Rhetorical question? Because I'm assuming you already know the answer.If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
Just like with the kidnapped girls by the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group to be sold into slavery and forced marriage... would there be as much outrage if it were boys?
If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
Outrage means nothing, it's only a show.
No one is doing anything about it.
Someone's military should drive in there rescue the kids and slaughter the kidnappers.
I don't see it happening or anyone volunteering. How about the UN those useless moron Muslim loving bastards.
In today’s low-information culture outrage means everything. For me there shouldn’t be any sort of outrage. We should have no response. That’s not saying I don’t care, I just don’t think it’s something we should stick our noses in.
Just like with the kidnapped girls by the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group to be sold into slavery and forced marriage... would there be as much outrage if it were boys?
I agree with you in one sense. It should be up to the country in which this happened to take care of it.
But unfortunately I don't see that happening.
Then of course we have these folks who are always criticizing the United States while avoiding criticism of countries where things like this are happening.
Where is the UN? The UN is busy trying to take away the 2nd. Amendment rights of US citizens, and doing nothing about Pirates or Muslim slave traders.
If it was Ambasador Caroline Kennedy who was killed would the left wing machine be stonewalling as much?
The UN? Pffttt! I get the impression the UN is pro-Radical Islam.
Did she refuse extra security twice?
Did she refuse extra security twice?
Damit , there you go throwing facts around like they matter!!!
Oh you mean like calling the attack a spontaneous protest to an anti-Islam video when they knew it was a preplanned terrorist attack? There's no escaping the failures in this whole ordeal from beginning to end; and the responsibilities lie with the SecState and POTUS - both of which refuse to accept responsibility. Instead they propagate more lies to cover up the lies. How those facts are so inconvenient for people like you and daily.
So, at the end of this rainbow, let's say the admin admits it;
"Yeah, we played politics with it because it didn't suit us to have a planned attack when we've been saying we have AQ on the run..."
Then, what? Stephens and company are still dead and still died doing what leadership on both side wanted to see us doing; run guns.
What next? The notes where McCain and McConnell were given a heads up and signaled their agreement before this all went down? You think that's gonna happen?
Or, Hillary, suddenly, in an appeal to what, get right wingers to vote for her, says "We wanted a low security profile because of the very nature of what we were trying to do; secretly run guns...we knew it was dangerous, so did Chris..."
Or Rice? "Yeah, we all knew it was a smoke screen to put off the political heat for a bit...we really, really hoped it would help us win Texas if we could obfuscate a little bit..."
Or, "Gee, all us Obama voters, had we only known the truth, why, for sure, we'd have voted for Mr. Romney...no doubt..."
No matter what the end game is, a US Ambassador and 3 others died serving their country in a mission that was non partisan. Is that going to win the GOP the senate? Should it?
Then what?
So, at the end of this rainbow, let's say the admin admits it;
"Yeah, we played politics with it because it didn't suit us to have a planned attack when we've been saying we have AQ on the run..."
Then, what? Stephens and company are still dead and still died doing what leadership on both side wanted to see us doing; run guns.
What next? The notes where McCain and McConnell were given a heads up and signaled their agreement before this all went down? You think that's gonna happen?
Or, Hillary, suddenly, in an appeal to what, get right wingers to vote for her, says "We wanted a low security profile because of the very nature of what we were trying to do; secretly run guns...we knew it was dangerous, so did Chris..."
Or Rice? "Yeah, we all knew it was a smoke screen to put off the political heat for a bit...we really, really hoped it would help us win Texas if we could obfuscate a little bit..."
Or, "Gee, all us Obama voters, had we only known the truth, why, for sure, we'd have voted for Mr. Romney...no doubt..."
No matter what the end game is, a US Ambassador and 3 others died serving their country in a mission that was non partisan. Is that going to win the GOP the senate? Should it?
Then what?