Witness the birth of a hashtag.
The suggestion for a topic:
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) September 8, 2013
A hashtag is applied:
— jon gabriel (@exjon) September 8, 2013
With that, “no blood for oil” had found its shortened contemporary version: #NoBloodForO. And with that, many tweeters were off and running:
#NoBloodForO No soldiers should die just for a president to save face.
— Mary Chastain (@mchastain81) September 8, 2013
— Ditto Diana (@thehairtech) September 9, 2013
#NoBloodForO Because Americans shouldn't die for a President who would abandon them and then lie about their deaths to win an election.
— Harold #NeverTrump (@Nikk1066) September 9, 2013
— Carla Greathouse (@CarlaGreathouse) September 9, 2013
— arborist43 (@arborist43) September 9, 2013
Let's take a break from being the Chief of the World Police. #NoBloodForO
— Countermoonbat (@CounterMoonbat) September 9, 2013
— OpinionOfAGem (@geminiangel1980) September 9, 2013
Your Syrian rebels all passed background checks, right? #NoBloodForO
— First Flight (@Kittyhawken) September 9, 2013
Can anyone name another Nobel Peace Prize winner in the history of the award that had such a hard-on to start a war? #NoBloodForO
— Mr Popular (@Real_Mr_Popular) September 9, 2013
Where are all the anti-war celebs these days?
— Conservapedia (@jay_pe) September 9, 2013
Jarring to see liberals on the #NoBloodForO hashtag brag that Obama is just like Bush.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) September 9, 2013
Which leads us to this: As with any good hashtag, there were those objecting, because dissent ceased to be patriotic four and a half years ago:
#NoBloodForO It's right there in the hashtag. The only reason conservatives are against it is because Obama is for it.
— Al Turnell (@DemocratAl) September 9, 2013
A retort to that is simple:
— WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) September 8, 2013
Can somebody please make that into a bumper sticker?