WOW! TB GUY IS GIVING IT TO THE ADMINISTRATION!

[berni_mccoy]

He is testifying, NOW on CNN about what another CRONYISTIC dept of the Bush Admin communicated with about his contagiousness and about what he could travel. They explained NOTHING to this guy. No gov't agent warned him of his danger and the gov't cleared him for travel. HE WAS CLEARED by the gov't.

He is ticked off, as would anyone, who has been lambasted as the fall-guy for YET ANOTHER FAILURE of the Bush CRONY ADMIN.

[DS1]

1. and lawyers never lie to cover their asses

[wakeme2008]

7. Well this lawyers has a tape record message of CDC

saying it was OK for him to travel...

[jilln]

30. I'd like to know why that conversation was taped

It's like they knew they were gonna have to cover their asses, no?

[mzmolly]

37. Perhaps b/c his father in law knows the inner workings?

:shrug:

[jilln]

41. Not sure what you mean by that

You mean the father in law knew that they were gonna have trouble for flying?

[mzmolly]

63. I think he may have felt it was prudent to cover his backside?

Just wild speculation on my part like much of the discussion.

[Cronopio]

46. Why should that matter?

Maybe he had a good reason we don't know about to be suspicious of the CDC. It doesn't negate the evidence.

[jilln]

72. Because although he insisted he didn't know he was doing anything wrong

the fact that they taped the conversation to me says otherwise. The only reasons I know of for taping a conversation are to catch the other guy in a lie or to cover your own ass. I could be wrong, but to me it looks like father in law and son knew he was gonna do something he shouldn't and decided to set it up to blame someone else. (And "someone else" definitely deserves some blame here.)

[Cronopio]

86. He might be taping the conversation because he thinks they might be doing something wrong.

"The only reasons I know of for taping a conversation are to catch the other guy in a lie or to cover your own ass. I could be wrong"

I think both are also a possibility. CYA can be protecting yourself against another person's lie.

I agree that, whatever his share of the blame is or isn't, the CDC is definitely to blame.

[wakeme2008]

49. Could be as simple as a message left on an answering machine

:shrug:

[grace0418]

75. That's exactly what I was thinking. Do people not have voicemail around here?

Why does it automatically have to be some plot?

[jilln]

81. It was not voicemail!! Do a little research.

He recorded a LIVE meeting he had with officials (a meeting at which the officials claim they told him not to fly):

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3231184&page=1

"He told (Diane) Sawyer he had a tape recording of a meeting with health officials that he said would confirm his view that it was OK to travel in his condition."

In addition, the recording was made without consent (which may be a crime depending on the state)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/06/01/tb.flight/index.html?eref=yahoo

Geez, this guy changed his travel plans after the meeting with the health officials and then flew back after being told not to because he "couldn't afford a charter flight". That's a whole lot of suspicious behavior. Add to that that the mayor of the town where he got married says no such wedding took place, instead of flying back to Atlanta he went to CANADA and then DROVE into the US...

Do you record conversations you have for no reason without the other parties' consent? Why hasn't that tape been made public if it proves anything at all?

[grace0418]

82. I asked the question and no one answered, and I'm at work and don't have time

for research. But thanks so much for your kind post.

Good grief.

:eyes:

[jilln]

85. "Do people not have voicemail around here"?

Pretty obvious snark.

And if you have time to post the erroneous voicemail theory more than once in this thread, you have time to research. Took 2 minutes.

Good grief indeed.

[grace0418]

89. General snark vs. jumping down someone's throat.

I guess you're not only more correct than I but you're also a better researcher. Good for you.

[jilln]

90. Whatever.

[grace0418]

95. My thoughts exactly.

[jilln]

102. In any case, it looks like you may have been more correct than I, even if by accident.

A poster down below says Speaker Sr. taped the conversation because he's hard of hearing.

I still think there's much to be suspicious about their behavior, but this point had another explanation.

[AspenRose]

79. Because Andrew Speaker's dad is an attorney as well

.....and he probably wanted to play it safe...he's the one who did the recording, from what I understand, not the father-in-law.

[mzmolly]

36. You mean the CDC is inept?

Can't be! :sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

10. Actually, no they don't not when they're under oath...

because that's a breach of ethics and can lead them to lose their law license. I doubt this young man wants that.

