[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 41°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 24°F
Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017

START and First Responders

Posted Monday, December 20, 2010, at 10:40 AM

Republicans over the last week have truly shown their true colors. Nevermind their incessant whining over the amount of work they are having to do during this Lame Duck session. It is nothing new (though they would like you to believe that it is), they passed the Bush tax cuts during a Lame Duck session, they impeached President Clinton during a Lame Duck session. So to hear their constant whining over this particular session of Lame Duck is at best funny at worst absolutely pathetic.

There are two instances, though, where their true colors and acts of obstructionism are truly shining. The first is the new START Treaty.

The most common excuses they have given for not wanting to vote for this treaty is that it is being shoved down their throats. The fact that they are absolutely lying about this is somehow being missed by the "lame stream media". If this Treaty had been agreed upon by the United States and the Russian Federation in November they might have a point. This Treaty, however, has been sitting there for them and everyone to read for eight months. So for them to come out and lie and say that they have not had time to read it is really just completely childish.

Here is the link to the actual treaty:


Not wanting to be outdone, Senator McCain had issues with the preamble to the treaty and wanted to change it. A gullible person would fall for McCain's excuses how the preamble only hurts the United States. His former running mate sure fell for it. What this really was though was just a cowardly act. McCain is planning on voting against the START Treaty, which has been championed by the last three presidents (two of them Republicans), several Secretary of States, and a large portion of men and women who worked for President Reagan (who signed the first START Treaty). If McCain would have been successful at getting the preamble changed the entire Treaty would have had to have been approved the Russia before Congress could vote on it.

Fortunately the Senate defeated McCain's attempts at changing the Preamble. The vote has yet to happen, the Treaty will probably pass but a huge chunk of obstructionist Republicans will once again vote no just to vote no.

The other bill that the Republicans were actually able to defeat was a bill designed to help First Responders who were at Ground Zero on the day and weeks following 9/11. This is the second time in the last few months that Republicans have stood together and told first responders that Congress was not going to help them.

Their excuses for voting against this bill have ranged from just plain silly to immature and childish.

The saddest part of this defeat was that the media apparently was too busy to even discuss it. It has been just nine years since 9/11 and we are already forgetting it. Jon Stewart, naturally, let loose on the Republicans and even had four responders (all who have a sickness due to 9/11) on his show to discuss the defeat of this bill.

I apologize for the poor video quality

What both cases here point out is that as much as Republicans want to pump themselves up about being the best at National Security, they sorely fall short when they oppose a Treaty for no other reason to oppose it. It also points out that they should never ever bring up 9/11 again. If they are going to continue voting down or filibustering bills that will help the responders who gave their health to help those in need they are only proving that 9/11 is nothing but political for them.

Thank God they got those tax cuts passed, though.

UPDATE Not to be outdone by the Senate, the House Republicans on Thursday defeated a bill that would have classified child marriage as a human rights violation. Their reasons? Money, of course (they can always find money to fun tax cuts for the rich, everything else they struggle finding the money) and it would cause more abortions. There of course is no basis in fact for their argument but no one will challenge them on this baseless and childish claim. Of course, you also have to question the motives of the Democrats who voted no on this as well.


Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mike, Merry Christmas, to you and yours.

Your word twisting, and thought twisting, and seemingly telepathic abilities, truly upset my heart.

Without great debate, and since expression of selective understanding seems to be the order of the day, may I say, IMHO:

There is a lady who personifies being an enemy of our way of life, which I actually am beginning to feel you fit the mold, to be her clone.

It truly pains my heart to feel that you would deliberately follow in those footsteps, but,, well,, you just keep trying, again IMO.

If you desire perfection in hatred, which is what I am seeing in your words, ask Jane Fonda to give you a crash course, on the fine points, as you seem to have already earned an 'A' in Hate-101, and 201.

The 'Lame Duck' you are complaining about is comprised of 'Liberals,' on their way out, not Conservatives.

I am truly sorry you seem to see Conservatives as such Ignorant Dolts, as I am one, so I will cease trying to convince you of anything I might stupidly feel to be logical.

