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.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
King on Stem Cells: Opening one door and trying to slam shut another
The Testaverde Fund for Spinal Cord Injury held thier annual Spinal Victory Golf Challenge on Monday. Before the event a media advisory was sent out that Rep. Peter King would "Introduce Major Federal Stem Cell Research Legislation in Congress" that day.
The legislation is H.R.2541: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of the National Institutes of Health regarding qualifying adult stem cell research, and for other purposes.
It is co-sponsered by two other Long Island reps Steve Israel and Tim Bishop. This is a commendable effort. But it targets ONLY adult stem cells. Dr. Wise Young M.D. Ph.D, a Testverde Fund advisory board member, world-renound leader in Spinal Cord Injury research and stem cell research and also a close friend of actor Christopher Reeve was honored at the event for his work.
In an panel discussion on Stem Cell research interview, Dr. Young said "I do share his [Christopher Reeve] belief that embryonic stem cells will play a major role in the cure of many neurological diseases. I do want to point out that this does not change the balance between adult or embryonic stem cells. What we need to do is to explore both and we need to get away from the future of harvesting these cells from different sources such as embryos or foetuses. The future is going to be very different. We're going to learn enough stem cell biology to be able to make stem cells out of any cell. But we have to be allowed to do the science to reach this stage and holding back science will only mire us in yesterday's science of harvesting cells. We need to go on ahead."
"... Embryonic stem cells are at the very, very earliest stages of an egg developing. It's during the first two weeks after an egg has been fertilised, it is before the egg has shown any shape or form as an embryo, it is just a clump of cells at that point. Now, the issue of whether or not this is life, I think is irrelevant to the discussion here because most of the cells that will be studied will be thrown away anyway. This is the equivalent to taking an organ from an embryo or a baby that will be dead anyway. Adult stem cells are very different in that they are part of adults, they're part of you and me. Adult stem cells will be very useful for certain types of conditions and in fact, as pointed out by several others, adult stem cells are now being used to treat haematapoietic disorders, these are blood problems. But as of yet, these cells - bone marrow or umbilical cord - have not been shown to benefit anybody with neurological conditions such as Joanna's. It's very important that we leave the way open for all the different kinds of cells so we can find out how to benefit these people."
"... I certainly agree that embryonic stem cells is currently not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but I really take umbrage at the use of the word 'never'. I don't think we have a crystal ball. I certainly don't have a crystal ball. I think that's one of the reasons why we must actually leave this avenue open for research. I think that we must not forget that there are two driving forces behind this debate. One of the driving forces is a fear of the future and the other one is hope for the future, hope for the cure, and we must balance these two. And there have not been many other situations where government has interfered in science in this same way that it has done so for embryonic stem cells. It's very important that the government really try not to step in the way of science. Let science progress, and I believe in 5 or 10 years, we will get beyond having to harvest cells from embryos or foetuses. Let science do its work."
"... we need to be putting all - everything that we can into investing and developing a scalable source of cells that can treat humans."
On Tuesday, the house held a vote on H.R.810: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed with a vote of 238-194. How did King vote? In Roll Call Vote 204, King voted NO.
Just like Tom Delay.
All other Long Island representatives voted YES.
Bush is threatening to veto the bill.
Will King vote to sustain the veto? Yes he will.
The fact is we cannot have half-measures when it comes to searching for cures that can help millions of people.
More info at the Stem Cell Research Foundation.
Bush put on a little show yesterday with families with children from adopted embryos. This was a "protest" against the embryonic stem cell bill. Too bad they are so naive and just don't get what is at stake. They assume that every frozen embryo not used in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) will be adopted. That doesn't happen. They are either destroyed or stored for future use by the parents. Some parents opt to donate the embryos for research. That research needs federal funding so that we can cure diseases that affect the living.
The legislation is H.R.2541: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of the National Institutes of Health regarding qualifying adult stem cell research, and for other purposes.
It is co-sponsered by two other Long Island reps Steve Israel and Tim Bishop. This is a commendable effort. But it targets ONLY adult stem cells. Dr. Wise Young M.D. Ph.D, a Testverde Fund advisory board member, world-renound leader in Spinal Cord Injury research and stem cell research and also a close friend of actor Christopher Reeve was honored at the event for his work.