In the absolute sense, yes all people lie, but there are even more sanctions for a person who's a lawyer and lies under oath, than a regular non-lawyer person.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

:shrug:

[T Wolf]

2. With the politicization of science (incl. medicine), I would have to at least

listen to what he is saying.

Who knows, it could be part of the "scare-America" strategy.

[OregonBlue]

5. My thought exactly. A push by * for new rule that HE can declare emergency and stop people

from traveling if HE determines they are dangerous to our national health!! After all, since there was a failure in this case, obviously CDC, etc. can't be trusted. He will have to make the decision.

[kestrel91316]

3. What formal proceeding is he "testifying" in???? I thought he was

legally confined to isolation in a Denver hospital.

[originalpckelly]

11. He is, and that's the reason he's testifying by phone.

[kestrel91316]

91. I missed the "by phone" part, lol.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Hmmm... thought CSPAN 3 was going to be boring today

(just tuned in) Lundgren's performing now. LOL! Wants to know if "anyone has been disciplined".

[Bluerthanblue]

6. what i don't understand about him is that

he said he understood he'd be going through a LONG time of isolation and treatments, and decideded he'd just throw caution to the wind, and go to Italy anyway.... at least that is what he said at first (per.the media)
If he didn't think this TB was such a big deal, why wouldn't he just get it taken care of first??? Also, i had to get tested for TB everytime i took jobs that required close work with children- in school, camp, etc. The govt. has routinely been kind of anal about it- i guess for reasons just like this-

A friend of mine got hired on by the Post Office about 10 yrs ago, and they required a TB test, which came back positive, then they made him get an x-ray which came back with more suspicious results- as it turned out, he didn't have TB at all, but they sure put him through a lot of hoops to make sure he was NOT sick, or a carrier.

Something is really off about this whole incident- I don't like the weirdness on either side-

:shrug:

peace,
blu

[wakeme2008]

8. He has a tape recorded message from CDC saying

it was OK for him to travel to Italy...

[Bluerthanblue]

14. and...

why would he have tape recorded it if he didn't ALREADY have some real personal doubts about this???

And why did his FIL come out when he was first made an "item" saying he didn't cause his son in law's TB- and why didn't the FIL point out to him, the fact that he WOULD be a 'threat' to others???

this is really fishy- on BOTH sides.

It reminds me of when Ari said in the news conf. on 9/11 that AF1 was a target- and the rage,anger, and denials that followed- both sides seemed like they were over-reacting, and covering their asses.

? i just don't get it.

[Cronopio]

51. If you were given diagnosis of "possible TB" and the doctors said you could travel anyway ...

Wouldn't you be suspicious enough to record the conversation?

If I were that suspicious, I would have cancelled my travel plans, but from the standpoint of TB Guy the doctors could have been giving him the all clear. He didn't know for sure, so he recorded it just in case.

Doesn't sound fishy to me, just not very wise on his part.

[Bluerthanblue]

60. the problem is, that he WAS told not to travel- by his

doctor initially, and then by the CDC- the 'nit-picking' that is being done is that when pressed, the FIL asked the CDC (which is odd, because the FIL supposedly works for CDC) if they were telling him not to travel because they were 'covering their ass'- and supposedly they admitted that it was CYA-

This is the conversation that is aleged to have been recorded- and how would 'i' know if they were going to say "we're only CYA"- if i was in a meeting where that question was first being posed?

This doesn't only sound fishy- it sounds like willful negligence on "Speaker's" part- i believe much of his claims of 'it wasn't MY fault is based on fears of his liability for lawsuits from people he exposed, regardless of whether or not they become infected.

He KNEW he had drug resistant TB- and that it was not "latent"- he didn't know he had the 'super-drug' resistant form (nor did the CDC) until the next day- He left 2days early for his trip- and didn't notify his Dr- or the CDC until after the fact.

Some news reports say the CDC was trying to get a court order to keep him from flying- but he was already in Europe :crazy:

Wiley, rather than 'wize' in my opinion. Self-centered and impulsive as well. It will be interesting to hear the FIL's 'taped' go-ahead and travel- and not a paraphrase of what was actually said.

