have never been charmed by his rudeness. He says he only responds harshly when someone writes a harsh letter to him, but I haven't found this to be true. Whenever you disagree with his position and I disagree with almost everything he does he tends to be condescending at best. His stand on Social Security is just the latest indication of his contempt for the needs of his constituents. He couldn't be bothered to show up for a Town Hall meeting on the subject, but if he had, he might have learned something about how people in his district rely on Social Security. When I think of the heartrending stories I heard that night, King's dismissive comment that the people at that meeting were "wacko malcontents" makes me absolutely furious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
When anti-privatization activists rallied outside the offices of Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), the congressman emerged and engaged his constituents in a constructive dialogue. Compare this to Rep. Peter King, who greets opposing constituents with derision. That's why Peter King needs to be replaced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Not all of King's responses are to "harsh" letters. When he called the police on constituents who wanted to speak to him, not a harsh word precipitated that. King called into question a letter writer's morality and intellectual abilities because the writer was urging King to censure Bush for lies regarding WMDs. No "harsh" words were directed at King. Peter King feels free to insult, belittle and lie because no one has called him on it. It's time someone did. The Social Security Town Hall meeting he was too afraid to attend was set up because King himself will not speak to his constituents on his own. Of course, King showed up at a union meeting, because he needs their money and support. Four hundred constituents don't mean very much when the unions can offer thousands of dollars and an endorsement. At that union meeting, they planned to ask the same questions on Social Security that the Town Hall meeting organizers and participants wanted to ask. Did King call the union members' patriotism into question? Did he call the union members "wacky malcontents?" Of course not. It goes back to endorsements and money. King is afraid of constituents who will question him and take him to task for his actions. He says he is not a "punching bag." Fair enough, but he works for us. He has an obligation to listen to his constituents. If he has to sit and take criticism, then that is what he has to do. That's part of the job. Unfortunately, his thin skin and lack of professionalism makes that difficult. The sad part is that unions still support King. He voted for the Bush budgets that have hurled us into historic deficits that will mean the working person will get the shaft at some point. King supported the Homeland Security Department bill -- which stripped workers in that department of collective bargaining. John Kennedy [head of the Building and Construction Trades Council] ought to look at King's record and see that it is more than one issue that would give the unions a second look at the man they support. King is not their friend.
John Rennhack
the editor of www.kingwatch.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Re: "Kingly Fashion," I would have to disagree with John Kennedy, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council [of Nassau and Suffolk], when he says, "We probably wouldn't abandon a candidate over just one issue..." First of all, when that one issue is Social Security, that's big enough to warrant a break. Working people bled to earn Social Security for all of us, and we have to make sure we don't lose it. But secondly, Peter King is wrong on so many issues, it's hard to know where to start. He recently supported an extremely harsh bankruptcy law that extracts the last dime from working people who get in trouble when they lose their job or have exorbitant medical bills, but offers cushy exceptions for corporate defaulters. He supported making permanent the repeal of the estate tax which ought by rights to be called the Paris Hilton tax. We are paying for this loss of revenue from the super-rich with an increase in the stealth alternative minimum tax -- which affects more middle-class families every year. And finally, King recently voted for an energy bill that allows petroleum companies to sink MTBEs into our groundwater while exempting them from prosecution. Peter King is no friend to the middle class.
From the May 12, 2005 Issue
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Long Island Press political writer Elizabeth Cady Brown's April 28 story, "Kingly Fashion," generated many letters reproaching Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa) for comments he made on Cablevision's News 12 Long Island. He described In This Together Campaign (ITTC), the new multi-union coalition opposing Social Security overhaul, as "partisan hit men" and "wacko malcontents."
Dear Editor,
In my experience, it's the media, not constituents, who have "respected" King Peter's over-the-top remarks. I was ashamed for all of Long Island when King made disparaging and outright hostile comments last summer regarding the New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. So I'm not surprised that he called those of us who care about preserving Social Security "wacko malcontents." But he is right about one thing -- I'm definitely not content with my representation in Congress!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
I am a constituent of Peter King's, and I have never been charmed by his rudeness. He says he only responds harshly when someone writes a harsh letter to him, but I haven't found this to be true. Whenever you disagree with his position and I disagree with almost everything he does he tends to be condescending at best. His stand on Social Security is just the latest indication of his contempt for the needs of his constituents. He couldn't be bothered to show up for a Town Hall meeting on the subject, but if he had, he might have learned something about how people in his district rely on Social Security. When I think of the heartrending stories I heard that night, King's dismissive comment that the people at that meeting were "wacko malcontents" makes me absolutely furious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
When anti-privatization activists rallied outside the offices of Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), the congressman emerged and engaged his constituents in a constructive dialogue. Compare this to Rep. Peter King, who greets opposing constituents with derision. That's why Peter King needs to be replaced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Not all of King's responses are to "harsh" letters. When he called the police on constituents who wanted to speak to him, not a harsh word precipitated that. King called into question a letter writer's morality and intellectual abilities because the writer was urging King to censure Bush for lies regarding WMDs. No "harsh" words were directed at King. Peter King feels free to insult, belittle and lie because no one has called him on it. It's time someone did. The Social Security Town Hall meeting he was too afraid to attend was set up because King himself will not speak to his constituents on his own. Of course, King showed up at a union meeting, because he needs their money and support. Four hundred constituents don't mean very much when the unions can offer thousands of dollars and an endorsement. At that union meeting, they planned to ask the same questions on Social Security that the Town Hall meeting organizers and participants wanted to ask. Did King call the union members' patriotism into question? Did he call the union members "wacky malcontents?" Of course not. It goes back to endorsements and money. King is afraid of constituents who will question him and take him to task for his actions. He says he is not a "punching bag." Fair enough, but he works for us. He has an obligation to listen to his constituents. If he has to sit and take criticism, then that is what he has to do. That's part of the job. Unfortunately, his thin skin and lack of professionalism makes that difficult. The sad part is that unions still support King. He voted for the Bush budgets that have hurled us into historic deficits that will mean the working person will get the shaft at some point. King supported the Homeland Security Department bill -- which stripped workers in that department of collective bargaining. John Kennedy [head of the Building and Construction Trades Council] ought to look at King's record and see that it is more than one issue that would give the unions a second look at the man they support. King is not their friend.
John Rennhack
the editor of www.kingwatch.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Re: "Kingly Fashion," I would have to disagree with John Kennedy, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council [of Nassau and Suffolk], when he says, "We probably wouldn't abandon a candidate over just one issue..." First of all, when that one issue is Social Security, that's big enough to warrant a break. Working people bled to earn Social Security for all of us, and we have to make sure we don't lose it. But secondly, Peter King is wrong on so many issues, it's hard to know where to start. He recently supported an extremely harsh bankruptcy law that extracts the last dime from working people who get in trouble when they lose their job or have exorbitant medical bills, but offers cushy exceptions for corporate defaulters. He supported making permanent the repeal of the estate tax which ought by rights to be called the Paris Hilton tax. We are paying for this loss of revenue from the super-rich with an increase in the stealth alternative minimum tax -- which affects more middle-class families every year. And finally, King recently voted for an energy bill that allows petroleum companies to sink MTBEs into our groundwater while exempting them from prosecution. Peter King is no friend to the middle class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
