News: An Interview with Long Island Congressman Peter King

Interviewed by Raymond J. Keating

March 27, 2009

U.S. Rep. Peter King is the lone Republican member of Congress from Long Island. He spoke with Long Island Sentinel on March 25 about some key foreign policy, economic and political issues.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo

Sentinel: Since you are the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, what’s going on in the war on terror these days? Are you feeling good about where the Obama administration is on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran? What’s your take?

King: Well, first of all, we’re not allowed to say “war on terror” anymore. We’re talking about manmade disasters. The administration has basically taken the word “terror” out of its lexicon because they say that induces fear, a climate of fear and loathing, so we can’t use “terror.” To me, that shows a mindset on their part, which I think, is disturbing. 

But now, as far as specifics, I think the President is actually doing the right thing on Iraq, certainly better than I would have thought. His policy so far is not much different than what John McCain’s would have been. It’s going to slowly withdraw troops, and in August of 2010, we’ll still have 50,000 troops there. So, this is very, very different from what he was saying certainly at the beginning of his campaign, and throughout most of his campaign. On that score, I give the President credit.

On Afghanistan, he is increasing the number of troops. I hope that if he sends the troops there that he does what General Patraeus did in Iraq, and that’s let the troops actually fight, and not have one hand tied behind their backs, the way they had been for several years in Iraq before the surge policy began. So, the jury is still out on Afghanistan, but so far so good.

As far as in this country, I think he made a terrible mistake in saying that he is going to close Guantanamo within the year. It’s a mistake for two reasons. One, just symbolically, the President said he was going to close Guantanamo and then in the same paragraph said the United States would no longer torture. In terms of torture, he was basically admitting to the world, or acknowledging to the world, that the United States does torture, and that Guantanamo was part of some torture policy, which is totally wrong. It’s a cave in to the left; it’s a cave in to Europe; it’s a cave in to political correctness. 

I’ve been to Guantanamo. The prisoners, the detainees, in Guantanamo are treated better than prisoners at, I would say, almost any American prison that I’ve observed. And now what are we going to do with about 240 detainees left there? These are the hardest of the hard core, and I don’t think people want them brought to the United States. If we send them overseas, if we find countries that will accept them, the danger is that they’d be kept just a matter of months and then released. As it is, 60 detainees we’ve released have come back on the battlefield. One of them is the head of al Qaeda in southern Afghanistan.

Also, the President when he was on “60 Minutes” the other night said something else that was disturbing. That under President Bush, terrorists were not brought justice. Actually, quite a few al Qaeda leaders and members were killed. Others are in prison. This shows, I think, when the President says not brought to justice, he is talking about them getting civilian trials, which is the mistake that Bill Clinton made. Before September 11, he was treating it as a criminal justice issue rather than an issue of war. It’s not our obligation to apply a justice system to enemy combatants. Certainly, the Japanese, the Germans, the Italian prisoners we had during World War II, we kept them in prison camps without giving them trials, without producing evidence against them. And these are even worse with al Qaeda, these are enemy combatants captured in the battlefield.

Obama and Iran

Sentinel: What about the President’s outreach – I’m not quite sure what word to use – on Iran? What’s your take on what he’s been doing there?

King: He is giving the false impression that we have not tried to reach out to Iran before. We have. We’ve done it often privately, to some extent publicly. But you really run the risk if you reach out to Iran so openly, you give them the opportunity to turn you down, to reject you. They often look upon it as a sign of weakness. Now, the President is taking a gamble. He’s the commander in chief. I believe in having a strong president when it comes to foreign policy, so he’s entitled to give this a try. But I’m very skeptical of it, that Iran is going to respond to these public entreaties. Generally, that’s something done privately, and it usually is accompanied by a threat – the carrot and the stick. 

It’s only six or seven weeks into his administration. I don’t want to be jumping the gun. I’m willing to give him the opportunity on Iran. I think it’s wrong. I don’t think it’s going to work, but I hope it does.

Bailouts and the Economy

Sentinel: You’re on the Financial Service Committee as well. What’s your view on the Wall Street, banks, credit crunch, bailouts situation. Are we pointed in the right direction on this? Are the taxpayers protected in any way?

King: I voted for the initial bailout last September because I was convinced by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke that the American economy and the world economy were about to collapse. And we’re not going to know for several years if that was entirely accurate. I thought we couldn’t afford to take a chance at the time, and the economy has been kept afloat for the last six months. But having said that, we now cannot continue to throw money after money. We can’t just continue with bailouts. We have to get much more accountability as to what’s going on. We need more restrictions put on how the money is spent. 

The economy is not going to survive if we just keep throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem. We have to get the private sector more engaged, and we can’t look at it in a vacuum. We have to try to bring the economy back. You don’t do that by massive increases in spending. You don’t do it by raising taxes, which is what the Obama administration wants to do.

I believe we should be cutting taxes, especially on small businesses, which are the generators of jobs in the country, and extending the Bush tax cuts. This concept of raising taxes on upper income people – you know John Kennedy was the one who turned the tide on that when he said that a rising tide lifts all boats. He cut taxes in all brackets – from the top to the bottom. 

I thought we were getting away from class warfare, but it appears the Obama administration is going back in that direction, which will be very counter-productive because the people we’re taxing are the ones who create the jobs. They’re the ones who expand businesses, and they’re the ones who will bring us out of the recession.

Labor Union Legislation

Sentinel: You were a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act in the past, and now you oppose it – is that right? If you switched, why?

King: I was in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. I did feel that there were companies around the country who were making it difficult for unions to organize. The economy was doing well. I thought this would be a step towards leveling the playing field.

Having said that, given the economy and the situation it is in right now, the last thing we need is to have a labor-management dispute. There are too many businesses on the precipice of collapse, and so I am not supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

I can tell you it probably will never even come to vote in the House because Nancy Pelosi is sensing the sands shifting on this. Many of her Democratic members don’t want to vote on it. So, she is saying the House won’t vote on it until the Senate does. I don’t believe the Senate has the votes even to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote. 

But I thought it was important for the unions, who I had supported in the past, to know that I am now opposed to it because of the economic situation that we’re in.

Run for the Senate?

Sentinel: Let’s switch to politics. Are you going to run for the Senate next year?

King: I’m looking at. I’m not being cute or trying to be coy in saying that. 

If Caroline Kennedy had been the Democratic candidate, I definitely would have run. The reality is that there are two-and-a-half million more Democrats than Republicans in New York. For me to run, I’d have to give up my House seat. I would need some sort of opening to run. Caroline Kennedy would have given that. She would have generated tremendous publicity for the race. I would have been able to get a tremendous amount of financing for the race. And I knew that she was not a strong candidate. It would have made it very competitive, and I think I would have won. 

I had my declaration of candidacy all filled out and ready to go. I was going to file within seconds of Governor Paterson appointing Caroline Kennedy to the Senate.

In Kirsten Gillibrand, she doesn’t attract much feeling one way or the other. In some ways that helps her because people are now not thinking about the New York Senate race, and as a result, it makes it much more difficult to raise money, to get media attention. And then it becomes a party line vote, and again, there are two-and-a-half million more of them than us. 

Anyway, having said that, I’ve been going around the state speaking at various events, and I’m testing the waters to see what the opportunity is to raise money. But I’ll actually decide by the summer because if I do run for the Senate, I have to give up the House seat and you can’t raise money for both of them at the same time.

Gillibrand House Seat Race

Sentinel: Do you have any read on the race for Gillibrand’s House seat – the race between Republican James Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy?

King: That’s a horse race. Jim Tedisco was up by about 12. It’s narrowing now. I think the indicators are going our way. If I had to bet right now, I’d say it’s going to Tedisco. 

And this will be the first special election since President Obama was elected. I’ve been in Congress long enough to remember back in 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected, Republicans won those first few special elections. And it not only was a good indicator, it also creates a mood and a climate, and it instills faith and confidence in the party. We need a shot in the arm right now, and I think Jim Tedisco winning that race, which he should win over a very, very liberal candidate, is certainly important for New York. It’s important for the 20th congressional district. But it’s going to have national implications.

Choice for Governor?

Sentinel: Any favorite candidate for governor?

King: Rudy Giuliani said that he wants to run. He’s looking at it. Rudy would be an outstanding candidate. 

I know Rick Lazio’s name has been mentioned. Rick would also be a good candidate. 

There was even a story today that Governor Pataki is now taking a look at running for governor again. I don’t see that happening. I think that’s just sort of getting his name out there. 

So, right now, it’s Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio. Rudy told me he would decide by the summer. 

The only problem is that David Paterson is sinking so fast, it’s really hard to gauge who the opponent is going to be. Andrew Cuomo would be a lot tougher than David Paterson.

Another Novel?

Sentinel: Finally, are you working on another novel?

King: I am retired by popular demand. I could say two things. I could say I’m not writing any more because nobody wants me to. Or, I could say that I’m living off my royalties from the first three books, but that would be totally dishonest. Maybe after I retire from Congress, or get thrown out of Congress, or whatever, I’ll be a writer because as I’ve seen from some newspaper columnists, almost anyone can be a writer.

Sentinel: You’re absolutely right.

Copyright © Keating Reports