Been busy lately but have alot to add. More on the Plame treason case and alot of King's voting record. PLUS more people get nasty letters from King.
Until we get in the groove again we just want to say "HELLO!" to the house.gov visitors.
And of course a hardy welcome to those new to Pete King Watch.
Check out our archives and if you feel liek it e-mail us and tell us what you think.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Summer Vacation is OVER!
We're back and it's time to get rid of Peter King once and for all.
We have a candidate who can send King back to Seaford.
Meet Blair Mathies.
Tomorrow: Things Peter King doesn't want you to see.
Also: Robert Previdi is challenging King in the Republican primary. King only gets 6000-7000 votes in a primary. That means it will only take 7500 registered republicans who see King's incompetence to get rid of him in September.
We have a candidate who can send King back to Seaford.
Meet Blair Mathies.
Tomorrow: Things Peter King doesn't want you to see.
Also: Robert Previdi is challenging King in the Republican primary. King only gets 6000-7000 votes in a primary. That means it will only take 7500 registered republicans who see King's incompetence to get rid of him in September.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
King is well liked... well not really
From the Guardian UK:
"And then, rather disconcertingly, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people. Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance."
"And then, rather disconcertingly, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people. Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance."
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Pete King and his support of terrorism
From a BBC interview:
King: To me terrorism is always wrong, but I think the IRA was a legitimate force that had to be dealt with.
BBC: A legitimate force? It wasn't a terrorist group trying to bomb and blow-up the democratically elected government of a sovereign state? That wasn't terrorism?
King: No, I would say it was a legitimate fight going on in Northern Ireland. Any time a civilian was targeted that was wrong. If you look back over the record, there was probably a greater number of, percentage wise, of civilians killed by the security forces in the world by the IRA. …To me terrorism is if you target civilians.
BBC: That's not the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using violence to gain political ends.
King: To me terrorism is always wrong, but I think the IRA was a legitimate force that had to be dealt with.
BBC: A legitimate force? It wasn't a terrorist group trying to bomb and blow-up the democratically elected government of a sovereign state? That wasn't terrorism?
King: No, I would say it was a legitimate fight going on in Northern Ireland. Any time a civilian was targeted that was wrong. If you look back over the record, there was probably a greater number of, percentage wise, of civilians killed by the security forces in the world by the IRA. …To me terrorism is if you target civilians.
BBC: That's not the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using violence to gain political ends.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Excusing Treason??
As this is being written there is an investigation into columnist Bob Novak's exposing the name of a CIA undercover agent. Early last year as Bush built his lies for the Bush-Iraq War, Joe Wilson a former ambassador and career State Department diplomat came forward to expose one of the lies Bush told.
The Bush administration tends to go on the attack and in usual fashion tried to destroy Joe Wilson by using his wife Valerie Plame. Valerie Plame was a NOC agent for the CIA. By exposing the name of a CIA agent, that agent and all of the agents contacts are compromised. And by "compromised" we mean their lives are in danger. This also ruins all the intelligence collected by the agent and contacts.
The whole sordid affair... or rather treason can be found here.
Enter Peter King. King told WABC host Stever Malzberg the it is Pete Wilson who needs to be investigated!!! King said "I assume that if he went into this job for the CIA, he had to sign an oath of secrecy - a confidentiality [agreement]" And if he did, then he violated it and he should be prosecuted."
and
"He conducted a so-called secret mission for the CIA he's talking about it all over national and international television - undermining the president of the United States. ... Why wasn't this guy called in before a grand jury?"
Joe Wilson responded to King in an interview and said "No. This was not a CIA mission. Mr. King would do well to inform himself. I specifically told the CIA that I don't do clandestine and that I would do a government activity. I briefed the State Department before I went out there, I secured the clearance of the ambassador before I went to Niger. I spoke with the ambassador here when I went there. I made it clear to my interlocutors that I was posing questions on behalf of my government. My particular look at this was not clandestine, it was a look at how the industry operates."
Again King makes unfounded accusations and comes out with egg on his face.
Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy said of King's allegations "For King to say that just sounds like Republican hackery. It really does. This thing has legs and the Bush people are sweating."
The simple fact is that someone authorized the release of a CIA agents name and this is being used as a tactic to attempt to intimidate those who would speak the truth about Bush. Bush and his people put intelligence agents and contacts in real danger and may have caused harm to intelligence gathering. That is treason. And Peter King would rather go after Joe Wilson. Interesting priorities.
The Bush administration tends to go on the attack and in usual fashion tried to destroy Joe Wilson by using his wife Valerie Plame. Valerie Plame was a NOC agent for the CIA. By exposing the name of a CIA agent, that agent and all of the agents contacts are compromised. And by "compromised" we mean their lives are in danger. This also ruins all the intelligence collected by the agent and contacts.
The whole sordid affair... or rather treason can be found here.
Enter Peter King. King told WABC host Stever Malzberg the it is Pete Wilson who needs to be investigated!!! King said "I assume that if he went into this job for the CIA, he had to sign an oath of secrecy - a confidentiality [agreement]" And if he did, then he violated it and he should be prosecuted."
and
"He conducted a so-called secret mission for the CIA he's talking about it all over national and international television - undermining the president of the United States. ... Why wasn't this guy called in before a grand jury?"
