I think you and a number of other people here, perhaps the majority see this differently than I do. And so, I face the fact that I might be wrong with these thoughts, but here we go anyway.
The move to support the rebels in Libya was misguided IMO. None the less, it was the decision of our government to do so. McCain was in. I believe Palin was favorable to our support for the rebels. I didn’t think it was wise to help destabilize the region.
I viewed Ghadaffi as vile, but more or less content to live out the rest of his years in relative peace with the West. What would replace him would be a crap shoot, something we had no way of knowing.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them. If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.
I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.
McCain, I believe Palin, and Obama seemed to agree with helping the rebels. Members of Congress must have too. There didn’t seem to be serious push-back to our helping them.
In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.
Do I agree with it? I don’t think we should have taken a position on these “freedom” movements to begin with. The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.
I’m just remain convinced our being involved at all was a mistake.
You are right about the logic of aiding Libya leading to an arming of Syria. Some are, but I don’t think most people think intervening in Syria is a scandal in itself. It may be wrong, but covertly arming rebels around the globe is boilerplate US foreign policy.
The thing, and I assume the reason the earlier poster brought it up, is that if the White House is lying about the attack to cover up gunrunning to Syria then we won’t figure it out unless we dig in that ground. If that is in fact what’s happening, first of all the whole business makes sense for once, and just maybe people will see how it us like Watergate. Because it is, I just don’t know why yet.
Remember, in Watergate the “coverup was worse than the crime.” This had to be drummed into our ears because the burglary itself was meaningless on a national scale. We don’t know for sure to this day what was the point, and Nixon versus McGovern was like the little league world champs against the Yankees, anyway.
Not without a workable alternative executable within our means. Agreed.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them.
Nor I, but to what end? There I have my doubts when closet anti-Semites like Zero and Hillary are involved.
If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.
Well, no. Syria is a rather different kettle of fish. First of all Erdovan of Turkey hates Assad to pieces, and he is Zero's buddy. Second, it is a Russian client State with a port open to them on the Mediterranean. So to go supporting the rebels there is stepping on Putie's shoes rather heavily. He reportedly called it a "red line in the sand." I have little doubt he took a very dim view of it unless the Syrian "rebels" we were helping were hard line communists, which is always possible with this crew. In either case, I wouldn't want to be risking WWIII just yet. Third, Syria is at least nominally a secular state, as were Egypt and Libya before Zero got the Mubarak and Ghadaffi respectively. The policy has replaced those secular thugs with religious zealots with messianic and eschatological aspirations.
I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.
Rationalized, yes, reasoned, no.
In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.
Then why isn't anybody in the press or in Congress addressing it? Here's why: the people getting the guns hate our guts, and have said so. They want us dead. Zero is running guns to our enemies, just as he did for the Sinaloa cartel. That's high treason.
Oh, but these Islamic-terrorists-that-hate-our-guts aren't as bad as AQ! This is the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course makes them "our" friends (Huma, Huma, Huma). What with Morsi hanging in Gaza this week while they rain missiles on Ashdot, that should get your attention.
I think the reason the consulate was attacked is that AQ wanted sole control over the use of those weapons. Yet there is also the possibility that they were acting on behalf of the Russians to S-T-O-P that flow and chasten the CIA but good. That's why I think Zero didn't respond while our people were dying. He didn't dare take that chance with Putie and knew that he had to take his lumps for his play on Syria. Stevens' visit with the Turkish ambassador was the delivery of the "goodbye and good luck" message.
The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.
Are you now?
Palin said, "history teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant." And she warned the rebel command is an outgrowth of the Islamic Libya Fighting Group, some of whose commanders have links to Al Qaeda.
Reported by the LA Times, 8-26-2011.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them.---Gaffney says that is the purpose of the coverup...and was the mission of the CIA annex ...to get those US made weapons back.
Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists