Obama decided to visit some FDNY firefighters over the past few days after the killing of Osama.

 

My question to you all is, and it's relatively opinionated as facts cannot truly be proven: Do you think that the primary reason that Obama visited the FDNY is because he truly cares for our emergency personnel, or because he's looking for a boost in his numbers?

 

Obama, not to my recollection, hasn't visited a PD/FD/EMS Station prior, only after the death of Osama.

 

Was it a publicity stunt?

 

My opinion: I am not heavily into politics, but I am intelligent enough to understand political maneuvers such as this. I believe, whole-heartedly, that it was a publicity stunt. If Obama truly cared, he would have been visiting fire houses and police stations long ago, not just in the past week.

 

What do you all think of this?

 

And please, keep it relatively friendly.

Views: 345

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-01-28/news/27088199_1_health-b...

NY pols stunned to learn Obama administration opposes funding for 9/11 health bill
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Obama administration stunned New York's delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill. The state's two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people. So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11 and the untold numbers now getting sick.

Wrong? I guess while I was in Washington lobbing for the bill and his boy's told me out right The President does not support the bill I was hearing it wrong? He played politices over doing the RIGHT THING.
When I saw the headline at The New York Daily News site, "NY pols stunned to learn Obama administration opposes funding for 9/11 health bill", I thought it had to be one of those headlines meant to catch the eye but that the story didn't justify.. had to be right?

Nope.. they have quotes from two New York state Senators that participated in the meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.



So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

"I was stunned — and very disappointed," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.

"To say the least, I was flabbergasted," said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

The 9/11 bill would spend about $11 billion over 30 years to care for the growing numbers of people getting sick from their service at Ground Zero, and to compensate families for their losses.


We are talking about hundreds of men and women that responded at ground zero, digging for survivors and removing the bodies and/or body parts of those that were murdered in the horrible terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001 that killed almost 3,000 people.


"She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill," said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel. "I think it's fiscal restraint… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this," Engel said.

"We were attacked because we're a symbol of our country." McMahon was furious that caring for the heroes of Sept. 11 would take a back seat to anything but military funding.

"I thought there was a complete lack of understanding of the issue by the secretary and quite frankly, I did not expect that lack of compassion and failure to understand the urgency of the issue."

Victims and advocates of 9/11 families are similarly stunned. Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died on 9/11 and who supports the White House in its push to try the terrorists in New York, was crestfallen at the news.

"I thought that these people would be taken care of. I would have expected better from this administration," Van Auken said, adding that she thought it sends the wrong message to all of America's would-be heroes that the government won't be there for them.


Words fail me.
"Washington DC. Why does that matter?"

what??? President Obama and his people work there. He's not in Kellyville NSW Australia.
I spent the first 35 years of my life inside the DC Beltway, I moved to Australia about 5 years ago. I still fail to see why this matters in the slightest.

Having spent most of my life in DC, I love the fact that the rest of America seems to hate what happens here. You do realise that you guys (the rest of America) send these out of towners here? No Congressman or Senator or President has ever been from Washington. These guys are all yours, not ours!
Ray, do you not read all responses?
Bush visited ground zero ONCE, a couple of days the attack (I believe Vic's pic above is the event). That was the ONLY time bush visited.

It doesn't matter to me that you work FDNY, it certainly doesn't give you any more credence or validity in your PERSONAL argument(s) against Obama. You don't like him that's your prerogative but don't me to accept your political opinions simply because you were there.

Frankly, you just sound like a glenn beck zombie blind follower fan (not that I'm saying that's a bad thing...)
Your mayor disagrees: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-08-20/local/27073153_1_health-...

I'll grant you that Obama does not involve himself in Congressional debates. I find that infuriating, but that hardly means he opposed the bill. All of this dodges the fact that a)he could have vetoed it and didn't and b) the Republicans filibustered it for months, yet they don't seem to have attracted your anger.