Joe Wilson responded to King in an interview and said "No. This was not a CIA mission. Mr. King would do well to inform himself. I specifically told the CIA that I don't do clandestine and that I would do a government activity. I briefed the State Department before I went out there, I secured the clearance of the ambassador before I went to Niger. I spoke with the ambassador here when I went there. I made it clear to my interlocutors that I was posing questions on behalf of my government. My particular look at this was not clandestine, it was a look at how the industry operates."
Again King makes unfounded accusations and comes out with egg on his face.
Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy said of King's allegations "For King to say that just sounds like Republican hackery. It really does. This thing has legs and the Bush people are sweating."
The simple fact is that someone authorized the release of a CIA agents name and this is being used as a tactic to attempt to intimidate those who would speak the truth about Bush. Bush and his people put intelligence agents and contacts in real danger and may have caused harm to intelligence gathering. That is treason. And Peter King would rather go after Joe Wilson. Interesting priorities.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
King and the Shame of Nassau County
In 2002 King sponsered a bill that would name a Federal Courthouse after disgraced and defeated Sen. Al D'Amato. The first thought any one would have about this would be "D'Amato should be tried in that courthouse, not have it named after him." But alas, the deed was done.
The naming of a courthouse or any federal building should be reserved for men and woman of disticntion, not a criminal like D'Amato.
For a rundown of D'Amato and his illicit dealings see this site and this site and if you can still get it try the great book by Leonrad Lurie.
D'Amato nimbly slipped out of prosecutors hands while a Senate Ethics investigation found D'Amato to be a crafty criminal of the lowest caliber. When asked for a release of D'Amatos etchics committee testimony, the committe defers to D'Amato and D'Amato refuses to authorize thier release. Why is that?
King embarrassed Long Island by sponsering this naming. Right now there are men and women being convicted in a courthouse named after a man who should be thier cellmate.
A great article about D'Amato can be found here
The naming of a courthouse or any federal building should be reserved for men and woman of disticntion, not a criminal like D'Amato.
For a rundown of D'Amato and his illicit dealings see this site and this site and if you can still get it try the great book by Leonrad Lurie.
D'Amato nimbly slipped out of prosecutors hands while a Senate Ethics investigation found D'Amato to be a crafty criminal of the lowest caliber. When asked for a release of D'Amatos etchics committee testimony, the committe defers to D'Amato and D'Amato refuses to authorize thier release. Why is that?
King embarrassed Long Island by sponsering this naming. Right now there are men and women being convicted in a courthouse named after a man who should be thier cellmate.
A great article about D'Amato can be found here
Saturday, April 17, 2004
A lie
From the Massapequa Post:
"I am responding to the uninformed letter which appeared in your April 25 paper. The letter charges that I voted against veterans and it is entirely untrue."
Untrue, eh?
In 1999 HR2116 passed the House without King's vote.
The letter King was responding to referenced the fact that the proposed budget would short-change veterans. King denied this and said "Because this budget is so supportive of veterans' programs, it has been endorsed by such veterans' organizations as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America."
In fact, the budget was assailed by the very veterans groups he cites. The Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert "Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation’s heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" The DAV sent a bulletin out outlining the fight to preserve benefits. The VFW called the house budget a "betrayal."
I wasn't until AFTER the VFW, AL, DAV and PVA spoke out that the budget was changed. Unfortunatly the VA is STILL underfunded.
"I am responding to the uninformed letter which appeared in your April 25 paper. The letter charges that I voted against veterans and it is entirely untrue."
Untrue, eh?
In 1999 HR2116 passed the House without King's vote.
The letter King was responding to referenced the fact that the proposed budget would short-change veterans. King denied this and said "Because this budget is so supportive of veterans' programs, it has been endorsed by such veterans' organizations as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America."
In fact, the budget was assailed by the very veterans groups he cites. The Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert "Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation’s heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" The DAV sent a bulletin out outlining the fight to preserve benefits. The VFW called the house budget a "betrayal."
I wasn't until AFTER the VFW, AL, DAV and PVA spoke out that the budget was changed. Unfortunatly the VA is STILL underfunded.
Friday, April 16, 2004
The Arrogance of the King
Peter King can't take criticism or tough questions. When confronted, King lashes out like a child. The letter to Mr. Harry Halikias as reported in Newsday is just one instance of King's unbelievable arrorance. King wrote to Mr. Halikias is "...morally, intellectually and politically wrong." It is incredible as Mr. Halikais put it "How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?"
That is what King does.
When King went after Sen. John McCain on the campaign finance issue, King used his usual rhetoric "McCain has been grandstanding the whole campaign finance issue to death. He has a tremendous sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority."
McCain unleashed a letter in The Hill which sums King up quite nicely with "As far as Rep. [Peter] King’s [R-N.Y.] opinions are concerned, I could hardly care less what his opinion of me is or what motives he attributes to my support for campaign finance reform. His accusation of grandstanding is laughable given that there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
This is in 1997 and even back then King was known as a do-nothing on the legislative front and a big mouth in front of the cameras. Kings recent comments about american muslims conform to the statement "...he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites" and of course sell books.
Indeed, McCain's words were precient when he said "...When I have a disagreement with someone, I will press my case forcefully, but I will not define my opponents’ motives or question their character. As Mr. King has chosen to question mine..."
McCain goes on "He (King) and I barely know each other. I think we have met on one occasion. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. King has grasped his insights into my character. But let me suggest to Mr. King that there are many people in Congress who may sincerely hold views on an issue contrary to the majority view in their party.