To you and your's, a very Merry Christmas, though we do not see eye to eye, and use a much different agenda of expression.


-- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Dec 20, 2010, at 1:57 PM

"The 'Lame Duck' you are complaining about is comprised of 'Liberals,' on their way out, not Conservatives."

I really don't know what you are talking about with this quote Navyblue. For one thing, Liberals are not on their way out, more Liberals were voted in this past election not voted out. Secondly I am not complaining about the Lame Duck session I am pointing out that Republicans are complaining about the Lame Duck session and that many of them were on hand in the Lame Duck sessions that saw fit to pass the original Bush Tax cuts and impeach President Clinton.

You talk about my word twisting and then you turn around and make up your own words for something I never said.

I don't consider Conservatives dolts. I consider Conservatives who talk about how superior they are to others in national security and specifically 9/11 and then turn around and want to block the START Treaty for nothing more than political reasons and block aid from going to the heroes that sacrificed their lives and health to save people from that disastrous day.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 20, 2010, at 4:07 PM

ocho, what does Santa have to do with Christmas anyways? Santa Claus was originally a pagan symbol that Christians adopted to represent Christmas. In the United States he has more to do with Christmas than Jesus does. The last time I checked it was called CHRISTmas not CLAUSmas.

I'm also sure that you had a point with your post but you were too busy coming up with ways to slam me (and for some reason my family) that your point was lost.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 20, 2010, at 4:10 PM


"I consider Conservatives who talk about how superior they are to others in national security and specifically 9/11 and then turn around and want to block the START Treaty for nothing more than political reasons and block aid from going to the heroes that sacrificed their lives and health to save people from that disastrous day."

I think maybe a conclusion is missing from your rant. Or are you saying that a person who does those thing is who you consider to be Conservative? As it stands now it makes little sense.


I'm surprised you feel that way. I don't agree with you.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 9:17 AM

Yes I did leave off the conclusion to my argument thank you for pointing that out.

Here is how my point should have read:

I consider Conservatives who talk about how superior they are to others in national security and specifically 9/11 and then turn around and want to block the START Treaty for nothing more than political reasons and block aid from going to the heroes that sacrificed their lives and health to save people from that disastrous day to be the most cowardly and despicable of politician. Sure they can talk the talk but when it comes time to show that they can also walk the walk, they hide behind more language that is meant to confuse and hide people from what they truly are. Cowardly men.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 11:09 AM

ocho, wow more slams with no points. I know the void left by the flamers is a huge gulf but darnit if you aren't trying to fill it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 11:10 AM


Your thin skin is showing again, I don't think ocho meant any "slam" I thought he was just trying to be nice and maybe his attempt at humor isn't very funny but I don't think it qualifies as a "slam"

If you haven't read your father's column about Santa I think you should, not trying to cross-contaminate the boards here but his views on the ability of Santa to cause kids to distrust their parents is a little far fetched.

When you talk about the gulf left by flamers are you ignoring eddy?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 12:02 PM

The media debate is in full swing about the President's huge lame duck session, and what it will mean for his poll numbers. Now as we sit on the precipice of the START treaty ratification, I felt it was important to glance back in the history of this President and see why exactly we are here today. A kind of struggle through the white noise if you will:


-- Posted by RyanC1384 on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 3:35 PM

"Your thin skin is showing again,"

SW, why is that every time I call someone out for a perceived slam you always go to well and start shouting about how thin skinned I am. You are one hilarious and predictable person.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 10:27 PM

What conclusion do you think I jumped to ocho? The vote today was just for cloture and 28 Senators voted against it.

My point wasn't that they were going to vote down START, in fact I clearly stated that the Treaty would probably pass. My point was those that talk the most about national security were planning to vote against a Tready that provides just that for no other reasons than political ones.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 10:37 PM

The thing is, ocho, I have plenty of inner peace. I don't hate those that disagree with me, no matter how much and how often you and other posters continue to try to convince anyone paying attention that I do. Thanks for the well wishes though.