The article you posted is brilliant. I remember when the debates were occuring, the Republians insisted that other programs (like food stamps or school lunches) be cut to pay for the Zadroga bill, the dems refused to do that. This has been twisted into "The dems refuse to fund the Zadroga bill." Brilliant! It's close enough to true that most people will believe it, even though it's complete horse-hocky!
Your point?
I answered you. Both sides played politics, agreed. We are dying and they ALL could not do the right thing. Almost 10 years? Obama all of a sudden feels he must come to the World Trade Center now???

Oh Jack FYI Bush was at WTC more then that 1 photo op as President. Again all suck. We make them look good.
In a different thread, I posted a few links to the numerous FEMA wildfire grants that Texas has recieved this year. I think there were 15 in the month of April alone. You should go back and watch the news (not FOX) from the past week.

That said, Texas has some nerve, I could swear they were complaining about the Fedral Government and threatening to seceed just a couple of months ago. Now you guys come crying back to momma? Man up, Nancy; you're either with America or you aren't

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891829,00.html
Ray,
I've been searching and guess what, the ONLY source I can find to this "claim" is nydailynews.com. So far they are the ONLY source I can find to "support" your/their claim.

Let's look at the article:
Headline-
NY pols stunned to learn Obama administration opposes funding for 9/11 health bill

First paragraph -
The Obama administration stunned New York's delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

Third paragraph, now we're getting into the MEAT of the story -
So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

Following paragraphs quote comments from senators, et. al. and goes on to describe what the bill is intended for.

The legislators were shocked the idea was falling lower on the administration priority list than other parts of the war on terror and financial bailouts.
That shouldn't be all that surprising, the bill can still be worked on, discussed etc while at a lower priority than say...fighting terrorism, don't ya think?

Finally, we get to the PROOF in the article -
"She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism[?] that goes into the bill," said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel. "I think it's fiscal restraint… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this," Engel said. Wait...what? Rep. Engel agrees that is's "fiscal restraint"?

I am SO confused. NOWHERE in the link you supplied (which is the ONLY link from any source I could find) did it say how or why the Obama Administration OPPOSES/OPPOSED the 9/11 Health Bill (Zadroga?)

In fact, EXCEPT for the Headline of the article nowhere else does it claim that the Obama Administration opposed the bill. Let me repeat that, ONLY the headline made that claim, the body of the article...NOTHING. Hmmmm, if that is what you base your opinions on...well, I hope you're a damn good fireman anyway.

Senate Republicans block Zadroga bill
By Joseph Picard | December 9, 2010 7:48 PM EST

Senate Republicans delivered a serious setback to the community of Ground Zero responders and their families today by blocking the Zadroga bill from coming to a vote.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/90651/20101209/.htm




http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_ny_p...
Ray, NO he wasn't.
In an earlier post in this discussion I believe I included some links as to how often bush or obama visited ground zero. But I'll repeat it for you anywhere, bush visited ONLY THAT ONE TIME...a couple of days after 9/11 for a photo op as a Public Relation stunt to be seen with firemen to rally americans[?]
Um, no. The Democrats passed the bill in Congress in September, the Republicans managed to filibuster it in the Senate until late December, insisting that the bill would only pass if tax cuts for the richest 2% of American incomes were extended. (I believe that's the funding debate Jack and I were talking about) The President signed it almost immidiately in early January. One side played politics.

It amazes me that you are so angry at Obama, but don't seem to carry similar anger towards the Republicans that acuatlly held up the bill. Now why is that?
All the credit in the world for the hit on bin Laden goes to the US Military, not Obama

No, the military, and in particular SEAL Team 6, deserves the lion's share of credit for the actual assual and kill of OBL. However, there was much work done up to that point, by all sorts of intelligence folks, military and civilian alike, which means there were many hands involved here moreso than just military alone.

And yes, despite personal bias and opinion, Obama does deserve some credit for having the gall to order this assualt across a border of a country that vehemently denied OBL was there. Yes, to give that order is absolutely a big deal, especially if things went wrong.

Here is the biggest difference, the people who actually did the job of getting OBL and all those who worked tirelessly in intelligence etc, will NEVER be known. You will not know their names, you will not see their faces, for many who did give their lives in the course are memorialized by a star, nothing more. While these nameless and faceless are the ones who deserve the lion's share of credit, so do those who are known and did play a role.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

FireRescue Magazine

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2019   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service