They hold these views honorably, and not because they put their ambition before their party, but because they put their principles first. No doubt this comes as a shock to Mr. King, but should he ever consider adopting a principle or two himself, he might find, for the first time, that people consider his views worthy of respect."
That is what King does.
When King went after Sen. John McCain on the campaign finance issue, King used his usual rhetoric "McCain has been grandstanding the whole campaign finance issue to death. He has a tremendous sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority."
McCain unleashed a letter in The Hill which sums King up quite nicely with "As far as Rep. [Peter] King’s [R-N.Y.] opinions are concerned, I could hardly care less what his opinion of me is or what motives he attributes to my support for campaign finance reform. His accusation of grandstanding is laughable given that there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
This is in 1997 and even back then King was known as a do-nothing on the legislative front and a big mouth in front of the cameras. Kings recent comments about american muslims conform to the statement "...he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites" and of course sell books.
Indeed, McCain's words were precient when he said "...When I have a disagreement with someone, I will press my case forcefully, but I will not define my opponents’ motives or question their character. As Mr. King has chosen to question mine..."
McCain goes on "He (King) and I barely know each other. I think we have met on one occasion. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. King has grasped his insights into my character. But let me suggest to Mr. King that there are many people in Congress who may sincerely hold views on an issue contrary to the majority view in their party.
They hold these views honorably, and not because they put their ambition before their party, but because they put their principles first. No doubt this comes as a shock to Mr. King, but should he ever consider adopting a principle or two himself, he might find, for the first time, that people consider his views worthy of respect."
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Why does King lie?
Really now, it's so easy to prove the incredible lies King spreads everytime he speaks. On a WNBC interview with Gabe Pressman King defends Bush's actions regarding the 9/11 Commision by saying
"... But this administration has complied enormously with the September 11th Commission, turning over millions of pages of documents."
Let's be real here. Bush OPPOSED the creation of the commission and then opposed extending the commission deadline. Then Bush refused to let Rice testify in public under oath citing a bogus precedent about presidential advisors not testifying. Oops... there have been many instances where this has happend and it turns out as far back as the Pearl Harbor investigation.
The Bushies have stonewalled investigators by refusing to hand over relevant documents and then when it looks like the popular "Clinton did nothing" myth is about to be shattered, the Bushies refuse to release Clinton papers that Clinton agreed to release.
Now part of the bargain to "let" Rice testify under oath and in public, Bush will meet with the panel in private and not under oath and holding hands with Cheney. Before Bush was only going to meet (not "testify") with the co-chairs and then withthe whole panel but for only an hour.
Is this "complying enormously?" We think not. Maybe King woul dliek to take this opportunity to revise his ridiculous remarks.
"... But this administration has complied enormously with the September 11th Commission, turning over millions of pages of documents."
Let's be real here. Bush OPPOSED the creation of the commission and then opposed extending the commission deadline. Then Bush refused to let Rice testify in public under oath citing a bogus precedent about presidential advisors not testifying. Oops... there have been many instances where this has happend and it turns out as far back as the Pearl Harbor investigation.
The Bushies have stonewalled investigators by refusing to hand over relevant documents and then when it looks like the popular "Clinton did nothing" myth is about to be shattered, the Bushies refuse to release Clinton papers that Clinton agreed to release.
Now part of the bargain to "let" Rice testify under oath and in public, Bush will meet with the panel in private and not under oath and holding hands with Cheney. Before Bush was only going to meet (not "testify") with the co-chairs and then withthe whole panel but for only an hour.
Is this "complying enormously?" We think not. Maybe King woul dliek to take this opportunity to revise his ridiculous remarks.
Angry constituents
After Kings comments about muslims, there was a pile-on with letters to the editor lambasting King. Here are a few excerpts:
March 9th
" In the three years since Rep. King (R-Seaford) has become my representative, I have been appalled by the arrogance, lack of respect and dismissiveness that King and some of his staff have shown to people who do not agree with the hard-right turn of the House of Representatives."
"On one occasion, my husband called his office to take exception to statements he made on a cable news show in defense of the Bush administration's lies about the Iraq war. King fired back a sarcastic letter reiterating the lies and suggesting that my husband purchase a copy of the broadcast tape and watch it during the summer for "his enlightenment."
March 15th
"Lately Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has been jumping from one media outlet to another repeating his Islamophobic statements. Doesn't he have anything to do except defame the people whom he represents?
King's statements can further hurt the minorities in New York. Reports have shown that there is a trend of eroding civil rights in the Muslim and South Asian communities in New York and other states. Reported incidents include school and work-place discrimination, financial discrimination, harassment and even hate crimes."
March 16th
"I don't think people in this district would vote for Texas Rep. Tom DeLay if his name was on the ballot, but because of strong party "discipline," every Republican member of the House is now a political clone of DeLay, who is House majority leader.
King consistently votes with DeLay: for tax cuts for the super rich, for drilling in the Arctic, for an energy bill written by the oil industry, and for a Medicare drug benefit bill written by the pharmaceutical industry."
"This November, I intend to vote for A.B.K. - Anybody But King - in order to help take the House of Representatives away from the radicals who have so cynically hijacked it."
March 17th
"As a constituent of Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), I am troubled by his speeches and letters about the Islamic community.