[Cronopio]

69. If all of that is true, then yes, he is an uberjerk.

But I would assume (because of this thing I do called thinking) that the CDC would have the authority to quarantine him on the suspicion of having even a drug-resistant strain of TB. The distinction between "we know it's bad" and "we now know that it's really, really bad" seems arbitrary and opportunistic to me.

If he's a lawyer, then him also being a selfish scumbag is just part of the profile. But he's not a doctor, and when it comes to a possible public health emergency, it should have been the doctors making the call, not him. If they were just playing CYA games, then their negligence is the main issue, not his.

[msanthrope]

105. I'd record ANY conversation I had with any Administration

official. Anyone who questions why this guy recorded this meeting hasn't been paying attention the last 7 years....

[coznfx]

108. I second that ...

I routinely record ANY interaction I have with ANY government 'official', be it a traffic stop, turning in my voter registration card, or testifying in court (if no "Do Not Record" notice is posted or announced). I carry a small digital voice recorder clipped obviously inside my shirt pocket at all times. I've been screwed more than once by lying gov't bastards at both local and state level, who either twisted my words or intentions around or just flat-out lied to cover their own asses when THEY made a mistake. It won't happen again if I can help it.

[grace0418]

77. Was it an actual conversation or a recorded voicemail?

I'm not watching so I don't know. A recorded voicemail wouldn't be suspicious at all.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. Kinda makes me wonder what he was doing taping phone calls.

This whole story stinks to high heaven. Taping the phone call leads me to believe he knew SOMETHING was up. Sure, his ass may be covered legally - but morally? No.

Furthermore, I find it VERY hard to believe he never consulted his world-renowned-TB-expert-father-in-law before traveling. He can "deny till he dies" but I don't believe it.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. me too-

and what kind of a 'wedding' day memory was he hoping for given the situation???

Personally i'd much prefer getting the treatment behind me, and starting out on a healthy note- with a bright future...????

I don't like the story from either angle- something is really off.

I can't help but wonder if the new 'anthrax' might come in the form of terrorist TB-

:tinfoilhat:

[wakeme2008]

26. Do not know all the details but it could be as simple

as a message left on an answering machine.

[Catherine Vincent]

28. Habit. He's a lawyer.

They probably hit the record button on every conversation.

[cui bono]

31. That's not legal though. nt

[mzmolly]

39. That depends, he may have asked?

Also, the convo may have been taped by the CDC and requested? We don't know the circumstances do we?

[jilln]

83. Circumstances

The CDC said they were not aware of any recording and had not consented. It was a LIVE meeting.

[mzmolly]

94. Awe, poor CDC.

Thankfully this guy had the wherewithal to question them a bit?

[jilln]

99. "Poor CDC?" I was just answering your question about the circumstances.

[mzmolly]

100. And I shared my opinion on the fact that he recorded his conversation.

Nothing personal.

[cui bono]

88. No we don't, but I was responding to the post that said he probably recorded

it due to habit since he's a lawyer. Although someone just pointed out that it is legal in some states even without the other party knowing, of which I was unaware.

[Usrename]

58. In some states it's perfectly legal.

If it is legal where he lives then there isn't anything sinster about him taping his phone calls, IMHO.

[cui bono]

84. Wow. I didn't think it was legal anywhere unless all parties were aware of it.

[coznfx]

109. In Oregon, at least, it's legal ...

Unless you announce that you are recording and the other party asks you to stop. Believe it or not! Don't announce that you're recording and it's legal, and can even be used in court.

My room-mate won a wrongful termination (of employment) lawsuit, partial evidence of which were phone calls made to him from his employer admitting or confirming certain facts which wound up being pertinent to his case. He used a simple Radio Shack unit which connected between the phone and the wall jack and started recording every time you picked up the handset. It didn't make any beeps or anything. This was back about 6 - 7 years ago though; I don't know if you could rig something similar up with today's cell phones. Also, I suppose just to CMA, I should say that I don't know for a fact if it is still legal to do it.

Assuming that it is, I don't quite understand the reasoning behind why it's legal if the other party is not aware of it, but not legal if they are aware of it and ask you to stop.

[cui bono]

113. Don't ask, don't tell. ;)

[rexcat]

112. Legal in Ohio...

as long as one of the parties is aware of the taping. Strange wording of the law here! This issue was discussed heavily during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

[cui bono]

114. Gee I wonder which party would be aware... :D very odd. nt

[LeftCoast]

9. TB treatment takes months

and the meds make many people feel pretty bad. If you didn't know you had a rare, drug-resistant form it actually makes a lot of sense to head over to Europe real quick and get married before you start the treatment regimen.

