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.
I agree with your boilerplate U. S. foreign policy point.
I also agree with your point about the cover-up being the problem, and this looking much like Watergate to this point. Perhaps we’ll find out in time why, but like you said, over forty years later and we still don’t know the why of the Watergate break in. We have had some theories raised, but I don’t think any of them were deemed the winner.