TPMDC
Peter King: You Wonder Which Side The Obama Administration Is On
Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Share
Send to a friend!
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is quite up in arms about the investigation of CIA interrogation techniques, airing his objections in an interview with the Politico. Indeed, he wonders which side the Obama administration is on:
"It's bulls***. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on," he said of the Attorney General's move, which he described as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense."
...
"You're talking about threatening to kill a guy, threatening to attack his family, threatening to use an electric drill on him - but never doing it," King said. "You have that on the one hand - and on the other you have the [interrogator's] attempt to prevent thousands of Americans from being killed."
"When Holder was talking about being 'shocked' [before the report's release], I thought they were going to have cutting guys' fingers off or something - or that they actually used the power drill," he said.
King also asked this question: "Why is it OK to waterboard someone, which causes physical pain, but not threaten someone and not cause pain?"
And as we all know, it's okay to waterboard someone, since that has not in any way been the subject of arguments or controversy.
Comments (21) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
CT Voter
August 25, 2009 1:35 PM
You stupid freak. Which side is the Obama Administration on? How about on the law's side??!!!?
You've been so blinded by the depravity of the Bush "We use a TV show as a template for behavior!" Administration that you can't even tell what's decent, AND, legal, anymore.
Please: run for governor of New York. Please. Or be Rudy's running mate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 25, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to CT Voter
Yep. That damn "24" on Fox. Imagine what would have happened if that stupid show wasn't on TV. Maybe the fools would have followed the law as opposed to playing Jack Bauer.
Maybe these freaks should watch old WWII movies with the Gestapo and torture in them. Maybe they would have thought twice as well. Talk about Gestapo tactics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 25, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to Michael A
An epidemic of stupidity and cynicism plagues the modern Whig, um, GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 25, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to CT Voter
Incidentally, I am listening to mccain's town hall and someone asked "what is up with acorn?" His response was actually commendable. He said acorn was a community organizing organization and he was unaware of any problems with them as a whole. You should have heard the boos from the freaks at the townhall. I almost fell out of my chair. Every once and a while he has this flash of decency, like that looney woman at the townhall during the election. I really don't understand him. Then he says all these bozo things, but he does have flashes of decency. Very bizarre.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 25, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to CT Voter
Wow, another chorus of boos. Somebody asked why doesn't obama believe in the constitution and he smacked the questioner down. The audience went nuts. Again, I really don't understand him. He actually is decent in many ways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 25, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to Michael A
Nuts in a good way, as in "way to go, John", or nuts booing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 25, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to CT Voter
Nuts as in his audience is racist and zenophobic and don't like his honesty, when he is being honest. It really is amazing some of the questions. They are completely nuts and out to lunch. You have to give him credit for dealing with the boos and catcalls when he actually gives an honest and factual response. It's happened quite a few times. One person asked why are "illegal aliens" going to get healthcare and he said there are no proposals for "illegal immigrants" to get healthcare and the audience booed. Really amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 25, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to Michael A
The sad part is that the boos are coming because they think he's just flat out standing there and lying to their faces.
I often wonder if he's introspective enough to feel any responsibility for the degeneration in the process caused by his running the first truly post-modern campaign and elevating the profile of a woman who was previously just another dangerously stupid politician to the "most dangererously stupid politician of her generation."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
August 25, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Just further proof that whenever the right decides they need a new premise, they are willing to throw literally any of even the most honored of their own number under the bus, if they don't fall in line and goose-step.
And they call the Left "Nazis". There is not a totalitarian Nazi or Stalinist behavorial trait these fuckers have not exhibited yet. And I often think the whole "Nazi" thing (suddenly back in vogue, after many years of liberals' being involuntarily subject to "Godwin's Law"; whoever he is, and why ever we should care) is simply another Rovian con, in which The Enemy (us, of course) gets accused first of whatever it is they're actually doing.
Such as, acting like Nazis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 25, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
in which The Enemy (us, of course) gets accused first of whatever it is they're actually doing.
