Quantcast

«

»

Sep 20 2012

King’s Hypocritical Reaction to Bombings

Sometimes it’s hard to tell which Rep. King is dumber or more dishonest, Steve King of Iowa or Peter King of New York. Here’s Peter King’s hypocritical reaction to the embassy attacks in Libya and Egypt, absurdly claiming that withdrawal of troops from Iraq caused them:

GREGORY: You’re a supporter of governor Romney, is this American weakness that brought this on. Is that the Republican view, is that what the view of President Romney would be?

KING: Well my view is President Obama’s policy has been confusing it’s been apologetic and it’s been misguided. From the day he started his apology tour back in 2009 , he was no matter what people say, apologizing for America. Somehow suggesting that we’ve been anti Islam until he became the president. Even talking about Iraq. He took our troops out of Iraq without even getting the status of forces agreement. He was given a glide path in Iraq and yet he pulled the troops out, brags about the fact that the troops are out, gives a definite get for getting out in Afghanistan. What he’s doing by that is telling our allies they can’t trust us.

First of all, the oft-repeated claim that Obama went on an “apology tour” is just a ridiculous lie. And what is it with right wingers never, ever admitting to making a mistake? On Planet Wingnuttia, the government is a worthless institution riddled with waste and fraud and always looking to subjugate Americans — except on foreign policy, where it’s perfect and holy and as pure as the driven snow, motivated by nothing but the most noble of principles and never doing anything wrong since the beginning of time.

Second, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush and it required a withdrawal of troops by the end of 2011. Obama merely complied with the terms of that agreement.

11 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    jamessweet

    the Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush and it required a withdrawal of troops by the end of 2011. Obama merely complied with the terms of that agreement.

    Well duh, the plan was always to reneg on that agreement, wasn’t it? Obama had to screw the whole thing up by following through…

  2. 2
    slc1

    And, of course, Mr. Gregory never pointed these facts out to Mr. King. As Heath says, Gregory is totally worthless.

  3. 3
    d cwilson

    In fairness to Rep. King, I think he meant to say:

    He took our troops out of Iraq without even gutting the status of forces agreement.

    Because, as Jamessweet pointed out, no one on the right actually expected it to be followed.

  4. 4
    chriswalker

    He took our troops out of Iraq without even getting the status of forces agreement.

    This seems to be a well played bit of political double speak. Obama didn’t get a status of forces agreement because his predecessor already had. So by tricky wording, you can make Obama’s acting on a prearranged schedule sound like a failure to act without lying outright.

    Or King’s just a moron.

  5. 5
    Raging Bee

    …he was no matter what people say, apologizing for America.

    Translation: “I’m sticking to that lie regardless of actual facts.” Gotta love those occasional glimmers of unintentional honesty.

  6. 6
    John Hinkle

    He was given a glide path in Iraq and yet he pulled the troops out, brags about the fact that the troops are out…

    As I recall, there was plenty of popular support for getting out of Iraq. Is King saying he doesn’t represent his constituents?

  7. 7
    Chiroptera

    chriswalker, #4: Obama didn’t get a status of forces agreement because his predecessor already had.

    Maybe King thinks the status of forces agreement expired with the last President’s term of office?

  8. 8
    Modusoperandi

    On Planet Wingnuttia, the government is a worthless institution riddled with waste and fraud and always looking to subjugate Americans — except on foreign policy, where it’s perfect and holy and as pure as the driven snow, motivated by nothing but the most noble of principles and never doing anything wrong since the beginning of time.

    Wrong. Government is bad*. America is great.

    * ….except when the president is a Republican, then shut your treasonous mouth about the government, unless it’s about a Democrat, you dirty hippie.

  9. 9
    Michael Heath

    Ed reports:

    . . . the Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush and it required a withdrawal of troops by the end of 2011. Obama merely complied with the terms of that agreement.

    Sen. McCain was on Anderson Cooper’s show last evening lambasting President Obama for carrying out that directive; without referencing it or President Bush’s role in its formulation and execution. I do think it’s fair game to criticize the president’s administration of Iraq regardless of his predecessors agreements with Iraq, but the Senator should at least have the character to frame his criticism within the fact Obama is carrying out policy developed by his party when they were in power.

    Mr. McCain also criticized the president for not amping up and lengthening the war in Afghanistan; most ironically by criticizing the president for increasing the troop presence in Afghanistan by 30,000 over his predecessor’s deployment count. Sen. McCain argued the military wanted 40,000. Ironic because the president’s policy was far more aggressive than the Republican party the entire time they were in power after 9/11.

  10. 10
    d cwilson

    Did McCain also criticize Obama for not using his secret plan to get Bin Laden?

  11. 11
    imthegenieicandoanything

    I thought this was settled: STEVE King is the worst human being ever born.

    Not that this generation isn’t crowded with contenders. It may be seen in the future that the entire purpose of the “Republican” Party in the 21st Century was to identify which were the worst humans in the USA. The purpose of this? We cannot, in the present, know.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site