Tim Sumner

9/11, Political wind

Science determines heroism: Mayor Mike Bloomberg

by  • 

In the New York Post this morning:

Mayor Bloomberg jumped mouth-first into the heated debate over the cause of death of a retired detective who worked tirelessly at Ground Zero — saying science showed “this was not a hero.”

The mayor’s cold comment, based on the ME’s assertion that misuse of prescription drugs led to the death of Detective James Zadroga, sickened and angered his friends and associates.
…
Earlier this month, the city’s medical examiner ruled Zadroga’s death was caused by his misuse of prescription drugs, not from inhaling toxic dust at Ground Zero, where he worked for more than 400 hours, as a New Jersey ME had said. Zadroga family lawyer Michael Barasch was aghast at the mayor’s remarks, saying, “I wish Mayor Bloomberg had taken the time to do a little research to see what prescription medication Mr. Zadroga had received.”

“He would have seen Mr. Zadroga was taking up to 14 pills a day. Even if [city medical examiner] Dr. [Charles] Hirsch is correct about what killed Mr. Zadroga, and I am not saying that he is, what difference does it make? At the end of the day Mr. Zadroga would still be with us had it not been for the World Trade Center exposure.”

Bloomberg made the remark in Boston during a question-and-answer session at Harvard. Weighing in on the ME’s finding, he flatly declared, “Science says this was not a hero.”

Science?

Police Officer Zadroga risked his life searching for the living and the dead. Had Mayor Bloomberg joined him there — actually crawling around that Pile for even a few hours helping with the search — then perhaps he’d have a better sense of things.

‘Hero’ is an opinion. Regardless of what caused Police Officer Zadroga’s death, he is a hero to many of us.

Mayor Bloomberg is an arrogant zero.

I write that not based upon any scientific data. It is just my opinion.

Political wind, Support our troops, War on Terror

Carl Levin: If Bush surrenders, Dems will “support the troops”

by  • 

In an editorial this morning, by the Washington Times:

If Congress fails to pass a supplemental appropriations bill funding the war in the next 20 days, it would appear to be legally impossible to continue military operations in Iraq for any extended amount of time — including the successful troop surge. Similarly, it would jeopardize continued funding for production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, [emphasis added mine] which is an integral part of the military’s efforts to protect American and coalition troops from roadside bombs.

But just when it seemed like Democrats were willing to see American fighting men and women killed and maimed in order to prove their political bona fides to George Soros and the Daily Kos, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin let the cat out of the bag: The Democrats don’t really want to pick this fight, at least not until next year. Mr. Levin said Wednesday that Democrats would be willing to approve funding sufficient to continue the war until June, setting the stage for a political battle next spring. But they will only agree to do this if Mr. Bush announces a date for withdrawing the troops from Iraq — and that sounds like the senator wants the president to announce a surrender date. This is what Democrats mean when they say they “support the troops.”