[Bluerthanblue]

17. would you not

worry about infecting others if you had just found out you had it?

Would you put your own desires above everything else? After he was in Italy, and the govt. told him not to fly inter-contental, would you just hop a plane to Canada (now clearly knowing you were a 'danger' to others) and say in effect "screw everyone else, i gotta get the best treatment i can"???


He should be feeling bad about what he did- He isn't a stupid man- and he has connections and funds to ensure he will be well cared for- And now he says he hopes there will be policies put in place to be sure this doesn't happen again????

I'm sorry he's sick, i think his own actions show he thought travelling abroad was NOT a good idea, but didn't really care- what he wanted was more important than anything else.

What will happen to folks who test positive now?? Will they be incarcerated?

[LeftCoast]

21. Depends on whether the TB was latent or active

From what I'm reading it seems like this guy is saying he was told he was latent. There are people all around you who have latent TB (if you live in any major metropolitan region) and you'd never know it.

[cui bono]

33. My understanding is that he didn't know he had the dangerous strain

until he was already in Italy. At that point he chose to fly home and endanger hundreds of people because he knew he would be quarantined in isolation and didn't want that to happen in Italy.

He is a first class selfish jerk and the government has shown its incompetence once again. We are not safer than we were before 9/11.

[Cronopio]

66. The first report I saw said that he didn't know he had the dangerous strain until he returned.

If he did find out in Italy, he *is* a jerk. If he didn't, he's a patsy.

In either case, the CDC should have isolated him if they did the slightest inkling that he might have the dangerous strain. The actions of the CDC are a lot fishier than his are.

I wonder if this lawyer has done any pro bono work for, say, anti-corporate environmental activist causes. Just that will get him on a list, and that might have been enough to motivate him to suspect that he was just being jerked around by the government. Being an activist can be a very paranoid existence.

[LisaL]

107. He knew he had MDR-TB before he went to Europe.

[mzmolly]

40. My sister is a head start teacher and contracted TB. She thinks from

some of the kids in her class, but she has many friends from Mexico, who may have been carriers as well? She was latent and had to be on antibiotics for six months. I personally avoided her ass. :P

[Bluerthanblue]

45. well, he says

some pretty conflicting things-

Here is what he says to Dianne Sawyer:

"Before I left, it was made clear to me in order to fight this I had one shot and that was here," he said about his chances for survival. "I had one shot at this and if I didn't get right treatment, CDC sends testing out here, so they can pick the right drugs to mix, and if I was somewhere where they got it wrong, that was it, they blew my last shot."

And from everything he HAS said, he knew it wasn't 'latent'- you don't usually treat 'latent' TB- he knew he was going in for some prolonged treatment- and he was told by his doctor NOT to travel- for his own health-

The question wasn't if he was active or latent i don't believe- What changed, (as far as i have been able to find out) was that he was pretty determined to have his European wedding, and when he talked to the CDC in person, they discouraged him from traveling- and his response worried them. Worried them so much they went and hand delivered his test stuff to the lab, where it was determined he DID have the drug resistant form. They went to his house the next day- May 11th and found out he'd already left-

I'm not trying to make this guy into a monster, but he did make some pretty selfish, and rash decisions. It is his trying to point to the 'messengers' (the health proffesionals) and cry "it's THEIR FAULT- they didn't MAKE me stay home!!!" that really frustrates me.

The guy, a regular "Joe"- screwed up- and screwed up in a way that was reckless- and thoughtless- and being a Lawyer, i would have expected he would have had more common sense, and wisdom.

:shrug:

peace,
blu

[Usrename]

62. So when he gets expert medical advice he should just ignore it?

Geez, he is saying that he has a tape recording of them telling him it was ok for him to travel.