Nailed it.
Like Sarah Palin saying, of the media, "Quit makin' stuff up!"
Pathological projection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
August 25, 2009 2:15 PM
No Mr. King, what you have is torture on one hand and an attempt to extract a bogus Saddam -> 911 link at a time when those imaginary WMDs were nowhere to be found.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
August 25, 2009 2:30 PM
disgusting excuse for an american
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 25, 2009 2:32 PM
if no laws were actually broken, no one need actually worry.
oops.
guess that's why biscuit shitters like king and cheney are actually worried.
why are these guys so soft on crime??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 25, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Hadn't you heard? IOIYR. And it's un-American to say otherwise, traitor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
August 25, 2009 2:43 PM
I'm going to be opportunistic while people are asking about respective sides and note this moment for the next time we start wondering whether Obama is on OUR side. Remember this jerk Pete King. Yes, Obama is on our side.
And BTW: King makes an essential point. Why is it wrong to threaten violence when it's OK to waterboard? Exactly. And that's why is was so terribly wrong for DOJ lawyers to say it was OK to waterboard in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
August 25, 2009 2:46 PM
"And as we all know, it's okay to waterboard someone, since that has not in any way been the subject of arguments or controversy."
There is no controversy over it. We haven't prosecuted anyone over it especially those who created the torture regime, and there is very little will by the DOJ or Administration to do so. Bush-Cheney legalized it, and the current Admin and DOJ are allowing that legality to become precident.
We're not sliding down the slippery slope. We've reached the bottom. And it allows people like King to make that statement. The horse is out the barn down, and we're left as the Unserious Left who "just don't get" the realities of a world that's changed post 9/11.
Really... we're wasting out time on this. It has been worthy to fight and aruge about, and one wishes our country hasn't lost it's mind to this degree. But the fight is over. We lost, and worst of all we lost less due to the lack of morality and respect for the Rule of Law of the Bush-Cheney Admin (since they have none) than the morality and respect for the Rule of Law of our own elected Democratic officials. They simply don't care about it. It's about politics and power to them, and the Law and past deeds are little more than a sore sticking point to them.
Not saying that we shouldn't continue to report on this stuff, and hopefully more of the depths of their evil comes out. But we've lost, and there's far worse ahead as a world where waterboarding "bad guys" and domestic spying are okay leads to... well, we all know.
We're a long way from the Watergate we grew up watching, Toto.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 25, 2009 9:33 PM in reply to tosh
Ouch. Sad, and sadly, true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
August 25, 2009 3:21 PM
just like cheney earlier today (and, well, for 8 years), completely confused about the proper relationship between the president and the attorney general.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marioth
August 25, 2009 4:46 PM
Ah, Rep. King has accepted the deadly embrace of the premise "there are always to sides to the debate."
And this is why the GOP wilderness-spending shall be long indeed until they reconnect with their law and order roots. Once the law is violated, you cede your "side" in the political argument. This does not belong in a debate hall. It belongs in court.
Look, I get it, booing and all. The 19th century for these folks is coming to a close, and they are being forced to skip the 109 intervening years by events quite out of their fleeting control. This is hard on the ol' mind as it must readjust or go cornball looney AND toons.
This is no excuse for ignorance, of course, or firearms at Presidential events. But I get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
August 25, 2009 7:41 PM
"Why is it OK to waterboard someone, which causes physical pain, but not threaten someone and not cause pain?" THEY ARE BOTH ILLEGAL, YOU IDIOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 25, 2009 9:45 PM
Peter King, of course, deserves not a lick of charity. He's a thug's thug.
However, the evidence compels me to be charitable toward this comment:
Why do I have to be charitable? Well:
1) The OLC memos -- Bybee 2002 and Bradbury 2005 -- explicitly authorize waterboarding. ("Within limits", of course.)
2) AG Holder has said, regarding this investigation:
So, um, yeah, apparently, according to Mr. Holder, it apparently is "OK to waterboard someone," as long as you respect the waterboarding limits "within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?