Saturday, July 14, 2007

Peter King's Prez Pick Rudy Giuliani Picks a NeoCon Wingnut in Podhoretz..

It makes more and more sense that Peter King would endorse Rudy Giulani
for President. I mean, they've both built their reputations on talking tough on war stuff while screwing up in just about every conceivable way.

Now, the New Jersey Star-Ledger's Paul Mulshine has more juicy details
as to how batty Rudy really must be. He's just chosen Norman Podhoretz as a foreign policy advisor..

On a recent luxury cruise sponsored by National Review magazine, Podhoretz got into a dispute with NR founder William F. Buckley about the Iraq war. Buckley, the dean of American conservatives, termed the war a disaster. But Podhoretz, who like most "neo" conservatives has his roots in leftist politics, disagreed.

"It has been a triumph," said Podhoretz. "It couldn't have gone better."

The man is clearly off his rocker. Yet Giuliani seems blissfully unaware of that unpleasant fact. How could this be?

...the so-called "war on terror" was not a defensive war but an intellectual fantasy, the goal of which was, as Podhoretz put it in 2002, "not just to clean up al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world."
Yeah... about that regime change thing.. it's not really working out so hot, see? And the American people are wising up to it.. too bad Rudy Giuliani hasn't figured that out. Even leading conservative William Buckley, the creator of the National Review, gets how disastrous the Neoconservative world view has been in reality:

"The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geostrategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country."
Word. Too bad Peter King and Rudy Giuliani haven't gotten the memo just yet.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Peter King Has NO CLUE on Osama, Part II

Chertoff remark more reminder than warning to security officials
Rep. Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said there was intelligence indicating an increase of activity without any specific evidence of a threat.

"The biggest message is for Americans to realize we have to assume we can be attacked any day," King said. "The fact that there is more talk out there heightens our vigilance. ... It's like chasing ghosts."

Does Peter King even believe the words that come out of his own mouth anymore? I do, in fact, assume we can be attacked whenever.. but only because Osama bin Laden is still on the loose! If we could dismantle al Qaida, we wouldn't have to live in this constant state of fear that Peter King seems to relish. What has he done lately to help capture Osama? NOTHING.

"Chasing ghosts", huh? If by 'ghosts', King means Osama, then yes, let's drop this Iraq nonsense and get on with it. The only 'ghost' Peter King seems to be chasing is his own political future, since all he seems to do is keep people afraid and compliant with his, uh self-proclaimed "expertise" on the subject of terrorism.

I'm not on the House Homeland Security Committee like King, but my "gut feeling" is that we'd all be a lot safer if Osama bin Laden were captured and eliminated. Give up on the ghosts of Orwellian fear and go after bin Laden, Peter King!

Peter King Has NO CLUE on Osama and Iraq

Officials say Al-Qaida strongest since 9/11

WASHINGTON - A new U.S. intelligence assessment concludes that the al-Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Calling al-Qaida the most potent terrorist threat to U.S. national security, the classified draft makes clear that the Bush administration has been unable to cripple Osama bin Laden and the violent terror movement he founded.

The US Intel community is reporting what we've known for a long time. Al-Qaida is the real threat to American security. Bush had the chance to rope them in years ago, but dropped the ball and got us into the Iraq quagmire instead. In the mean time,Al-Qaida's now stronger than ever, and Bush lackeys Michael Chertoff and Peter King don't have a clue what to do about it:

Rep. Peter King said intelligence "chatter" monitored by government agencies is at levels as high as those seen in the summer of 2001, when officials described the system as "blinking red" before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"The chatter, the noise that's out there is similar to what it was in the summer of 2001," said King, of Seaford, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "It's more than it was several months ago. It could be coming from questionable sources trying to throw us off. Or it could be very serious. But based on the history, it's being taken very seriously."
King and several homeland security officials stressed there was no specific or credible evidence of a planned domestic attack...

There's "chatter" from Al-Qaida, but we don't know anything about it, and there's no planned attack or anything. (Al-Qaida's just been using up those anytime minutes a lot lately..)But you know, be afraid! says Peter King.

Seems to me like Osama bin Laden is the perfect Bogeyman for George Bush Republicans like Peter King. Since Osama's a credible threat, why isn't the entire US military scouring the desert for him? Oh, that's right, that war that has NOTHING TO DO WITH AL-QAIDA, IRAQ:

The U.S. intelligence community's assessment of the al-Qaida threat comes as more bad news for President George W. Bush.

Bush has repeatedly tried to cast the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq as part of the struggle against worldwide terrorism.

But many of the government's own counterterrorism analysts say the Iraq war has fueled anti-Western militancy and served as recruitment aid for bin Laden and like-minded Islamic extremists.

Whoops, my bad. The old Iraq didn't use to have anything to do with Islamic extremists, but now that Iraq's destabilized, we've created a prime recruiting ground for Al-Qaida.
Is Peter King supposed to have any credibility here? I mean, King's been with Bush 100% on Iraq, and now Bush's own Intelligence community says he screwed up when he gave up on Osama and destabilized Iraq.

Peter King had a chance to redeem himself yesterday, but instead he voted for more war, more quagmire.

I've got a question for Peter King: Why should your constituents believe anything you say? You've built your image on being "tough on terror", yet your muddled world view, force fed to you from on high, has done irreparable damage to the security of the United States.

Admit it: like George Bush, you're too stubborn to admit that Iraq is a quagmire, that it's distracted us from actually defeating Al-Qaida. Right now all I hear from you is endless talk of "chatter". I'm sick of you driving fear into the hearts of Americans, when all you do is make things worse in Iraq.

We could've had Osama years ago, if Peter King and George Bush didn't drop the ball and get us into the Iraq quagmire.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

One of These Pols is Not Like the Other

Steve Levy (D), Tim Bishop (D), Ed Koch (D), Steve Israel (D), Carolyn McCarthy (D), Peter King (R), Tom Suozzi (D).


long island

i kind of dig it.

Friday, July 6, 2007