In an panel discussion on Stem Cell research interview, Dr. Young said "I do share his [Christopher Reeve] belief that embryonic stem cells will play a major role in the cure of many neurological diseases. I do want to point out that this does not change the balance between adult or embryonic stem cells. What we need to do is to explore both and we need to get away from the future of harvesting these cells from different sources such as embryos or foetuses. The future is going to be very different. We're going to learn enough stem cell biology to be able to make stem cells out of any cell. But we have to be allowed to do the science to reach this stage and holding back science will only mire us in yesterday's science of harvesting cells. We need to go on ahead."
"... Embryonic stem cells are at the very, very earliest stages of an egg developing. It's during the first two weeks after an egg has been fertilised, it is before the egg has shown any shape or form as an embryo, it is just a clump of cells at that point. Now, the issue of whether or not this is life, I think is irrelevant to the discussion here because most of the cells that will be studied will be thrown away anyway. This is the equivalent to taking an organ from an embryo or a baby that will be dead anyway. Adult stem cells are very different in that they are part of adults, they're part of you and me. Adult stem cells will be very useful for certain types of conditions and in fact, as pointed out by several others, adult stem cells are now being used to treat haematapoietic disorders, these are blood problems. But as of yet, these cells - bone marrow or umbilical cord - have not been shown to benefit anybody with neurological conditions such as Joanna's. It's very important that we leave the way open for all the different kinds of cells so we can find out how to benefit these people."
"... I certainly agree that embryonic stem cells is currently not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but I really take umbrage at the use of the word 'never'. I don't think we have a crystal ball. I certainly don't have a crystal ball. I think that's one of the reasons why we must actually leave this avenue open for research. I think that we must not forget that there are two driving forces behind this debate. One of the driving forces is a fear of the future and the other one is hope for the future, hope for the cure, and we must balance these two. And there have not been many other situations where government has interfered in science in this same way that it has done so for embryonic stem cells. It's very important that the government really try not to step in the way of science. Let science progress, and I believe in 5 or 10 years, we will get beyond having to harvest cells from embryos or foetuses. Let science do its work."
"... we need to be putting all - everything that we can into investing and developing a scalable source of cells that can treat humans."
On Tuesday, the house held a vote on H.R.810: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed with a vote of 238-194. How did King vote? In Roll Call Vote 204, King voted NO.
Just like Tom Delay.
All other Long Island representatives voted YES.
Bush is threatening to veto the bill.
Will King vote to sustain the veto? Yes he will.
The fact is we cannot have half-measures when it comes to searching for cures that can help millions of people.
More info at the Stem Cell Research Foundation.
Bush put on a little show yesterday with families with children from adopted embryos. This was a "protest" against the embryonic stem cell bill. Too bad they are so naive and just don't get what is at stake. They assume that every frozen embryo not used in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) will be adopted. That doesn't happen. They are either destroyed or stored for future use by the parents. Some parents opt to donate the embryos for research. That research needs federal funding so that we can cure diseases that affect the living.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
King raking in Union money
For some odd reason Unions think King is on their side. This is a guy who voted for the Homeland Security Department bill that stripped workers of collective bargaining. King voted for the tax cuts for the wealthy and Bush budgets that have sent us into historic deficits that will cost the working person. King voted for the bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for a regular person but easier for corporations.
Here's a listing of Union contributions to King. If you see your Union here, let them know King isn't their friend.
Union Contributions for 2004 election cycle - 2003-2004
National Assn of Home Builders - $5,000
10/9/2003 - $2,500
10/15/2004 - $2,500
6/25/2003 - $5,000
12/30/2003 - $5,000
9/28/2004 - $5,000
Operating Engineers Local 138 - $4,000
Here's a listing of Union contributions to King. If you see your Union here, let them know King isn't their friend.