Happy Holidays.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 21, 2010, at 10:41 PM

This is a treaty endorsed, as Steven Benen of Washington Monthly has pointed out, not only by the leaders of NATO but by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties, seven former Strategic Command chiefs, national security advisers from both parties and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

Not to mention Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who described START as "essential to our future security."

But to many hard-line Republicans, like the cranky travelers who balk and rage at scans and searches, security may no longer be the priority it once was. Not when there's a presidency to destroy.


-- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Dec 22, 2010, at 8:32 AM

Easy Ocho. For someone wanting someone else to find inner peace you sure are using a lot of exclamation points.

"Those voting against just give you another reason to complain about anything or anybody with an "R" after their name!"

If this were true you would have a valid point. Unfortunately you are once again grasping at straws in a vain attempt to pull me down to your fickle level. I don't solely complain about anything or anybody with an "R" after their name. For instance I applaud those with "R"s after their names for having the courage to vote against extremist views in their party and finally repealing DADT. It really did take them courage because sadly there are people out there that actually believe by allowing gay people to stay active in the military will somehow become a distraction.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 22, 2010, at 8:45 AM

Again, ocho, I know this has to be smarting a bit, but responding to something that has happened (Republicans filibuster of the original 9/11 responders bill, Republicans against the START Treaty, which is what my blog was about no matter how badly you want to spin it another way) is not jumping to a conclusion. I think you may want to look up that phrase before you accuse another person of jumping to conclusions because I don't think you full understand what it means.

"Obama wars for oil" this one phrase sums you up nicely ocho. You know full well that both wars were started under another President yet you call both wars Obama's. There are quite a few reasons why you would do this. You are seriously misinformed, you know the truth but you are just wanting someone to act out in anger that you would call these wars Obama's are the leaders. I tend to believe the second one. Of course, considering that we are mostly out of Iraq already escapes you. But you never let silly little things like facts get in your way before, why start now.

And still with the exclamation points. Ocho, I can hear you fine.

Though you are correct on one thing. The Republicans and conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops that the people have spoken and yet here is Obama getting most of what he wanted originally and keeping 85% of his campaign promises. All that and actually getting the credit for it as well. I think the Republicans may have miscalculated a bit here.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 22, 2010, at 8:39 PM

There are 28,500 US troops in South Korea, yet there is no war going on there. But I'm sorry when you said Iraq and Afghanistan I should have known that you really only meant Afghanistan, how silly of me.

I would say 6,000 short of populating Russellville twice is a tad bit more than a little short, but that's just me.

Actually he never promised to get us out of both places at any time. He always talked about needing to send more troops into Afghanistan, you know, to go after the guy that actually planned and implemented 9/11. How are those facts working out for you?

I love facts, but you apparently only love facts that help you out, even when the facts aren't actually there. While there are currently 48,000 troops in Iraq, that is substantially less than under Bush, who started the war. What you also fail to mention is that since Obama took office in January of 2008 troop levels have continually shrank in Iraq. Not one time in the last two years has the troop level increased. When he took office there were 157,000 troops in Iraq, there are now 48,000. So when I say mostly gone, I am factually correct. How are those facts working out for you?

You really do have a thing for explanation points and question marks don't you? Seriously, I understood that you were asking me a question after the first question mark, putting three more is just a waste.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 22, 2010, at 11:16 PM

I guess my larger question would be why aren't you angry that the crowd who always invokes 9/11 as a rallying cry successfully filibustered a bill that would provide medical coverage to 9/11 heroes?

I know you will just brush the question aside because the bill did finally pass, but why when I decided to go after the crowd that invokes 9/11 but seemed so uncaring about taking care of those who went in day after day, night after night looking for survivors or clearing rubble, why did you think it more prudent to go after me and defend them?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 22, 2010, at 11:51 PM

Wow, ocho, did I touch a nerve? Electrons? What?

At one point anywhere did I say I wanted troops to stay in Afghanistan or Iraq? I didn't of course, but that won't stop you from suggesting that I did.

Ghost of Osama? I'm sorry did he die? Do you have some inside knowledge that no one else has? Have you been reading the Wikileaks website?

