But none of this should be a particularly stunning outrage because by now everyone should understand the enemy. But to understand an enemy one must first understand there is an enemy.
Liberal politicians in America have tried their hardest over the last two decades to pretend these kinds of things aren't so important, which allows them to focus on domestic agendas or social justice. Terrorism is the result of global poverty, ie, white greed or western meddling, therefore the help should go to the perpetrators themselves...
Similarly, in his book Who killed Daniel Pearl? Bernard-Henri Levi admits that the presence of Jihadists was “an open secret” for the intellectuals, humanists and journalists who covered the Balkan wars and that it was a secret they took care to keep from the public.
Why? Because they urged Western intervention and if the public knew the truth it would object to enhancing the Jihadists power and agenda. Indeed, I suspect that Clarke along with the rest of the Clinton administration similarly believed that their anti-terrorist strategy would not withstand public scrutiny.Bush changed the paradigm, but Obama changed it back---terrorism is best handled as a law enforcement action--like Benghazi, to be handled by a bunch of guys in white shirts and thin black ties. And now, hashtags.
Speaking of Benghazi, the Dems say it's outrageous to consider any further discovery over that phony scandal, despite many questions and emails still remaining. The modern truth-loving left has declared another debate over, time for the flat-earthers to move on and shut up.
Which is strange, considering that former committee chair and soon to be ex-congressman Mike Rogers is a curious character in all of this. Doesn't Nancy Pelosi want to know more about why he was running an investigation that had a tangential tie to his wife? Wouldn't her colleagues like to know whether Boehner actually knows more about what was going on than advertised or whether he might be stringing his Tea Party caucus members along with perhaps the final goal of a public failure? Sound outrageous? Yeah, so was this. So why wouldn't the left be stoked? Maybe it's because they know we would find out Benghazi was an example of repeating past failures of the Balkans.
Meanwhile, there are no hashtags for the fallen Americans of Benghazi or Algeria (the forgotten attack). And there won't be, because they were mainly white guys involved in the military industrial complex/national security apparatus/Big oil and gas. The president doesn't personally take up those causes because there's no political upside to it. Black schoolgirls in poverty-ridden Nigeria make for much better posters, even if they might perhaps inadvertently remind certain pinheads about the barbarity we still face, or inadvertently become fodder for increasing the ole military industrial complex.
But maybe the hashtags will do some good in the long run. Maybe they will remind the youngsters of exactly who the real terrorists are and what they want.