Sec.Defense Hagel warns ISIS is-

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

[spence]

Wow, France is already in the fight...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...33.html?hp=r10

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

SHARIA law is absolute HELL and has no place in America

so when we capture them on USA soil they should be simply SHOT
same as any foreign soldier attacking was

i don't think tax payers should have to pay for any trials

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm sure there would be boots on the ground for a rescue mission.

Spence, you mean like in Benghazi?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, you mean like in Benghazi?

Very different situations and you know that. But hey, any opportunity to say the word right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, he campaigned on a promise to end the war. That means removal of active combat troops which we did aside from the Marines at the embassy.

The Administration did want a force to run counter-terrorism activities and continue to train the Iraqi military which fell apart. That was reported back in 2011...it's not one instance.

Perhaps you're confusion on what Obama says tomorrow is that you don't really know what he said yesterday?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Very different situations and you know that. But hey, any opportunity to say the word right?

No, if my memory serves me right there were special forces boots on the ground in Benghazi and the Embassy had asked for more but refused by Billary before the 9/11 attack. According to O's latest strategy there will not be boots on the ground against isis.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, he campaigned on a promise to end the war. That means removal of active combat troops which we did aside from the Marines at the embassy.

The Administration did want a force to run counter-terrorism activities and continue to train the Iraqi military which fell apart. That was reported back in 2011...it's not one instance.

Perhaps you're confusion on what Obama says tomorrow is that you don't really know what he said yesterday?

No, not true Spence and you know it. He claims credit for removing all troops from Iraq and he bragged about it . He also brags about a much improved economy, a much improved health care system, a much improved perspective of how the world sees us.
He has a lower credibility rating and approval rating than any president since Jimmy Carter. Actually I believe he's lower than Jimmy Carter.
Most Americans excluding yourself see him for who he is and what he has done .
Spin the crap all you want . You're wrong in every case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No, if my memory serves me right there were special forces boots on the ground in Benghazi and the Embassy had asked for more but refused by Billary before the 9/11 attack. According to O's latest strategy there will not be boots on the ground against isis.

I don't believe there were any traditional special ops there, they were security staff assigned to State resources. There were former special ops in the CIA there but again...that's different.

It's also a very different scenario from providing rescue support to live bombing missions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

No, not true Spence and you know it. He claims credit for removing all troops from Iraq and he bragged about it . He also brags about a much improved economy, a much improved health care system, a much improved perspective of how the world sees us.
He has a lower credibility rating and approval rating than any president since Jimmy Carter. Actually I believe he's lower than Jimmy Carter.
Most Americans excluding yourself see him for who he is and what he has done .
Spin the crap all you want . You're wrong in every case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He took credit for ending the war which he did. Sorry if that's considered "bragging" but it's what politicians do.

It must be hard when you have a massive propaganda machine trying to destroy you to think you can actually believe you can take credit for something the majority of Americans actually wanted.

Shame on him...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

He took credit for ending the war which he did. Sorry if that's considered "bragging" but it's what politicians do.

Big difference between ending a war through vicyory and leaving a war.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Big difference between ending a war through vicyory and leaving a war.

It is impossible to achieve victory in a war that is non conventional. The last clean victory we had was WW2 IMHO. Topple the goverment and it's leader and you win doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on. He has gone back and forth, contradicted, lied, about so much that his words are, at best, meaningless. Publicly (for mass political consumption and influence on outcomes of elections) he campaigned on complete withdrawal of forces. Behind closed doors, or for select public, private, or political groups, he dithered about some forces, or no forces, or maybe this or that.

At this point, as Hillary might say, what difference does it make. Except for some who want to make his position, whatever that is or was, right, it is obvious that American military presence was necessary to protect the so-called democracy and sovereignty or the newly formed Iraq. There was no truly broad democratic basis for how the country was ruled. Religious and ethnic factions would oppose democratic rights for opposing factions or groups. And there certainly was no guaranty of individual liberties--oh, that's right, those are no longer possible in the progressive 21st century view. Centralized power is necessary rather than frictional democratic or individualistic "rights."

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

[afterhours]

#8 is in the future.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It is impossible to achieve victory in a war that is non conventional. The last clean victory we had was WW2 IMHO. Topple the goverment and it's leader and you win doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war. Therefore the emphasis on intelligence and emphasis on special forces.
However, now we have a Commander in Chief that has downplayed the threat , won't call it a war on terror, would rather negotiate with savages if he could, doesn't have a strategy that our military would approve of and announces to the terrorists what he will and will not do. Sounds like a plan for victory. Every plan he has is based on politics.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

Well . . . sort of. The "ground war" was ultimately not the same as the old "conventional war" that Nebe was referring to. Not sure (as Spence would say) that there is some static unchanging way of war. Apparently, we can't even say something as simple as "war is war." It seems, according to some administrations, that war is not necessarily war.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

Yes, and at the same time building intelligence , special forces and Home Land Security.
He left office with Iraq being in pretty good shape until Obama came in only
giving 1/2 the troops needed to close it down announcing when we would withdraw as isis sat on the side line building a "JV TEAM".
Now he announces to isis what he will do and NOT do. What a Commander in Chief.

[afterhours]

"Commander of Grief" as far as I'm concerned.

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

that's funny...Iraq topped a very short list of countries consider State Sponsors of TERRORISM beginning in 1979...

they were subsequently removed from that list : Following the invasion, US sanctions applicable to state sponsors of terrorism against Iraq were suspended on 7 May 2003 and President Bush announced the removal of Iraq from the list on 25 September 2004.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_S...s_of_Terrorism

but "unrelated" to the "War on Terror"

[justplugit]

If only O had seen reality and continued what Bush started to prepare
for "the war on terror " after having lost 6 valuable years of serious preparation we may have been totally prepared, or maybe not even having to face the more serious problems we have now.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on.