While attending Hofstra University I had the privilege and honor of meeting Faroque Khan, president of the Islamic Cultural Center of Long Island, and attending a service at his mosque.
As a Jew, I had serious reservations. But from the first moment we arrived those reservations went away because Khan made us all feel welcome."
And to show how much of an arrogant you-know-what King is, check this out:
From the March 18th Newsday
"A Bellmore man this week learned how deeply Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) supports President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Harry Halikias believed the president lied about invading to destroy weapons of mass destruction. So he wrote to King urging he vote to censure Bush for dishonesty.
King declined.
Halikias was fine with most of King's March 11 reply letter, which read, "I disagree with you in every respect. ... President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity."
But the congressman also wrote, "You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong."
That angered Halikias. "I am blown away by it. How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?" he said. "He personally attacked me based on an issue important to my community."
In an interview Tuesday, King said he'd been deliberately blunt. "He was personally attacking the president, and I was defending the president."
Halikias was especially upset because he has supported King. "If I'm so morally bankrupt, why did I vote for him?" the constituent said.
King responded, "I guess he's undecided now."
March 9th
" In the three years since Rep. King (R-Seaford) has become my representative, I have been appalled by the arrogance, lack of respect and dismissiveness that King and some of his staff have shown to people who do not agree with the hard-right turn of the House of Representatives."
"On one occasion, my husband called his office to take exception to statements he made on a cable news show in defense of the Bush administration's lies about the Iraq war. King fired back a sarcastic letter reiterating the lies and suggesting that my husband purchase a copy of the broadcast tape and watch it during the summer for "his enlightenment."
March 15th
"Lately Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has been jumping from one media outlet to another repeating his Islamophobic statements. Doesn't he have anything to do except defame the people whom he represents?
King's statements can further hurt the minorities in New York. Reports have shown that there is a trend of eroding civil rights in the Muslim and South Asian communities in New York and other states. Reported incidents include school and work-place discrimination, financial discrimination, harassment and even hate crimes."
March 16th
"I don't think people in this district would vote for Texas Rep. Tom DeLay if his name was on the ballot, but because of strong party "discipline," every Republican member of the House is now a political clone of DeLay, who is House majority leader.
King consistently votes with DeLay: for tax cuts for the super rich, for drilling in the Arctic, for an energy bill written by the oil industry, and for a Medicare drug benefit bill written by the pharmaceutical industry."
"This November, I intend to vote for A.B.K. - Anybody But King - in order to help take the House of Representatives away from the radicals who have so cynically hijacked it."
March 17th
"As a constituent of Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), I am troubled by his speeches and letters about the Islamic community.
While attending Hofstra University I had the privilege and honor of meeting Faroque Khan, president of the Islamic Cultural Center of Long Island, and attending a service at his mosque.
As a Jew, I had serious reservations. But from the first moment we arrived those reservations went away because Khan made us all feel welcome."
And to show how much of an arrogant you-know-what King is, check this out:
From the March 18th Newsday
"A Bellmore man this week learned how deeply Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) supports President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Harry Halikias believed the president lied about invading to destroy weapons of mass destruction. So he wrote to King urging he vote to censure Bush for dishonesty.
King declined.
Halikias was fine with most of King's March 11 reply letter, which read, "I disagree with you in every respect. ... President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity."
But the congressman also wrote, "You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong."
That angered Halikias. "I am blown away by it. How can he judge my morality and how intellectual I am?" he said. "He personally attacked me based on an issue important to my community."
In an interview Tuesday, King said he'd been deliberately blunt. "He was personally attacking the president, and I was defending the president."
Halikias was especially upset because he has supported King. "If I'm so morally bankrupt, why did I vote for him?" the constituent said.
King responded, "I guess he's undecided now."
Friday, April 02, 2004
King is just wrong as usual
From CNN
"And also this is the media swirl involving Dick Clarke. And the media has given him such a free ride, because he has not made one factual allegation that backs up his case whatsoever. I think it's really been pretty disgraceful the way the media has given him this free ride."
So if as King says, Clarke has not made "one factual allegation" then that means Clarke lied under oath. Why not be the first in the well of the House to call for perjury charges? Let's see King request the Justice Department file charges. This CNN interview as on March 30th and still no perjury charges have been filed against Clarke. We wonder why.
So far every accusation from Clarke has been supported.
The lack of urgency Clarke spoke of is actually backed up by Bush's own words in the Bob Woodward book "Bush at War." The book was hailed by the Bushies as being completely accurate.
WOODWARD (page 39): [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point…I didn’t have that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.”
"And also this is the media swirl involving Dick Clarke. And the media has given him such a free ride, because he has not made one factual allegation that backs up his case whatsoever. I think it's really been pretty disgraceful the way the media has given him this free ride."
So if as King says, Clarke has not made "one factual allegation" then that means Clarke lied under oath. Why not be the first in the well of the House to call for perjury charges? Let's see King request the Justice Department file charges. This CNN interview as on March 30th and still no perjury charges have been filed against Clarke. We wonder why.
So far every accusation from Clarke has been supported.
The lack of urgency Clarke spoke of is actually backed up by Bush's own words in the Bob Woodward book "Bush at War." The book was hailed by the Bushies as being completely accurate.
WOODWARD (page 39): [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point…I didn’t have that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.”
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Spanish Appeasement or is King an Idiot?