Union Contributions for 2004 election cycle - 2003-2004
National Assn of Home Builders - $5,000
10/9/2003 - $2,500
10/15/2004 - $2,500
Carpenters & Joiners Union - $10,000
6/25/2003 - $5,000
12/30/2003 - $5,000
Ironworkers Union - $2,000
4/3/2003 - $2,000
Laborers Union - $8,000
9/28/2004 - $5,000
Operating Engineers Local 138 - $4,000
3/21/2003 - $500
6/6/2003 - $500
10/7/2003 - $1,000
4/15/2004 - $500
6/11/2004 - $500
9/14/2004 - $1,000
Operating Engineers Union - $3,500
6/2/2003 - $1,000
9/24/2003 - $1,000
5/28/2004 - $500
9/24/2004 - $1,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union - $1,000
10/8/2003 - $1,000
AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Dept - $1,500
4/1/2003 - $500
10/7/2003 - $500
9/7/2004 - $500
Amalgamated Transit Union - $1,000
4/1/2003 - $1,000
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers - $50
10/26/2004 -$50
International Longshoremens Assn - $2,500
10/16/2003 -$2,500
Teamsters Union - $5,000
9/9/2004 - $5,000
Transport Workers Union - $1,000
3/4/2003 ($2,000)
6/17/2003 - $1,000
11/7/2003 - $1,000
8/31/2004 - $1,000
Transportation Communications Union - $1,000
10/16/2003 - $1,000
American Federation of Govt Employees - $1,000
4/2/2003 - $500
10/10/2003 - $500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees - $6,000
7/14/2003 - $2,500
8/13/2003 - $2,500
10/5/2004 - $1,000
International Assn of Fire Fighters - $4,500
12/10/2003 - $1,000
4/27/2004 - $1,000
9/17/2004 - $2,500
National Assn of Postmasters - $850
10/30/2003 - $350
5/7/2004 - $500
National Assn Retired Federal Employees - $1,000
9/28/2004 - $1,000
AFL-CIO - $2,500
10/22/2003 - $2,500
Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco Workers - $500
7/7/2004 - $500
Service Employees International Union - $10,000
6/11/2003 - $5,000
6/17/2003 - $5,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union - $2,500
9/29/2003 - $1,500
4/14/2004 - $1,000
TOTAL: $74,400
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Merry Month of May
Updates and news coming faster now that we have some more time here at KingWatch Central. Bookmark us and keep coming back for more.
If you 've read all the posts on this front page and want more, check out our archives listed on the right-hand side under the links. There's much more reading there.
If you 've read all the posts on this front page and want more, check out our archives listed on the right-hand side under the links. There's much more reading there.
Two sides on the environment
So in 2001, King introduces H.R.2230 Title: To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of the fuel additive MTBE in gasoline. This went nowhere with the republican congress. So on Thursday, April 21st an energy bill that would shield companies from lawsuits stemming from injuries from MTBE. Who voted for the energy bill? Why Peter King of course. He said of his 2001 bill "This substance can no longer endanger the health of our nation's residents. Please be assured I will continue to do all that I can to protect our groundwater from MTBE contamination." So what changed?
According to Newsday, King explained he "based his vote on pledges by GOP energy committee officials to consider an MTBE trust fund. He said such a fund could make immediate payments for MTBE pollution rather than forcing water suppliers to sue." Yup. Because that always works. "Pledge" to "consider" a trust fund doesn't sound like it's gonna happen. Back in 2002 Bush was trying to increase taxpayer liability for the Superfund trust. On the Hudson River, GE is fighting tooth and nail to avoid clean-up of PCB contaminants. And now the Town of Oyster Bay is suing defense contractor Northrop Grumman and the Navy to recover costs of environmental clean-up in Bethpage Community Park which was once part of the contractors property. When will the energy committee create a trust fund and where will the money come from. We shouldn't hold our breath that that will ever happen.
King tells Newsday "Being in the majority party requires judgment calls.... My judgment was to let the process go forward and see if we can come up with a trust fund that works."
And if they don't? Oops, too late.
Paul Granger, Superintendent of the Plainview Water Distict said "This really is disappointing, it's not helping New York, and I hope that our representatives rethink the picture here."
King in his usually prickly attitude replies to his critics "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Suffolk County Legislator David Bishop says it best "I don't trust the trust fund... I guarantee you it will be pennies on the dollar as to what we can get in the court."
King vows to vote against the final bill if it does not include an MTBE trust fund, "If the final package is not satisfactory, I will vote against it as I have in the past."
So he voted for it before he's going to vote against it?
We'll see.
According to Newsday, King explained he "based his vote on pledges by GOP energy committee officials to consider an MTBE trust fund. He said such a fund could make immediate payments for MTBE pollution rather than forcing water suppliers to sue." Yup. Because that always works. "Pledge" to "consider" a trust fund doesn't sound like it's gonna happen. Back in 2002 Bush was trying to increase taxpayer liability for the Superfund trust. On the Hudson River, GE is fighting tooth and nail to avoid clean-up of PCB contaminants. And now the Town of Oyster Bay is suing defense contractor Northrop Grumman and the Navy to recover costs of environmental clean-up in Bethpage Community Park which was once part of the contractors property. When will the energy committee create a trust fund and where will the money come from. We shouldn't hold our breath that that will ever happen.
King tells Newsday "Being in the majority party requires judgment calls.... My judgment was to let the process go forward and see if we can come up with a trust fund that works."