How was he supposed to know they were lying to him? Explain that part again.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. that is exactly what he DID do- and

now he is trying to shift the blame-

read this account if your interested- it is pretty thorough-

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Disease_420/Diagnosed_with_a_Rare_Form_of_Tuberculosis_-.shtml

personally, both sides are negligent on this, but the side that had the ultimate control- (Speaker) was the one who made the selfish decision, and who should have to carry his own responsibility-
In other words, he's trying to play 'victim'- when he is actually a perpetrator-

he is responsible for the CHOICES he made- and the risks he exposed others to-
And being a Personal Injury Lawyer he knows this-

I hope his treatment is successful, and that no one who was exposed becomes ill.

peace,
blu

[Usrename]

74. What are you talking about?

"he is responsible for the CHOICES he made- and the risks he exposed others to-
And being a Personal Injury Lawyer he knows this-"

They told him he was not putting anyone in danger, that he could be with his own family w/o endangering them. So what choices did he make that were wrong? He should not have chosen to believe what the experts were telling him. Do you think that would have been a reasonable choice?

Or, are you saying that when the CDC got in a snit that he should have coughed up the $140K (that he didn't have) to get home? Or, that he should have decided to stay in Europe and die, foregoing the life-saving treatment that was being set up for him at Denver? That's just ridiculous.

What exactly would have been the *right* choices for him to make? It sounds like you are arguing that the only *right* choice for him to make would have been to just ignore what all the experts were telling him from the beginning.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. did you read

the link?

He was told by the CDC NOT to fly- he was told to begin treatment- he was told the best treatment place was where he now is- and that it would take 2-3 weeks to figure out what appropriate drugs to use-

He chose CHOSE to ignore their advice NOT to travel- he decided he knew what was 'right' for him- and he FLEW on a commercial airliner to Europe. Once there, he found out from his FIL that the CDC was trying to locate him, and that he should call them- which he did- they told him he had the super drug resistant kind of TB- He said he wanted to come home- they said they would see what they could do-

Had he listened to what the CDC said to do, he would NOT have left the country- is this not going against what was advised????

Then, once he's there, and they know it- he says "WELL you have to get me home!!!"- and once again takes matters into his own hands.

CLEARLY he knew, when choosing to take 2 commercial flights to get back to Canada, that the CDC felt he was a threat to the health of others- why would they tell him to get to a hospital for treatment otherwise???? He knew, and put his own desire above the potential health of others- people who had no clue that he had TB- His wife, and family, knew- and made 'informed' decisions- the passengers on his flights did NOT-

As for the 140,000$ - there would have been no need of it if he hadn't gone would there? Is the CDC responsible for his return, when they advised him not to leave and he ignored them????-

He may not infect anyone- but why did he feel his own temporary happiness took precident over everything else in the world????-

There are many inconsistancies in his story- i expect them from the govt- but not from those who say the govt is screwing them over-

[triguy46]

67. self deleted

[napi21]

68. I would have worried FIRST about infecting my Bride!

I HAVE to asssume that was his first question. I'm also sure he asked his FIL to be about it since his job was TB research for the CDC. I CAN'T believe he was told anything but, your disease is latent, you can travel, get married, and then we'll concentrate on treatment. Think about it. Does ANY other scenario make any sense to you????

[Bluerthanblue]

73. read this account, and his responses to the questions-

which clearly show that he knew he was not "healthy" -

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Disease_420/Diagnosed_with_a_Rare_Form_of_Tuberculosis_-.shtml

He's parsing words, and claiming victimhood- i've been a Mum too long not to hear the "they made me do it!!"- in his words. Not absolving the government medical oversight completely- but the responsibility rests firmly on his shoulders imo-

[malaise]

12. This is mindblowing

incompetence. No surprise here.
Still I am left with a question - why MSM was spinning this in favor of Bushco's goons?

He has torn them a new one.

[berni_mccoy]

13. MSM has stopped the spin... the commentary afterward seemed very sympathetic to TB Guy.

[malaise]

15. They have no choice now

Of course they already created quite a mess.

[Beaverhausen]

18. Has anyone from the CDC testified yet?

I'm sorry but this is so fishy to me- especially with his own father in law working on TB at the CDC- something is not right.

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. CSPAN 3 - Gerberding testifying now

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

[ComerPerro]

19. Fuck him, I don't believe him. Just selfish, libertarian "fuck everyone else, I do what I want" BS

[LeftCoast]

22. I dunno. Do you really think he'd put his new bride at risk?

That's the part of the story that never made sense to me.

[ComerPerro]

23. Don't think he thought about it. He was just gonna do what he wanted to do

[spoony]

111. I agree.

I'll be damned if I'm going to applaud this jerk just because he slammed the government.