King is an idiot. Plain and simple. King tells NRO "The defeat of Aznar's Popular party was a clear victory for the terrorists. Unfortunately, in the face of attack, the Spanish electorate opted for appeasement."
That FACT is that unlike King, Spaniards know the difference between a war on terror and the Bush-Iraq War. The Spanish people support the war on terrorism but they do not support the Bush-Iraq War with polling showing 90% against the Bush-Iraq War. The Aznar government was on shaky ground back in March of 2003 and the election this year bore out the opposition to Spanish involvement in the Bush-Iraq war.
When it comes to an actual war on terror, a war Spain has been fighting for over 40 years with ETA, the new Prime Minister has committed to doubling their forces in Afghanistan.
What exaserbated the voters anger at Aznar was his governments insistance against all availbale evidence that the Madrid train bombings (M-11) were planned and executed by ETA.
King's lack of basic knowledge of world affairs is frightening and sad because too often he is called by news organizations to comment on things he simply does not know about.
That FACT is that unlike King, Spaniards know the difference between a war on terror and the Bush-Iraq War. The Spanish people support the war on terrorism but they do not support the Bush-Iraq War with polling showing 90% against the Bush-Iraq War. The Aznar government was on shaky ground back in March of 2003 and the election this year bore out the opposition to Spanish involvement in the Bush-Iraq war.
When it comes to an actual war on terror, a war Spain has been fighting for over 40 years with ETA, the new Prime Minister has committed to doubling their forces in Afghanistan.
What exaserbated the voters anger at Aznar was his governments insistance against all availbale evidence that the Madrid train bombings (M-11) were planned and executed by ETA.
King's lack of basic knowledge of world affairs is frightening and sad because too often he is called by news organizations to comment on things he simply does not know about.
Why now Peter?
It's intersting that the only times King has spoken about the muslim threat in local mosques has been in reference to his book. There are no House floor speeches nor any press interviews that make mention of this troubling finding he made.
Back on November 9th, just over a month before the release of his latest snooze-fest, King was on with Gabe Pressman on WNBC and only got to the threat when Pressman asked about his book. If this was such an important matter why does King wait until after he wrote a book and starts a press tour to let us know there is a problem?
Simple: King just wants to sell books.
The exchange started like this
"PRESSMAN: What about the book that you had just published or are about to publish? What's it called?
Rep. KING: Oh, book coming out in January called "Veil of Tears." It's a novel based on a terrorist attack in New York in the next several years, and it goes back and forth between the future and September 11th. "
And after a little banter:
Rep. KING: Well, it's one of those things. Actually, what I am trying to show in the book, to make a long story short, the--that there is a threat, I believe, in our country from Islamic fundamentalism which because of political correctness we're not addressing. And you can talk to police, FBI--they will tell you they're getting very little cooperation from the Muslim community in this country. And I think this is something that's a time bomb that's ready--it's going to go off someday.
PRESSMAN: You mean, there are Muslims with American citizenship who are going to blow up the country?
Rep. KING: Oh, there's no doubt there are fifth columns in this country, there are sleeper cells in this country. And we're not getting a level of cooperation that we should be getting from the Muslim community. And I can--you can ask any police chief, police commissioner--they'll tell you the same thing. I think it's something that we should address. Not that they would be supporting us, but they're willing to look the other way. They're just not cooperating with the police. Listen, let's--we know that there are sleeper cells. We know that, for instance, the first World Trade Center--there were people in--you know, from New York involved in it and New Jersey. And there's--it's something we really have to be concerned about.
Back on November 9th, just over a month before the release of his latest snooze-fest, King was on with Gabe Pressman on WNBC and only got to the threat when Pressman asked about his book. If this was such an important matter why does King wait until after he wrote a book and starts a press tour to let us know there is a problem?
Simple: King just wants to sell books.
The exchange started like this
"PRESSMAN: What about the book that you had just published or are about to publish? What's it called?
Rep. KING: Oh, book coming out in January called "Veil of Tears." It's a novel based on a terrorist attack in New York in the next several years, and it goes back and forth between the future and September 11th. "
And after a little banter:
Rep. KING: Well, it's one of those things. Actually, what I am trying to show in the book, to make a long story short, the--that there is a threat, I believe, in our country from Islamic fundamentalism which because of political correctness we're not addressing. And you can talk to police, FBI--they will tell you they're getting very little cooperation from the Muslim community in this country. And I think this is something that's a time bomb that's ready--it's going to go off someday.
PRESSMAN: You mean, there are Muslims with American citizenship who are going to blow up the country?
Rep. KING: Oh, there's no doubt there are fifth columns in this country, there are sleeper cells in this country. And we're not getting a level of cooperation that we should be getting from the Muslim community. And I can--you can ask any police chief, police commissioner--they'll tell you the same thing. I think it's something that we should address. Not that they would be supporting us, but they're willing to look the other way. They're just not cooperating with the police. Listen, let's--we know that there are sleeper cells. We know that, for instance, the first World Trade Center--there were people in--you know, from New York involved in it and New Jersey. And there's--it's something we really have to be concerned about.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Opportunist pt. 2
King's claim to fame as in "independent" is his vote against President Bill Clintons impeachment. Now why would a hard-core, right-wing republican do such a thing? Because he stuck his finger in the air, checked the way the wind was blowing and made his decision. Plus King needed Clinton for his pet project: Ireland.