And if they don't? Oops, too late.
Paul Granger, Superintendent of the Plainview Water Distict said "This really is disappointing, it's not helping New York, and I hope that our representatives rethink the picture here."
King in his usually prickly attitude replies to his critics "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Suffolk County Legislator David Bishop says it best "I don't trust the trust fund... I guarantee you it will be pennies on the dollar as to what we can get in the court."
King vows to vote against the final bill if it does not include an MTBE trust fund, "If the final package is not satisfactory, I will vote against it as I have in the past."
So he voted for it before he's going to vote against it?
We'll see.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
King doesn't like to be questioned Part 2: Update
We covered this letter back in April 2004... See "Arrogance of the King"
King doen't like to be questioned Part 2
Some background..... back in 2003 thanks to some whistle-blowers we found out that WHOOPS! the WMD intel might not have been so good. Actually, it was all BS. We learn from a British paper that there was a 2002 memo that says Bush was manipulating evidence. The Memo charges that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Anyway, a constituent called King's office to suggest he vote to censure Bush over the WMD fabrications. The letter King sent is below:
"Dear Mr. *********,
I understand that you recently contacted my office requesting that I vote to censure President Bush. I disagree with you in every respect. You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong. President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity. Like Ed Koch I thank God every night that he is our President. You should do the same.
Very truly yours, Pete T King"
So the constituent is "morally wrong?" "Intellectually wrong?" How is he morally wrong? King never says. What does he know about the constituents morals? Absolutley nothing. How is the constituent "intellectually wrong?" Again, King doesn't really say. It's a sure bet the constituent's intellectual abilities far out-strip King's. We've shown that already. King just disagrees with his constituent and punctuates his disagreement with insults. Now, we can see King's choice of "politically wrong" (at least in his head) because King thanks god every night that Bush is president. Every night. And so does Ed Koch. Why Ed Koch? Because Koch is allegedly a Democrat and King likes to invoke Democrats to say "Hey! Look! One of your side said it too!" And for us in the world of adults, that doesn't work.
Koch loves GWBush.
Big deal.
More fun with with King and his constituents coming up.
Anyway, a constituent called King's office to suggest he vote to censure Bush over the WMD fabrications. The letter King sent is below:
"Dear Mr. *********,
I understand that you recently contacted my office requesting that I vote to censure President Bush. I disagree with you in every respect. You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong. President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity. Like Ed Koch I thank God every night that he is our President. You should do the same.
Very truly yours, Pete T King"
So the constituent is "morally wrong?" "Intellectually wrong?" How is he morally wrong? King never says. What does he know about the constituents morals? Absolutley nothing. How is the constituent "intellectually wrong?" Again, King doesn't really say. It's a sure bet the constituent's intellectual abilities far out-strip King's. We've shown that already. King just disagrees with his constituent and punctuates his disagreement with insults. Now, we can see King's choice of "politically wrong" (at least in his head) because King thanks god every night that Bush is president. Every night. And so does Ed Koch. Why Ed Koch? Because Koch is allegedly a Democrat and King likes to invoke Democrats to say "Hey! Look! One of your side said it too!" And for us in the world of adults, that doesn't work.
Koch loves GWBush.
Big deal.
More fun with with King and his constituents coming up.
Friday, May 06, 2005
King doesn't like to be questioned Part 1
Here is one of many back and forths between King and a constituent.
The constituent in question recieved one of King's "Special Report's" and it included the incredible statement "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Unreported because it's untrue.
Rep. King-
re: Special Report from Washington, Fall 2003
Think, if you were still in Mosul when the wreakage of those two Black Hawks dropped from of sky.
Think about it.
Think about the reported fact that at the time the war resolution was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last fall, all but of 2 of 535 in that august body had a child serving in the military.
Perhaps, then, if you do some hard thinking, you won't return stateside shooting the messengers.
If the media and those of you in Congress had not abdicated your watchdog role prior to war, and examined Administration representations, this headlong rush to Iraq might have been slowed sufficiently until we were better prepared to consolidate and secure post-conflict.
The issue you should be raising now was how we allowed Iraqi munitions depots, most of which we knew about from inspections, to stand unguarded.
That's the question I would want answered if I were Jake Fletcher's dad.
I would have no patience for your Pollyanna finger-pointing.
Very sincerely,
*****************
response from Pete.King@mail.house.gov 11/21/03 4:47pm
Your e-mail is the ultimate non sequitur. It also reeks of self-righteous ignorance.