[Sparkly]

24. How did he get through White House security?!?

Oh, wait... :hide:

[npincus]

25. going through life as "The TB Guy"...

I almost feel sorry for him.

[Marie26]

29. Go, TB guy!

I'm still confused about why this is news.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Um. It's news because a drug-resistant form of TB which is also

contagious is a serious health problem. Especially since he flew to Italy, because now it's going to be impossible to contain if he infected someone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. There are hundreds of people with MDR in the U.S.

I'd imagine they're regularly involved in situations where disease is just as much likely to spread as on an airplane.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. First of all, we have no excuse for this failure. We're suppose to be

eons ahead of other countries as far as medical evaluation and disease prevention is concerned. The CDC failed. Second of all, when this went to Italy, from there it could jump to any number of impoverished countries, where medical evaluation and disease prevention isn't as good. So, TB Guy may be responsible for wiping out an entire town in an African country, for example. Depends on how contagious he is. No one seems to be talking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Backlash, one third of the world has TB.

World wide, there are 180,000 new cases of MDR every year.

:shrug:

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. The drug resistant kind of TB?

And how many of those are in the US?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. did you read my posts?

There are hundreds in the U.S.

[Bluerthanblue]

61. not of the XDR kind- it is the "new improved" version of MDR

-

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. And hundreds can become thousands, and thousands can become

tens of thousands, etc exponentially.

TB is an airborne disease and if you're talking about a disease which is drug resistant, you have something that could hamstring our medical community.

I lived overseas for the early part of my life and these things were taken seriously because people died from simple things like appendicitis due to the poor medical facilities.

[Occulus]

103. From what I understand,

they had him coughing stuff up from deep in his lungs a couple days ago, and found no trace of TB in his sputum. Therefore, the chances of him infecting anyone else while he was traveling- given that he was to all appearances healthy, and not coughing- are really an academic exercise at this point.

I won't say it's impossible- nothing is ever 100%- but I will say, given I recently went through being potentially exposed to TB at work, the chances of him having infected anyone else are very, very low.

I don't want to downplay the seriousness of the disease he has, but at the same time, there's an awful, awful lot of falling-sky mentality going on involving this case. Time will tell, and after enough time passes, we will be sure, one way, or the other.

The fact that he hasn't infected his wife is telling in and of itself.

[LisaL]

106. The third of world has latent TB. All it means they have

been exposed to TB bacterium. Latent TB is not contagious, and people who have it are not sick. Their immune system took care of it.
In some cases latent TB becomes active TB. Active TB is contagious. Speaker has active TB. If he had latent TB no one would care where he travels.

[cui bono]

35. Um... national security? If we can't keep one person with an untreatable

and contagious disease from flying in/out of our country how will we stop a deliberate attempt of using this sort of tactic against us? Another show of incompetence from our so called leader's Dept. of Homeland Security when the Repubs keep claiming they are so great on national security.

[Marie26]

78. I don't really agree

This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it certainly isn't the last. CDC has had other cases where people don't comply w/orders, or lie about the seriousness of the disease in order to avoid quarantine. No, this is news for the sheer entertainment value. It's a "human interest story," where we can hate the arrogant lawyer TB guy, or alternately, the incompetant government, with a hint of a murder mystery as well (was the father-in-law involved?) With real medical thrillers like this, Robin Cook will be out of business. People like these kinds of stories, because it focuses on one person/family, with whom we can identify or dislike in a personal way, unlike those impersonal, far-off stories about global warming or economic downturns. Interesting it may be, but does it deserve the 24-7 coverage from cable news? IMO, no. This story is as much of a distraction as the other celebrity drama/tabloid murder stories that cable news goes nuts over.

[cui bono]

87. What about the fact that someone from DHS said they had no plan in case

of something like this happening. They had to make it up as they went along. I think it was someone from DHS, Rachel Maddow covered it, the person may have been from somewhere else.

No, I most defintely think it is indicative of rampant incompetence from an admin that keeps claiming they are taking care of us and are best on national security and yet in reality does nothing about it.

And I didn't see 24/7 coverage on this, even though I don't watch that much TV I still noticed all the Anna Nicole Smith coverage. I barely noticed this story dominating the news media. But again, I get my news mostly from the internet.

