How does Obama hide smuggled weapons without hiding or destroying them? He creates a stolen narrative:
Hiding in Broad Daylight
Paul Gordon Collier
I was thinking about the Syria debacle in the context of Benghazi. Many people, including myself, believe the Benghazi cover-up was the result of a weapons smuggling operation run by our State Department. The scenario is this- operatives in Libva were running weapons, even missiles and missile launchers to the Syrian rebels.
Whether the administration handled Benghazi improperly or not, merely looking at Benghazi could uncover this Iran-Contra-like scandal, which would be extremely damaging to Obama, not just legally, but politically as well (and that political fall-out would come from both sides of the ‘aisle’).
So, if this is true, it makes sense Obama wants to bomb Syria. This could be the way the administration saw to destroy the evidence of the arms smuggling operation. Someone would discover weapons that could be irrefutably traced back to Benghazi.
But now, the administration is losing the opportunity to bomb Syria. They have been outplayed by Putin and have failed to move the needle in America for support of this action. This put me in a difficult place, as far as prognostication is concerned. How does Obama get himself out of this mess?
Would he, for example, be willing to risk it all to go forward and bomb Syria? My analysis, or, at least my interpretation of known data, was that this president would have to find a way to go forward with the Syria bombing, or implement a pretty massive covert operation to track down the most telling weapons that could expose the arms smuggling operation in Benghazi.
And then….there was this bit of news coming from a ‘leak’ in the State Department. According to the State Department leak, weapons have been STOLEN from Benghazi, so they pulled out the Special Operations there for fear of having more weapons stolen.
Friends, this story reveals the answer to me, how Obama gets out of the Syria debacle. He and his State Department operatives are setting us up to accept the discovery of highly sensitive weapons in the U.S in Syria (which, I have no doubt, Putin will be happy to expose to the New York Times in another brilliant article).
But ask yourselves these questions-
Why would we have a storehouse of the weapons described in this article?
If we cannot protect the weapons we have for our operatives in theater, how can we have operations in any other dangerous part of the world?
Are we that weak, that incompetent, that we cannot adequately guard and protect highly sensitive, very high tech weaponry from being stolen by militants?
None of this makes sense, and I would hope that some courageous people in the intelligence community would come forward to discredit what seems like a false narrative. This false narrative protects the Administration, even allows them to continue to covertly feed MORE weapons to our enemies. This false narrative also singularly throws the intelligence community under the bus, making them look like keystone cops, which damages our credibility even more worldwide.
Who would feel secure choosing America as their ally with this President and this incompetent intelligence community to support them?
Here is the story, if you can believe it-
// < ![CDATA[
// < ![CDATA[
// < ![CDATA[