Obama STILL refuses to consider Ebola travel ban - and his reason is weapons grade idiocy

This week, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll was released. It showed that 64% of the American people don't believe the government is doing enough to prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States. It also showed that 67% want to restrict or bar persons who have travelled to Ebola stricken nations from entering the U.S.

---

Don't tell the President that, because he doesn't want to hear it. According to the White House, travel bans are "off the table" in dealing with the rapidly spreading disease. In fact, just yesterday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked about this very issue. ABC News’ Jon Karl wondered, “Still no consideration of a travel ban from the affected countries in Africa?” Earnest replied:

“That’s something that is not on the table at this point. And, again, the reason for that - just in case people haven’t heard the previous answer I’ve given to this question - it's important for people to understand why that's the case. Shutting down travel to that area of the world would prevent the expeditious flow of personnel and equipment into the region. And the only way for us to stop this outbreak and to eliminate any risk from Ebola to the American public is to stop this outbreak at the source. So, we are mobilizing significant resources to make sure that supplies and personnel can get to the affected region and start meeting the needs of the effected regions so we can stop the outbreak.”

First of all, notice that Karl asked about travel bans "from" affected countries. No one is talking about barring aid workers from traveling "to" various hot zones. The question - which Earnest never bothers to answer - is about a ban in regards to commercial travel "from" Ebola stricken regions. That aside, his claim - that protecting the U.S. from potentially hazardous commercial travel would somehow make it impossible to get supplies and personnel into areas where they're needed - is simply ludicrous. The United States currently enjoys the planet's largest and most powerful Navy and Air Force. Both are capable of near-instantaneous mobilization and their capabilities in terms of moving both cargo and people are unmatched. We are able - or at least we should be able - to deliver any necessary emergency supplies, anywhere in the world, faster and more efficiently than virtually any commercial endeavor. ...But somehow we're supposed to buy into the notion that all of those capabilities would be eliminated by a civilian travel ban? It's been years since the Obama administration stretched its credibility past the breaking point. However, if they hadn't, I'd say this would have done it anyway. We can all debate the efficacy of a travel ban, but Does anyone seriously believe that barring commercial travel from Ebola hot zones would eliminate our ability to send aid and workers into those regions? Anyone?