[uppityperson]

55. It is showing that those who think National Security works are wrong.

If he was supposed to be contained for NS, he wasn't. How can the gvt be trusted to Keep Us Safe?

[DemReadingDU]

32. The gov had to SCARE us

they needed to divert the media from talking about the scandals

[Swamp Rat]

44. How soon 'till the next one? Poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1049141

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. I'm wondering who was at that wedding?

I'd love to look at the guest list.

[Ilsa]

50. Yep, we got this one, the Fort Dix fiasco and the JFK one almost all at once. nt

[mondo joe]

56. Are you saying the govt constructed a diversion that says how fucked up the govt is

under Bush?

[Cronopio]

57. Maybe its a trial run of a new technique.

Government wants a new 9/11, but wants to be more pro-active about creating it than just sitting back and waiting for some Saudi jihadists to do their work for them. How do you get everyone as paranoid as possible as quickly as possible?

Create a biological health scare. The role of "TB Guy" or "TB Gal" can be put on anyone as long as you can get some sort of medical authority to legitimize the propaganda. Most of us don't have a medical lab to verify the evidence, so we have to take the authorities at their word or risk being infected ourselves. Milgram proved that most people will obey the authority presented to them in any event.

Microorganisms are the perfect terrorists.

[yardwork]

43. Very interesting story.

For some reason the MSM seems to have stumbled into reporting on this one. I await further developments with keen interest.

[erpowers]

59. Multiple Doctors

Multiple doctors, even his own doctors have come out and said he was warned not to fly. I think his doctors produced documents that showed they had warned him not to fly. I think everyone has admitted that they did not have the right or authority to stop Speaker from flying, but they did what they could. I am not a fan of the Bush Administration, but I contend Speaker is trying to scapegoat others for his decisions to disregard the safety of other people.

Even Speaker himself admits that he was told he should not fly. However, he tempers that by saying the doctors told his father that they were saying he should not fly to cover their own butts. So Speaker was well aware of the chance he was taking, he just decided that unless someone was going to strap him down to a bed he was going to do what he wanted to do. Noone had the authority to strap him down to a bed.

[BlooInBloo]

64. Wonder if he's a republican?

[coalition_unwilling]

65. More telling is the eerie similiarity to victims of Katrina. To wit, once

a problem occurs, you are on your own as far as BFEE is concerned. That's why CDC could say that he not travel back to the U.S. by commerical aircraft but would not provide any means for him to return to the U.S. for necessary treatment.

We are on our own with this administration. I live in Southern California and shudder to think of the fallout (npi) if a magnitude 7 earthquake hits. Only those with the biggest SUVs will be able to escape.

[Bluerthanblue]

76. i can't say that i would have

wanted to wait in Italy hoping that the CDC would get me home, but it was different than Katrina in that this man made a very conscious choice to take an expensive, overseas trip to Europe despite being warned AGAINST it by his Dr, and the CDC- He was told that they didn't think he should travel, and that he needed to start treatment- but instead he kept seeking a 'loop-hole' that would somehow absolve him from guilt or responsibility for doing what he wanted to do regardless of the concequences.

Katrina is a whole different disaster- I don't trust the government to help me in any way- but with the situation in NOLA and surrounding area, the govt was not only a failure in terms of being a help- it stopped help that was being offered by others, bears responsibility for those who were put into such danger to begin with, and had a large part in creating such a dangerous situation to begin with -

[coalition_unwilling]

92. With the CDC telling him not to travel but then saying their words

were merely a 'CYA' (according to what I saw on ABC's Good Morning America a couple days ago), Speaker can hardly be blamed for traveling overseas to his wedding.

Once there, told that he could not return via commercial aircraft, what exactly was he supposed to do? Pay $140,000 for a private jet? The fact is, the U.S. government betrayed Speaker at almost every turn. That the CDC operates under the BFEE rubric currently does not surprise me in the slightest.

[jilln]

93. He was supposed to turn himself into a hospital in Italy

Or at least that's what I've read. I don't dispute that the government could have been more competent here, but in any case, endangering dozens or hundreds of other people because he doesn't have the money for a private flight should never be an option. I don't understand why he thought he would die if he didn't get right back to the US (which by the way he didn't do, he went to Canada first and then drove in to NY, pretty far from his hometown or where his current hospital is). Certainly the Italian hospital could have handled it, with help from the CDC if necessary.

