Replies

Good morning Cousin Mike.....

Got a question for you, you might have some input.

So we “discover” this past week that there was a bunch of CIA operatives at the Libyan consulate (or near by) but I wasn’t surprised.

I’d heard, of course, that there were a bout 30 “embassy employees” at the consulate, or its annex, the night of the attack but it was hardly any kind of secret, except perhaps to ABCNBCCBSWAPONYT- that there was some kind of CIA operation going on.

Scuttlebutt is that there was an arms-running operation going on, sending arms to Syrian rebels, that sort of thing.

Which is exactly what I think is going on and my query is two fold.

First, all my life I recall hearing whispers or inuendos that some president or another was involved with running some sort of gun-running operation.

I am reminded quickly of Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair but through the years it’s always out there.

So running arms to Syrian rebels, what was wrong with that?

NO WAIT MIKE! Let me tell you my thoughts and you correct me where I am wrong.

Oh, and YOU cousin Mike, have a HUGE part in an upcoming chapter of my book, actually the character based on you steps up to become the new temporary President.

But I digress.

First, the CIA always seems to be involved in this sort of thing but I’ve no doubt the President always knows about it.

Isn’t the concept of arming the enemy of our enemies a good one? Except, of course, the fact that our elected legislators have no say in the matter and it’s kind of a dangerous thing to hang on the head of one human being.

And of course, wouldn’t those 30 CIA operatives be expected to keep their identities secret, maybe change their identity?

I don’t much like Obama, but of course, but on this arms to Syrian rebels I’m not sure this country wasn’t involved in the sort of thing we’ve been involved with through the ages.

What say you?

Good morning, Pat.

So running arms to Syrian rebels, what was wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it per se, but we are supposed to be a nation of laws. The President and the Executive Branch do run our foreign policy, but there are limits under our Constitution. Congress does have a say in the matter and should be consulted (publicly or privately) before we send arms to anyone.

And of course, wouldn’t those 30 CIA operatives be expected to keep their identities secret, maybe change their identity?

Yes, many can and do keep their identities secret including changing names. That said, in many countries, the CIA Chief of Station discloses his identity to the host government.

The problematic part of all of this is whether these changes are being made to hide the facts from Congress on what they were doing in Benghazi and what happened the night of the attack. Congress should be allowed to interview them without necessarily requiring them to disclose their personal identity. As far as secrets are concerned, key members of the intelligence committees could do the interviewing, without staffers if that is a problem.

We have a system of checks and balances. The branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Over the years, the Executive Branch has accreted far too much power. And in the case of Obama, he has gone far beyond what a President should be allowed to do. IMO he has committed impeachable offenses. Congress has been derelict in limiting the Executive Branch. Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, NSA overreach, a backdoor amnesty, etc. are abominations. The WH is covering up and stonewalling any attempts to get at the truth. I consider Benghazi to be part of the same trend. And we have a MSM that is complicit in the cover-up.