Until we get more people focused upon gunrunning from Benghazi to Syria, this “investigation” isn’t one. We have layered coverups here.
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.