And it is reported that 3 more Americans are missing.

So, is it in our best interests to fight now when we have advantage in weapons.

Or should we just shut up and take what ever the islamist terrorists, and the nation states that support them, want to pass out?

While you are deciding remember that WWII could have been avoided by France and England moving against Hitler early on.

And there is no chess game if you just declare war and fight it with all resources.

Iran-Contra was the sort of stuff that one might have thought had sprung from the minds of some demented screenwriters of a Hollywood political black comedy -- only it was an all too real clusterphuque of considerable magnitude and consequence.

The Rube Goldberg-worthy scheme that Bill Casey, John Poindexter, Oliver North, et al., concocted in President Reagan's name was truly scary and horrific. North was a self-righteous right-wing a$$wipe who deserved time in prison. Instead, the wingbats decided to check reality at the door and remade him into some sort of hero.

In diplo-speak "looking at options for additional actions" is a fairly stern official statement certainly compared to the weaker gravity field of "private citizen" Clinton.

The more I think about it, this is Hillary being a team player. There is no short term political gain for her here, she is sweating bullets in Iowa and NH and you got to concede that she already has the "hawk" vote sewed up, she has zero to gain.

Of course the optics here are great later down the road and especially in the general but if her calculations were purely political why not wait to after NH? Just to rain on the Obama/Kerry parade? I think not.

Should have given him immunity for his testimony, but now, his testimony I would think is useless anyway, as the prosecution repeatedly said he was lying in his own trial.

There are no "high taxes" for the middle class in Sanders' plan.

And what you know about Vermont's efforts and experience would fit on the head of a pin...with room to spare.

Hillary scores poorly in the category of trustworthiness. The concenus on the reporting of the attacks by Chelsea and Hillary on Sanders regarding his health care plan is that they knowing distorted information to present a false and misleading picture of what he is proposing.

She misread the primary voters in 2008 and there is a good possibility that she is misreading them this time around as well. Primary voters already think she is untrustworthy. Giving them more proof that their accessment is accurate might not be an indication of great understanding of primary voters.

One version of the attack accuses Sanders of raising taxes on middle-class Americans. "There is no way that can be paid for without raising taxes on the middle class," Clinton said in Iowa. "The arithmetic just doesn't add up."

Here, Clinton is neglecting to mention that those taxes would replace the insurance premiums people are already paying, and would likely be lower than the insurance premiums people are already paying. If single-payer is cheaper than the current health care system -- and most experts believe it would be -- then the net result would be less spending.

Clinton knows all this perfectly well...

Link

The next version of Clinton's attack criticizes Sanders for a past single-payer plan he sponsored that would rely partly on state contributions for funding.

"[Sanders] wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system and turn it over to the states to administer," Clinton said, warning that could be "a big problem" if Republican governors refuse to pay their share.

Here, again, Clinton knows better. Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program -- which she helped create -- and Obamacare are already administered by the states and already rely on state funding. Sanders's plan would reduce the share of contributions states are responsible for and provide a federal fallback that doesn't currently exist if states refuse to participate in those programs.

A third version of the attack was handed to Chelsea Clinton to launch. "Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance," she said. "I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."

Here, the disingenuousness becomes farce. The idea that folding a patchwork of smaller programs into a single universal program represents "dismantling" those programs -- much less giving Republicans permission to dismantle those programs -- flies in the face of basically every Democratic attempt to expand social insurance ever. The 1994 Clinton health care plan, to name just one example, "dismantled" virtually every existing insurance arrangement in the country in order to create a single, unified structure that could cover more people.

Really thought Seattle would stand toe to toe with them,

Ouch!