[KaptBunnyPants]

96. Wow, the posters on this thread remind me of the bush administration.

The guy has evidence of governmental wrong doing, and all people can say is "how dare he tape record CDC officials!!!1!!11". Maybe he records all of his conversations, or maybe he just didn't want the CDC to later claim, as they have, that he went to Europe without their approval. Either way he's looking less and less like the bad guy. The CDC is the authority here; I doubt this lawyer had the medical expertise to "know" that the CDC was giving him bad advice.

[jilln]

97. That's not the point at all.

The point is that the fact that he recorded it suggested he KNEW he was doing something he shouldn't. The government is not being left off the hook but endangering others because you know you avoid the blame is not exactly honorable.

[Bluerthanblue]

101. and where are you getting the information you

are basing your opinion on?

How well are you researching each side? Are you doing anything other than reading peoples opinions and picking and choosing which ones fit your own paradigm?

I've been searching and reading- and what i've learned leads me to believe both Speaker and the CDC hold accountability for this clusterfuck- but it is Speaker who is crying victim- And he really has no one to blame for his trip to Europe but himself.

As for the taping- i could care less if it is 'admissable in court' or if the CDC was told they were being taped- i DO care what the recording actually says- not what Mr. Speaker says that it says-
What is more, the tape is supposedly in the possession of Mr. Speaker SR. who made the recording during the meeting because he is hearing impared- and he wanted to listen to it later.

I find your comment that the posters on this thread remind you of the bush administration to be very telling- and not about the variety of strongly held opinions being voiced here- but more about how you seem to be very willing to clump those individuals who don't share your perspective on this issue to be 'bush'.
Maybe if you took the time and effort to address individual posts and arguments you might not be as quick to stereotype and marginalize groups of people with your broad brush.

We are all individuals- regardless of our 'post counts' or longevity on DU- Regardless of where we stand on who the buck stops with on this issue. As for me, I'd just as soon not have the CDC be able to hold someone hostage for fear they would disregard advice and leave the country, but trust that they would behave in a mature responsible manner- Actions like those taken by Mr. Speaker are ones that will be used to justify detaining citizens under cover of "national safety"- and like all 'safety measures' i'm sure it will be used inappropriately as well.

What 'bad advice' do you believe was given to Speaker? And what evidence do you have that what is claimed to have been said was actually said???-

[KaptBunnyPants]

115. I was basing my opinion on the original post.

TB guy claims to have been cleared by the CDC to travel to Europe, which would be bad advice. He also claims to have a taped record of this conversation. At this point, nothing more can be stated with certainty. But I was responding to posts which did not question the CDC clearing him but his motive for recording the conversation. So if he was just making it all up then that would render moot not only my criticism but the set of posts I was criticizing. And I had to generalize with my comment, as mentioning specific screen names of the people I was criticizing would have violated DU rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

116. from everything I have read

on this man, he was never "cleared" by the CDC to travel to Europe.

I don't even think he has claimed that he was "cleared", but rather he has said that when pressed by his father- to answer the question of whether he was going to infect other people or if the CDC was telling him not to travel because they had to say that, they are quoted by him as having replied, yes, they had to say he shouldn't travel.-

I wasn't encouraging you to pick out posters and make a list of those you disagree with- I was encouraging you to address people individually- which is the only way we can avoid being bigots- We have much in common as people, but we should be accountable for our individual actions, and not condemned by the actions of some individuals that make up but a part of our whole.

peace,
blu

[ComerPerro]

98. I can't believe this fuckhead is actually a HERO to so many here

[LisaL]

104. TB guy actually left for Europe 2 days early.

He has active TB. Active TB is contagious (it's common knowledge). He is not highly contagious but contagious nonetheless, although he claims he was told he was not at all contagious. He is admitting Drs. told him they preferred he did not fly. Drs. did not have authority to actually prevent him from flying (maybe that should change).
He also knew he had MDR-TB before he went to Europe.
While in Europe he found he actually had XDR-TB, which is more dangerous than MDR-TB, he was told not to fly back to US, but flew anyway.
Hard for me to see how all of this is government's fault.

[LeftishBrit]

110. I managed to interpret that as saying that he was giving TB to the Administration!