You do illuminate one point clearly though. For all the talk about getting the perpetrators of 9/11 and bringing them to justice, apparently the mastermind is someone not to worry with.

Exactly how was I being dishonest? I never said they weren't receiving benefits. My point, which you have either forgotten or are completely ignoring is that Republicans for all their harping about 9/11 with the chance to make sure the responders were fully taken care of balked at that chance.

Who's whining?

I don't know what needs to be accomplished why don't you ask all your brethern who supported both wars for nearly eight years until Obama became president and then all of a sudden over night became chicken hawks.

Again, I never said I wanted us to stay in Afghanistan, either you are just completely making that part up or, well, there is no other possibility, you are making it up. I have never said it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 23, 2010, at 10:43 AM

Never has so much been typed for so little to have actually been said. I don't know how you felt about the wars before nor did I ever say that you did. When I said brethern I was referring to Conservatives.

Ocho I took a position over eight years ago and my position has unchanged. You can read through my blogs, but I will give you a short summary. We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. It was an unjust war to begin with. We invaded a soveirgn country that never attacked us.

I long advocated to remove soldiers from Iraq and put them back into Afghanistan until Osama was caught. It may not bother you that he is still out there but it bothers me that the architect of costing us over 3,000 of our men and women is still out there roaming free.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 23, 2010, at 1:05 PM

Taking one statement made several hours after another does not contradict the first statement. Considering both statements are completely different they can stand on their own without a choice being made.

But, so you can be clear, I don't want us staying in Afghanistan but I also know that our troops have a job to do and that is bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

"And lastly, I think we not only should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq this afternoon, we should have never gone to either country in the first place!"

So, bringing those men responsible for the largest loss of American citizen life really isn't (and apparently never was) that big of a concern to you? I agree with you on Iraq since it's government had nothing to do with the attack.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 27, 2010, at 1:36 AM

Ah what's a post without the gratuitous Clinton sex joke and how if affected his leadership.

Sorry ocho, but when you continuously go after one group of politicians (Democrats) while continuously giving the other group (Republicans) excuses at just about every corner it can lead a person to surmise that if you aren't at least Conservative you are possibly Republican. Also when you put most everything at Obama's feet while excusing Bush and even go after Clinton it can lead a person to believe that if you aren't at leas Conservative you are possibly a Republican.

So enlighten me eight five, despite the evidence supplied by you, if you aren't conservative or a Republican, what is your political stripe?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 27, 2010, at 1:42 AM

I believe my argument to be clear and succinct. Funny though, that you are so confused over the two completely different statements that you have found yourself posting about it in two different threads. The comments do not contradict one another. I have never advocated staying in Afghanistan. Once the job is done (if it is done correctly, if it isn't then we need to leave, the sooner the better) we need to get out.

But again, it concerns me that you seem not at all to care about the fact that the man who masterminded 9/11 has not been caught. In fact, you seem to advocating just letting him go,which is very strange.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 28, 2010, at 2:51 AM

Enlighten me, Michael, why do you think everyone needs a "label" and why you feel qualified to assign "labels" at your discretion, based on your suppositions?

I see Santa failed to deliver a little humility under your tree!

-- Posted by ochosinco on Mon, Dec 27, 2010, at 8:43 AM

What are you talking about Willis (sorry loved the show and it is really apt for your non-answer)

I simply asked what your political beliefs are. They way in which you respond to posts can lead people to believe that you are if not Conservative then at least Republican. I simply asked you to clarify where you stood on politics. It's actually not an attempt in any fashion to label you. If you don't want to answer the question that's fine, but it is odd that I ask you a simple question and you get so bent out of shape over it.

The last time I checked, though, someone's political beliefs are not "labels" so go ahead and get down off your soapbox.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 28, 2010, at 2:56 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Collective Amnesia
(15 ~ 1:32 PM, Jan 24)

Of Safe Spaces
(5 ~ 2:00 PM, Jan 15)

You Have a Problem
(7 ~ 5:25 PM, Jan 9)

Draining The Swamp Indeed!
(8 ~ 5:22 PM, Jan 9)

The Resistance Movement
(9 ~ 6:05 AM, Dec 28)