Unlike you I am capable of hard- thinking and am proud that I voted to authorize the war against Iraq and am proud to support the President and our troops today. No right-thinking person could claim that twelve years is a rush to war; nor could it be disputed that the pre-war intelligence and data were identical to what the Clinton Administration concluded.
As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possibility during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Baghdad during daylight and at night. What was your point?
As to the munitions sites every effort is being made to secure them and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible. Considering that there are hundreds of these "depots" as you call them and some of them are larger than Manhattan, we are making extraordinary progress.
I think about our troops and our survival as our nation and that's why I will continue to support this President and his policies.
Peter King
The constituent in question recieved one of King's "Special Report's" and it included the incredible statement "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Unreported because it's untrue.
Rep. King-
re: Special Report from Washington, Fall 2003
Think, if you were still in Mosul when the wreakage of those two Black Hawks dropped from of sky.
Think about it.
Think about the reported fact that at the time the war resolution was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last fall, all but of 2 of 535 in that august body had a child serving in the military.
Perhaps, then, if you do some hard thinking, you won't return stateside shooting the messengers.
If the media and those of you in Congress had not abdicated your watchdog role prior to war, and examined Administration representations, this headlong rush to Iraq might have been slowed sufficiently until we were better prepared to consolidate and secure post-conflict.
The issue you should be raising now was how we allowed Iraqi munitions depots, most of which we knew about from inspections, to stand unguarded.
That's the question I would want answered if I were Jake Fletcher's dad.
I would have no patience for your Pollyanna finger-pointing.
Very sincerely,
*****************
response from Pete.King@mail.house.gov 11/21/03 4:47pm
Your e-mail is the ultimate non sequitur. It also reeks of self-righteous ignorance.
Unlike you I am capable of hard- thinking and am proud that I voted to authorize the war against Iraq and am proud to support the President and our troops today. No right-thinking person could claim that twelve years is a rush to war; nor could it be disputed that the pre-war intelligence and data were identical to what the Clinton Administration concluded.
As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possibility during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Baghdad during daylight and at night. What was your point?
As to the munitions sites every effort is being made to secure them and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible. Considering that there are hundreds of these "depots" as you call them and some of them are larger than Manhattan, we are making extraordinary progress.
I think about our troops and our survival as our nation and that's why I will continue to support this President and his policies.
Peter King
11/22/03
Rep. King-
Setting aside your use of "ultimate" hyperbole, refamiliarizing yourself with the content of your own Special Report from Washington might inform the confusion which led you to cry "non sequitar".
"Their[every soldier I met] concern is that distorted media coverage will encourage the terrorists to fight amd cause America to lose its will and withdraw."
That's a resounding consensus, even for a man given to absolutes. The last time there was such universal agreement was Saddam's final 'plebiscite'. What do you make of uncertain military figures cited by other sources? Further examples of "distorted media coverage"?
You questioned what my "point" was, invoking the mid-air collision of those two Black Hawks over Mosul. Again, allow me to defer to your Special Report. In text alongside the photo of your meeting "with troops in Mosul", you declare that, "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Factoring out recent lethal attacks to the south and north, a geographic measure of the Sunni triangle where, as you state, "virtually all the violence occurs," seemingly constitutes more than 5% of the country. Certainly Bagdad, with its estimated 3.8M people[StateDept'86] plus surrounding area comprise well over 20% of Iraq's population. Doubtless, you, and the National Review which, coincidently, also cited that 95%, are able to call upon some variation of Enron-style accounting to explain your figure.
But lest we nitpick over your penchant for quadrupling numbers, why not simply return to you own words:
"As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possiblity
during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Bagdad."
You should have "very real" concerns flying over Bagdad, by why the same concern over Mosul, in that area north of the Sunni Triangle you describe as "safe and secure"?
Get the point, now, Congressman?
Relative to the point about unsecured weapons depots, which you goosestepped over with "twelve years is" no "rush to war", be good enough to clarify. How long after the President declared "mission accomplished" last May was "every effort to secure and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible" initiated? Would you insist on characterizing the post-conflict plan as 95% effective? And do you hold to the position that the timing of "Iraqi Freedom" was based on imminent threat and could not possibly have benefitted from more preparation?
Clearly, as you declare, you remain "proud"; your chest-thumping is almost palpable between every stroke of your keyboard. Perhaps our nation, our troops and your district would be better served by less "right thinking" and more objective thought.
Oh, and excuse the odor if I continue to "reek of self-righteous ignorance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