In 1996 Bill Clinton won the 3rd congressional district with 52% of the vote. Even going into the impeachment in 1998, Bill Clinton topped out with a 72% approval rating. To curry favor with President Clinton, King even called Newt Gingrich "... roadkill on the highway of American politics."
It's all about what is best for Peter King and how can Peter King get what he wants. King came out in support of local muslims but when it is time to sell his book, he turns on them.
Up next: Election 2000
No one trusts Peter King:
"Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different."- Republican leaderTom Delay
In 1996 Bill Clinton won the 3rd congressional district with 52% of the vote. Even going into the impeachment in 1998, Bill Clinton topped out with a 72% approval rating. To curry favor with President Clinton, King even called Newt Gingrich "... roadkill on the highway of American politics."
It's all about what is best for Peter King and how can Peter King get what he wants. King came out in support of local muslims but when it is time to sell his book, he turns on them.
Up next: Election 2000
No one trusts Peter King:
"Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different."- Republican leaderTom Delay
Monday, March 08, 2004
A letter in the Long Island Press
This was published one year ago about King and his hatred of France. Pete was upset that France was not doing what the Bush wanted and King made his displeasure known. Pete cancelled his trip to Paris and took pot-shots at "old Europe" every chance he got.
We are also transcribing a hilarious BBC Radio interview with King to be posted shortly.
Long Island Press
March 7, 2003
C'est What?
George W. Bush suffered another blow against his war when Turkey
could not be bought and they voted against being the second front.
This slap in the face is similar to the one delivered by France and
Germany. Rep. Peter King along with local and national patriots have
taught France and Germany a lesson by slapping them back. . The
unstoppable Mr. King took a stand and will not grace the City of
Lights with his presence. France has been downgraded from 2nd to 3rd
rate nation. French wine? Make mine Night Train sez the flag-draped
Mr. King. He'll have Freedom Fries with his hamburger... oops Patriot
Patty. Only Silver Dollar Pancakes at IHOP, none of that French
Appeasement Toast. Mr. King will no longer watch his Special Edition
DVD of Grease in a boycott of Frenchy (Didi Conn unavailable for
comment.) Now it is Turkey's turn. It'll be All-American Ham (not the
Black Forest kind) USAHeroes hold the dijon mustard and add extra
mayo. Thanksgiving 2003 will have Patriot Poultry or Fore-Fathers Fowl
as it's main course. The bird whose claim to fame is a chopping block
every november will suffer unspeakably. Good Ally Australian Lamb can
take your place, Mr. Gobble. A word to the wise from Peter King; you
better watch out Chile, get on his wrong side and no more baby back,
baby back ribs.
John Rennhack
We are also transcribing a hilarious BBC Radio interview with King to be posted shortly.
Long Island Press
March 7, 2003
C'est What?
George W. Bush suffered another blow against his war when Turkey
could not be bought and they voted against being the second front.
This slap in the face is similar to the one delivered by France and
Germany. Rep. Peter King along with local and national patriots have
taught France and Germany a lesson by slapping them back. . The
unstoppable Mr. King took a stand and will not grace the City of
Lights with his presence. France has been downgraded from 2nd to 3rd
rate nation. French wine? Make mine Night Train sez the flag-draped
Mr. King. He'll have Freedom Fries with his hamburger... oops Patriot
Patty. Only Silver Dollar Pancakes at IHOP, none of that French
Appeasement Toast. Mr. King will no longer watch his Special Edition
DVD of Grease in a boycott of Frenchy (Didi Conn unavailable for
comment.) Now it is Turkey's turn. It'll be All-American Ham (not the
Black Forest kind) USAHeroes hold the dijon mustard and add extra
mayo. Thanksgiving 2003 will have Patriot Poultry or Fore-Fathers Fowl
as it's main course. The bird whose claim to fame is a chopping block
every november will suffer unspeakably. Good Ally Australian Lamb can
take your place, Mr. Gobble. A word to the wise from Peter King; you
better watch out Chile, get on his wrong side and no more baby back,
baby back ribs.
John Rennhack
Monday, March 01, 2004
King on Bush
George W. Bush "showed a willingness to take any road to the White House.'' AP report 02/20/2000
George W. Bush "probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about." USAToday
"Combine that with the fact that last year, Bush said he wasn't certain whether Jews could get into heaven,... The fact Bush said that as part of an intellectual debate scared me -- and I'm not Jewish. If Jews can't get into heaven, who's next?" The Jewish Journal February 25, 2000
George W. Bush "probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about." USAToday
"Combine that with the fact that last year, Bush said he wasn't certain whether Jews could get into heaven,... The fact Bush said that as part of an intellectual debate scared me -- and I'm not Jewish. If Jews can't get into heaven, who's next?" The Jewish Journal February 25, 2000
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Petey Get Your Gun
In 1999 Pete King voted for Bill HR 2122 introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum, R-FL that would require purchases of guns at gun shows to have a completed background check which was 72 hours but shortened to 24 hours. Vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999.
It is a known fact that terrorists want to exploit our weak gun laws to amass weapons. The Brady Center did a study which details this situation.
In documents entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" found in Afghanistan, the terrorists suggests to it's students that they should come to the US to buy weapons because it is so easy.
Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center Senior Policy Analyst says "This document and the link to the cold-blooded assassins who carried out the suicide attacks show conclusively that our lax gun laws and our tolerance of the most extreme factions of the gun culture have turned America into a one-stop shopping mall and training playground for terrorists,"
Pete King co-sponsered legislation by Rep. Marty Meehan in 2003 to make gun traffiking a federal crime. King said "Why would any rational person be against legislation that prevents illegal guns from being sold? This has nothing to do with hunters, collectors or the Second Amendment." The question is why did King make it easier for terrorists to buy the guns legally? The horse is already out of the barn when the terrorists have the weapons in thier hands.
It is a known fact that terrorists want to exploit our weak gun laws to amass weapons. The Brady Center did a study which details this situation.
In documents entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" found in Afghanistan, the terrorists suggests to it's students that they should come to the US to buy weapons because it is so easy.
Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center Senior Policy Analyst says "This document and the link to the cold-blooded assassins who carried out the suicide attacks show conclusively that our lax gun laws and our tolerance of the most extreme factions of the gun culture have turned America into a one-stop shopping mall and training playground for terrorists,"
Pete King co-sponsered legislation by Rep. Marty Meehan in 2003 to make gun traffiking a federal crime. King said "Why would any rational person be against legislation that prevents illegal guns from being sold? This has nothing to do with hunters, collectors or the Second Amendment." The question is why did King make it easier for terrorists to buy the guns legally? The horse is already out of the barn when the terrorists have the weapons in thier hands.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
King's hate speech denounced
DNC Calls on President Bush to Condemn Rep. Peter King's Hate Language
Feb 12, 2004
Washington, D.C. — Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) called on President Bush and Republican leaders to repudiate remarks made Tuesday by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) accusing American Muslims of "extremist leadership," and saying that most American Muslims are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement officials on homeland security matters. Rep. King made these comments in an interview on a nationally-syndicated radio program where he was promoting his new novel. King said his book is about future terrorist attacks by "Muslim extremists" in New York, and that the content is "half truth and half fiction."
"In the past, President Bush has told Muslim Americans that his administration does not condone bigotry," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Muslim Americans are teachers, lawyers, doctors, business owners who have made invaluable contributions to our country. President Bush has said 'those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens and take out their anger… represent the worst of humankind.' That's why I am calling on President Bush and the Republican leadership to condemn this latest example of hate-filled language.
"Peter King is using bigotry to make a buck, plain and simple," said DNC member Jim Zogby. "He does so showing no concern for the impact his remarks have on millions of decent, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans. While in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the President urged Americans not to strike out against their Arab and Muslim neighbors; too many members and supporters of his own Administration have undercut that message using anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric to create fear and suspicion."
"By failing to condemn and demand apologies from John Ashcroft, General Boykin, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham for their bigoted remarks, President Bush has undercut his own message and created a situation where some in his party now feel they have a presidential green light to spread a message of hate," said Zogby who also heads the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee. "One person could put a stop to all of this, and we call on President Bush to do the right thing and condemn those in his administration, in his party and those among his supporters who continue to spew anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry."
Feb 12, 2004
Washington, D.C. — Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) called on President Bush and Republican leaders to repudiate remarks made Tuesday by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) accusing American Muslims of "extremist leadership," and saying that most American Muslims are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement officials on homeland security matters. Rep. King made these comments in an interview on a nationally-syndicated radio program where he was promoting his new novel. King said his book is about future terrorist attacks by "Muslim extremists" in New York, and that the content is "half truth and half fiction."
"In the past, President Bush has told Muslim Americans that his administration does not condone bigotry," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Muslim Americans are teachers, lawyers, doctors, business owners who have made invaluable contributions to our country. President Bush has said 'those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens and take out their anger… represent the worst of humankind.' That's why I am calling on President Bush and the Republican leadership to condemn this latest example of hate-filled language.
"Peter King is using bigotry to make a buck, plain and simple," said DNC member Jim Zogby. "He does so showing no concern for the impact his remarks have on millions of decent, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans. While in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the President urged Americans not to strike out against their Arab and Muslim neighbors; too many members and supporters of his own Administration have undercut that message using anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric to create fear and suspicion."
"By failing to condemn and demand apologies from John Ashcroft, General Boykin, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham for their bigoted remarks, President Bush has undercut his own message and created a situation where some in his party now feel they have a presidential green light to spread a message of hate," said Zogby who also heads the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee. "One person could put a stop to all of this, and we call on President Bush to do the right thing and condemn those in his administration, in his party and those among his supporters who continue to spew anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry."
Monday, February 16, 2004
Pete King: Opportunist pt. 1
Pete was on the Sean Hannity Show and said that he believes that "85 percent" of the mosques in the United States have "extremist leadership" In Newsday he reiterated his comments by saying "Most of the Muslim community is cooperating with police and local authorities," King said yesterday. "But 85 percent of the mosques have extremist leadership in this country. Most Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, are loyal Americans, but they seem unwilling to come forward."
King based his "belief" on unnamed "law enforcement officials."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations pegged King's comments and appearance on Hannity for what it was: PUBLICITY. You see, King has a new novel which was released in January and he needs to boost sales among his fellow-travellers. In his book he makes the same accusations he made on Hannity. The council executive director invited King to meet with local Islamic leaders but of course King does not want to do that. We went through Kings qualifications for the meeting yesterday.
