- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 53,409
- Reaction score
- 31,478
- Location
- Northern California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Having multiple people be wrong with you, doesn't make you right. It is a statement of fact. Had the organization been put on the list when it was first suggested, we would have more intel on their operation than we do today. It is impossible to know what that intel would have done for us, but the safe bet is it would be more beneficial than not having it.
Well, if the timing is what you're using to run your "Blame Hillary" facade, and you have evidence that the $7 million bounty that she put on the leaders' heads were insufficient despite what the world's foremost African experts advised at the time, then let's go back to Bush's administration, which completely ignored Boko Haram, which was also active in Nigeria during his tenure.
See, that's the thing when people are so desperate to tarnish an individual that they twist, distort, fabricate and create justifications for their hatred; the justifications just don't make sense, aren't rational, and are easily dismissed by facts. And it is not a fact that simply including the entire organization on the terrorist list would have either given us more intel... it may have, but it probably wouldn't since to get such intel one must have a sovereign nation's approval, which we have never had... or would have prevented these abductions and other atrocities. It is simply your speculation, a speculation again based only upon your desire to pin this and any other atrocity around the world squarely on Hillary's back.
It's transparent, it's partisan hackery at its most contemptible, and it's disgusting.