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda. Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Crusa...g+the+crusades

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Ba...lim+bad+muslim

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Islam-...eywords=irshad

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

I was commenting on the general unreliability of "Obama's own words." Even in the instance of your "most recent source" he is weaseling about him wanting to leave residual forces but Maliki not wanting it. If he REALLY wanted to leave behind adequate troops to maintain the new government, he could have worked it out. Maliki would have accepted the forces but didn't want to agree with providing the legal immunity that the status of forces agreement required. Maliki was probably CYAing to satisfy sectors of his population. That could have been worked out in several ways (e.g.--bribery, intimidation, behind doors agreement to be implemented later, or simply agreeing to Maliki's demands and disregarding them if need be, etc. etc.). That's called realpolitik, which progressives would surely understand and subscribe to, as they normally do.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

"Victory"--final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"Finish"--completing, in this case, the victory, the final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"War against jihadism"--in this case, engaging in the war against us by those who desire a victory over us supported by notions of "jihad of the sword" mentioned in the Quran and hadiths.

I realize that these cannot be recognized as "absolute terms" by you since you do not believe in absolutes. But they are absolutely acceptable to me and my mundane use of words to communicate ideas in the functional way language was invented to do.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda.

There are verses which originalists and fundamentalists "interpret" to do so. Of course, later apologists would dispute such interpretation and claim they only refer to specific instances not general commands.

e.g. verse 9:5 Sahih International:
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

and verse 9:29 Sahih International:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

But it is not only the Quran which informs Muslims on their faith, but also the Hadiths. The Quran was supposedly the word of Allah which in turn was expressed by Muhammad. The Hadiths were edicts, words and accounts of Muhammad.

e.g. Sahih Muslim Book 19 Hadith Number 4294:

Chapter : Appointment of the leaders of expeditions by the Imam and his advice to them on etiquettes of war and related matters.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

Uh . . . what with the Adrian Peterson's and Ray Rice's, et al. peculiar examples of Western family jihad, go for it.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

I was responding to your "Western conquest" producing dictators. "Western" in that context is merely a geographic notation not a philosophical or political one. As I said, the "conquests" were not intended to "westernize" but to exploit. If the intention was to westernize and the conquests were successful, then, yes, everything in terms of current crusades and jihads would be relatively "hunky dory." Actually, the Iraq war, in my opinion, was more about westernization than WMDs or exploitation. Had it been "victoriously finished" we would have a "hunky dory" relationship. And it was about toppling a dictator not producing one.

And talk about a "gem"--your comment that the first Caliphate was bringing about great advances while western counterparts were sacking neighbors and fending off Vikings was such a "gem." How do you think early Islam spread so fast and vast if not by conquest (including sacking and fending). And, BTW, the western counterparts had preceded the Caliphates by several centuries in bringing about great advances, as well did the Middle Easterners who preceded the Muslims. And much of the "great advances" the Muslims were "bringing about" were informed by those of their western counterparts. And what is the most gleaming gem is the aftermath--what great advances are the Islamists bringing today?

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

So what? Amazing how you don't like nor wish to discuss "old" stuff such as the Constitution (not anywhere near as old as the Crusades) but you want to dredge up "old news" like the crusades.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

OMG . . . talk about "wishful thinking, gross oversimplification," and the necessity to "define in clear and absolute terms," your above comment is all of that.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

Yeah, that does sound unique. I'm sure that the Canadian lesbian has a unique perception of Islam. And probably a new and unique version of jihad to add to all the different types of jihad already described by more prosaic imams and such.

[scottw]

great thing about this president is that given time he's usually proven wrong and incompetent on pretty much everything he does or states...which then proves Spence wrong about pretty much everything despite the Canadian Lesbian expertise etc...

you know it's bad when Chris Matthews is tired of the lies and incompetence....this was very reassuring "We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves."

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Everybody's being told, don't worry unless they have the infectious symptoms, you can see them, that you don't have to worry about catching them. Yet, this guy picked up the disease apparently from somebody who did not have the infectious symptoms.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Again, don't hypothesize because we just don't know. We have no idea what he did or didn't do and how he got it. I'm sure that's going to be vital information to try to understand the transmission, but the idea that there's going to be a widespread outbreak here, I think is just, again, it's a bit of fear mongering. We have a single case. This is not a big, widespread --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just going back to the president's statement, doctor, and that is that the president said it would be unlikely if we had a case in this country. Unlikely to even have one case. You want to see the tape again?

EMANUEL: He said there wouldn't be an Ebola outbreak.

MATTHEWS: No, and in the second part of his sentence he said in the unlikely case someone brings it here. In the unlikely case someone brings it here. Well, they've done it. We're living in the world of the unlikely already. That's all I'm saying. I'm not fear mongering. I'm stating the facts and I wonder if everybody else is.


EMANUEL: The reason we can be assured here that this isn't going to be a major outbreak is we have a CDC that can do very good contact tracing. We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves. And you're not regularly in contact with people's bodily fluids the way it is much more common in Liberia. I think those things distinguish it. And I don't think we should get into a panic because we were reassured it would never be in the United States.

MATTHEWS: No, the president said it was unlikely two weeks ago. Well, it's not the unlikely, it has happened. It's here."

cue president pass the buck to blame someone for not warning him......

http://www.nationaljournal.com/again...dency-20140929

[justplugit]

What ,Chris Matthews has moved off the O line a bit?
Slowly but surely the Libs are seeing the light.
Even Beckel has been softening his line.