King is willing to smear American Islamic leaders on the vile Sean Hannity Show to make a buck. King likes to play to the far-right while keeping up an "independent" facade to fool voters.
Some reviews of previous King scribblings:
"... propaganda-heavy first novel" Reed Business Information, Inc
"King shouldn't give up his day job" Booklist
"Congressman King has given us a piece of IRA agitprop that Brendan Behan himself wouldn't be able to read with a straight face."
"Straight-faced propaganda, without a hint of irony, a shade of complexity, or a suggestion of depth: If King is looking for a photo-op with Gerry Adams, hes earned it." Kirkus Reviews
King based his "belief" on unnamed "law enforcement officials."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations pegged King's comments and appearance on Hannity for what it was: PUBLICITY. You see, King has a new novel which was released in January and he needs to boost sales among his fellow-travellers. In his book he makes the same accusations he made on Hannity. The council executive director invited King to meet with local Islamic leaders but of course King does not want to do that. We went through Kings qualifications for the meeting yesterday.
King is willing to smear American Islamic leaders on the vile Sean Hannity Show to make a buck. King likes to play to the far-right while keeping up an "independent" facade to fool voters.
Some reviews of previous King scribblings:
"... propaganda-heavy first novel" Reed Business Information, Inc
"King shouldn't give up his day job" Booklist
"Congressman King has given us a piece of IRA agitprop that Brendan Behan himself wouldn't be able to read with a straight face."
"Straight-faced propaganda, without a hint of irony, a shade of complexity, or a suggestion of depth: If King is looking for a photo-op with Gerry Adams, hes earned it." Kirkus Reviews
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Who do you work for Peter?
The Feb. 12th Newsday article about King and local Muslims has alot to offer. We are going to start here and add more later.
Local muslim leaders who were offeded by King's comments want to meet with him. King is quoted as saying he would meet with them "on my terms. I'm not going to listen to propaganda. The purpose of the meeting will be to detail the cooperation they are giving to law enforcement and what they are doing to work against al-Qaida in this country."
Let's see that again "on my terms." Who does King think he is? Peter King is a public servant. His salary is paid for by taxpayers. He is answerable to those taxpayers and quite frankly has "no terms" which the taxpayers are required to meet. If I have something to say to my congressman, he better damn well listen because that is his job. There are no qualifiers for the conversation.
In the article King is also quoted as saying that criticizing foreign policy is fine BUT "not in the wake of the largest tragedy ever to strike this country." So to King, the first amendment is no longer valid and we should all shut the hell up and agree with Bush. We don't think so.
This all harks back to last year when there was an organized effort by move-on.org to have constituents all over the country speak to thier congressional representative about why the war in Iraq was wrong. Reps around the country from both sides of the political aisle invited the consituents in to speak with them. Not Peter King. He hid in his office, refused to meet with his constituents and called the police. King is quoted as saying "I do not want to be a part of any national effort to undermine the President." A letter to the Massapequan Observer asked the question "I would like to know how airing opposing views on the reasoning behind war is "undermining." How does meeting with constituents do any harm?" That's what we would like to know.
Let it be known that unless you come to give him praise, take a picture with him or offer a campaign contribution, Peter King doesn't want to hear you.
Why doesn't King want to listen to his constituents? Call him or e-mail and ask him 202-225- 7896
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
Quote of the Day:
"I have never met a single other Republican who felt that Mr. King spoke for the party or for any Republican other than himself. Indeed, the only ‘Republican’ organization I have ever noticed Mr. King represent is the Irish Republican Army."
Sen. John McCain , The Hill Newspaper December 1997.
Local muslim leaders who were offeded by King's comments want to meet with him. King is quoted as saying he would meet with them "on my terms. I'm not going to listen to propaganda. The purpose of the meeting will be to detail the cooperation they are giving to law enforcement and what they are doing to work against al-Qaida in this country."
Let's see that again "on my terms." Who does King think he is? Peter King is a public servant. His salary is paid for by taxpayers. He is answerable to those taxpayers and quite frankly has "no terms" which the taxpayers are required to meet. If I have something to say to my congressman, he better damn well listen because that is his job. There are no qualifiers for the conversation.
In the article King is also quoted as saying that criticizing foreign policy is fine BUT "not in the wake of the largest tragedy ever to strike this country." So to King, the first amendment is no longer valid and we should all shut the hell up and agree with Bush. We don't think so.
This all harks back to last year when there was an organized effort by move-on.org to have constituents all over the country speak to thier congressional representative about why the war in Iraq was wrong. Reps around the country from both sides of the political aisle invited the consituents in to speak with them. Not Peter King. He hid in his office, refused to meet with his constituents and called the police. King is quoted as saying "I do not want to be a part of any national effort to undermine the President." A letter to the Massapequan Observer asked the question "I would like to know how airing opposing views on the reasoning behind war is "undermining." How does meeting with constituents do any harm?" That's what we would like to know.
Let it be known that unless you come to give him praise, take a picture with him or offer a campaign contribution, Peter King doesn't want to hear you.
Why doesn't King want to listen to his constituents? Call him or e-mail and ask him 202-225- 7896
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
Quote of the Day:
"I have never met a single other Republican who felt that Mr. King spoke for the party or for any Republican other than himself. Indeed, the only ‘Republican’ organization I have ever noticed Mr. King represent is the Irish Republican Army."
Sen. John McCain , The Hill Newspaper December 1997.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
