Michelle Obama #BringBackOurGirls twitter pic - Abedini, Gross, Tahmooressi, Levinson - Total Hypocrisy!

Michelle Obama last week posted an Instagram photo on her twitter account of herself holding up a placard reading, "Bring back our girls", in response to the tragic abduction of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls last month by the Boko Haram Islamic terrorist organization. "It's time to #BringBackOurGirls", the First Lady added.

The question arises, however: To whom was Michelle Obama directing her message? To whom was she calling upon to bring back the girls?

The person largely responsible for spreading the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag campaign, is Ramaa Mosley, a Los Angeles mother of two, who wrote the following message to her readers on her BringBackOurGirls Facebook page:

What can you do?

People of Nigeria are marching in the streets to demand the rescue of the 300 school girls that were kidnapped. Starting now, let us march on social media... Include on your wall a link to the petition for people to sign asking The White House and World leaders to act.

WHITE HOUSE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call#call
SENATORS: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
CONGRESSMAN: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
STATE DEPARTMENT: Tweet @johnkerry

Apparently, Mosley was primarily targeting the White House with her BringBackOurGirls campaign, and pleading with President Obama and his administration to act immediately to rescue the abducted schoolgirls.

However, to the best of my knowledge, the First Lady is still on speaking terms with her husband. Hence, if the First Lady's twitter pic was intended to send a message to President Obama to rescue the Nigerian schoolgirls, she didn't need to resort to twitter to make that request; she could have approached the President and made the same request face-to-face; it's a lot simpler, more personable and certainly more effective.

We must assume, then, that Michelle Obama was directing her twitter message, not to her husband, but to the Nigerian government and to other world leaders, and pleading with them to help rescue the schoolgirls.

However, if that, indeed, was her intention, the First Lady now faces the sad prospect that the Nigerian government and world leaders will respond to her twitter pic by calling both her and the President 'Hypocrites'.

"Why are you asking us to help rescue these girls," the aforementioned leaders can easily respond, "when you two hypocrites refuse to lift your fingers to obtain the release of your own fellow countrymen - Saeed Abedini, Robert Levinson, Alan Gross, Andrew Tahmooressi and other American citizens - who are languishing in captivity on foreign soil under the most frightening, horrific and inhumane conditions?! Please tell us why?! We'd really like to know!"

Additionally, the aforementioned world leaders might mention the Obama administration's failure to launch a rescue operation to save the lives of four Americans who were killed in the terrorist attacks in Benghazi; they might want to mention that, and the ensuing cover-up of the facts surrounding the attacks.

However, there already is enough ammo to dish out without having to cite the Benghazi attacks, hence mentioning Benghazi would be superfluous and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, the second explanation as to why Michelle Obama posted the aforementioned twitter pic also appears to be incorrect because she would never call on world leaders to rescue the schoolgirls while knowing full well that they might call her and her husband out on their hypocrisy.

However, the third, and most likely rationale behind the aforementioned twitter pic is that Michelle Obama wasn't the least bit interested in helping to rescue the schoolgirls, but rather she was doing what she and her husband - the Campaigner-in-Chief - do best: engaging in another one of their typical and vintage PR stunts.

It goes without saying that the last explanation is the most simplest, logical and likely explanation of 'em all. Hence, my apologies to you for positing the first two explanations and for giving you the runaround.

Sorry, my bad........

Update: While noting the hypocrisy of Barack and Michelle Obama, and the latters' tweet in which she addresses the kidnapping of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls' by the Boko Haram terrorists, I forgot to mention that the Obama administration refused to label Boko Haram a terrorist organization until November of last year, despite the fact that thousands of innocent civilians had already been murdered in cold blood by Boko Haram, and despite Boko Haram's numerous attacks on Christian churches.

Several reasons have been proffered to explain the administration's egregious decision not to label the aforementioned cold-blooded terrorist organization a terrorist organization. However, none of this should come as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with the President's convoluted mindset.

It is also worthy to note what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in March of 2009, according to a Reuters news report, namely that the Obama administration had dropped the words "war on terror" from its lexicon.

"The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously," Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his "global war on terror.

Likewise, the Washington Post reported at the time:

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror"...

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term... 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

A spade is a spade, an orange is an orange, the Republicans are hostage-takers and a terrorist..., well..., I'm not sure what a terrorist is, but one thing is certain: a terrorist is definitely not a terrorist. Period!