Terrorist Sympathizer Rep. Peter King Wants Another Decade of War Against Terrorists

Huffington Post

Three years fighting ISIS? Fugetaboutit: everyone's favorite avuncular terrorist sympathizer Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is back to beating the drums of protracted war. Never one to be outdone in matters of war and peace (but mostly war) King told reporters yesterday that they should expect the military action against ISIS to last a decade or more:

I think we do have a lot to debate. Realize this is not just bombing a mountainside or securing a dam. This is a war that we want for another 10, 15 years.

The debate King envisions clearly has little to do with the necessity or advisability of going after ISIS. In fact, King recommends we move into military engagement mode as quickly as possible, starting with an appetizer of "massive air attacks, very heavy air attacks."

The debate also isn't about balance of powers. King said earlier this week on ABC's The Week that "the president has the constitutional authority to take action now in Iraq and in Syria against ISIS." And, while he likes the idea of the president asking Congress for permission to send the American military into battle, he doesn't think the president actually needs permission.

I don't believe he needs it. And if that's going to delay what he wants to do, he should go ahead and just take action without waiting for Congress. This is too important to get this bogged down in a congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there….I believe as commander in chief he is the absolute power to carry out these attacks.

It seems, rather, that King wants to debate the actual implementation of military action against ISIS. Obama has pledged action, but King and other hawks don't think Obama's plan goes far enough in combating the terrorist organization. No matter what, King is adamant that America will not "be doing piecemeal or partial attacks."

King admits that he is "not aware of any particular threat right now" from ISIS, but he nonetheless supports immediate action against the group in Syria and Iraq. This sounds eerily like Obama's bombing campaign in Libya, which King supported despite being more or less completely in the dark. And look how well that adventure turned out.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

King is some caricature, right? Some long con performance artist?

[Drake]

I can't look at him without thinking of Leonid Brezhnev.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

This is a war that we want for another 10, 15 years.

Hell of a choice of words there Petey.

[CatoTheElder]

I believe as commander in chief he is the absolute power ...

This, too.

[Swiss Servator, Go Genf!]

This is too important to get this bogged down in a congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there?.I believe as commander in chief he is the absolute power to carry out these attacks.

Oath? To what??? That old piece of paper??!?!?!

[MegaloMonocle]

The whole thing is just a festival of unintentional honesty.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

This is too important to get this bogged down in a congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there

Jesus H Fucking Christ. How does King get reelected? The man is an authoritarian shitbag of the first order.

[CatoTheElder]

"Authoritarian" is really too mild.

"I believe as commander in chief he is the absolute power ..." (Isn't there another, more well known quote about "absolute power"?)

Totalitarian is closer to the real Peter King.

[Winston]

Well it is Southwest Long Island.

[Trigger Warning]

How does King get reelected? The man is an authoritarian shitbag of the first order.

I think your second sentence answers your question.

I've concluded that people who want to be ruled have authority boners. People like King stroke those boners. His hysterical yammering sounds like wise elder counsel to them, because most people just need somebody to be IN CHARGE and MAKE DECISIONS.

[ATXChappy]

"This is too important to get this bogged down in a congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there?..."

WTF!!!! Really!!!! I wasn't aware of the Constitutions "too important" clause. It must be redacted.

[Trigger Warning]

I wasn't aware of the Constitutions "too important" clause.

It's inferred from the Commerce Clause.

[Trigger Warning]

This is a war that we want for another 10, 15 years.

Who is "we," you fucking jagoff?

Spoken like a man who is altogether too comfortable wasting money and lives that are not his own.

[Jensen]

King just wants to live in a world where he doesn't have to face the Irishman's Dilemma. Potatoes for everyone!

Alternatively, I suggest we send King and whatever remains of the IRA to deal with ISIS. It's like Terrorist Olympics.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm 49.

Vietnam 1965-1973- 8 Years

Gulf War 90-91- 6 mos

Operation Deliberate Force 95- 1 month

Kosovo 98-99- 1 year

911/Iraq/Afghanistan 01-14- 13 years

Total- roughly 23 years of my life (almost half) my country has been at war.

I've got no problem with war if it is necessary to protect liberty, but respectfully, Rep King...

FUCK YOU!

Life is too fucking short to spend it fighting for fucking nothing.

[Spoonman.]

I'm 25. That makes the math for me 56% of my life.

[Winston]

I find it pretty interesting that Peter King was (is?) a big IRA fan considering that the IRA are not big fans of US Foreign policy.

And he apparently used to be quite Muslim friendly back in the day. Though he unsurprisingly used this to support the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I guess King is an example of how ethnicity and war boners make odd bedfellows.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Peter King quote:

If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.

[Winston]

Of course if I replaced the "I.R.A." with "ISIS" "Taliban" or "Al-Qaeda" then he would have a conniption fit.

[Drake]

His IRA buddies used to train in the Baaka Valley, so they had to be friendly. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

[Winston]

You Know Who Else supported foreign terrorists and was a statist fuck?

[Trigger Warning]

Obama?

[Robert]

He's in Congress, so why doesn't he enter a bill doing what he says he wants?

[Knarf Yenrab!]

If it has yet to be said, welcome, Lucian McMahon.

May your spelling and grammatical errors be few and your deadlines be long.

[eyeroller]

What everyone needs to understand is, just because a group isn't currently a threat, doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

[TxJack 112]

King like all establishment politicians wishes to continue fighting across the globe because it is great for business. All of the wars politicians have dragged us into since 1950 have been for naught. Sending Americans into fight a war against groups who have been fighting one another for a 100 years is insanity. We need to stop trying to be everyone's friend and since the GOP loves to talk about US military power, they need to put their money where their mouth is. Make it clear that if these groups want to kill each other, they have our blessing. However, if they decide to attack us, we will not go in and "degrade" them, we will wipe them off the face of the earth. If the Iraqi government is incapable of doing anything, if we are forced to eliminate ISIS, we will take and keep all of the oil they currently hold. If our sons and daughters are expected to fight and die, then as always has been the case, the victors reap the spoils of war. The UN can scream but what will they do, look at their response in the Ukraine, nothing. Time for the United States to again be the United States and stop being the weak, timid " why can't we just get along" mess we have become. Congress is the ONLY branch that can approve us going to war for a reason, the founders wanted it that way. We need to strip the President of the imperial powers which have been granted over the past 50 years and get back to the nation we are supposed to be.