AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (5 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    Most of the time liberals maintain that the United States can’t police all bad behavior around the world. In fact we probably can’t police much of it. So, then, what criteria elevate something to the point where we DO feel we have to take action? When Americans are killed by terrorists? Apparently not in Benghazi. When lots of boys are kidnapped and killed? Apparently not. When individual girls are abducted, raped and murdered? Apparently not. 300 girls? Now we’ve crossed some sort of threshold apparently. Why girls? Why 300 and not 10? Is there a principle I could discern from all this? Apparently not.

  2. Joe Bannister

    Another good situation to not get involved in. Some creep kidnapping girls in woogie-boogieland is not a threat to US national security….

  3. Laudable? Laughable? Pointless?

    As said all this does is make a group of people feel good about themselves for doing something even though it achieves nothing. “You’re in my prayers/heart/mind” usually means I feel bad about your situation for a while but it’s not as though I’m actually going to do something serious about it.

  4. Re: #BringBackOurGirls and the disingenuous foray into “hashtag diplomacy” by the Worst, er, First Lady…

    Instead of tweeting out a pouty face photo of herself holding up a lame sign, or using a weekly radio address to compare the kidnapped schoolgirls to her own daughters, it would more pertinent if Michelle Obama explained why former Secretary of State Clinton REFUSED TO LIST the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group responsible for the schoolgirl kidnappings, Boko Haram, on the official U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. Or why (until recently), a Democratic Party PAC actually petitioned IN SUPPORT of Boko Haram!

    Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

    But two-faced Hillary did tweet this:
    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/462986339378814977

    Huh? Michelle Obama’s speech on Nigerian girls doesn’t mention Boko Haram or Islam
    http://weaselzippers.us/185579-michelle-obama-gives-speech-on-kidnapped-nigerian-girls-doesnt-mention-boko-haram-or-islam/

    FLASH… MoveOn.org petitioned [they’ve since removed it!] to keep Boko Haram off Terrorist List
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/flash-moveon-org-petitioned-to-keep-boko-haram-off-terrorist-list/

  5. Re: #BringBackOurGirls and the disingenuous foray into “hashtag diplomacy” by the Worst, er, First Lady…

    Instead of tweeting out a pouty face photo of herself holding up a lame sign, or using a weekly radio address to compare the kidnapped schoolgirls to her own daughters, it would more pertinent if Michelle Obama explained why former Secretary of State Clinton REFUSED TO LIST the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group responsible for the schoolgirl kidnappings, Boko Haram, on the official U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. Or why (until recently), a Democratic Party PAC actually petitioned IN SUPPORT of Boko Haram!

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content