Why should it matter to Obama if US weapons that were going to Syrian rebels via Benghazi fell into al Qaeda's hands? After all, the Syrian rebels are al Qaeda themselves.
Obama's all-out attempt to stone-wall the Benghazi truth may hide skeletons much worse than Obama's arming al Qaeda, it may hide Obama's protecting Iran.
Republican Congressman Frank Wolf reported on Breitbart last Thursday:
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns? . . . Are they in a somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria,. . . Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis? . . . Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went.”Why is Obama doing everything in the world to cover-up the truth in Benghazi? Why is Obama administering lie detector exams every few days to all the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi?
Is it to cover-up the fact that Obama wasguns to the Syrian rebels? Why do that? Both the then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-CIA Petraeus were openly advocating arming the Syrian rebels.
Is it such a big deal that the United States was secretly arming enemies of Iran's puppet Assad through our NATO-ally, Turkey? No it isn't.
Is the the fact that some of the US weapons may have accidentally fallen into al Qaeda's hands that terrible? No. Not at all.
The reason Obama doesn't want the truth of the Benghazi-to-Syrian Rebels gun-running operation to come out is that all of a sudden the "al Qaeda attacked Benghazi" narrative doesn't make any sense. For, why on earth would al Qaeda attack a gun-running operation to the Syria rebels when the Syria rebels themselves are al Qaeda? Al Qaeda wouldn't be attacking their own al Qaeda weapons pipeline.
So, Obama's real fear is not that he ran guns to al Qaeda, but that if this were known, al Qaeda would be removed as the possible suspect in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three Americans.
In that case, Obama's "unprecedented" lie detector exams tazing CIA Benghazi operatives into silence is really an attempt to protect Iran from being exposed as the likely murderer of an American Ambassador and 3 of his valiant protectors.
And that begs an even bigger questions.
Why would Obama protect Iran from being exposed as a possible suspect?
If Benghazi was a live CIA operation, then Obama had to have known when it was being attacked that it was a live CIA operation center. Why, then, did Obama fail to take any particular interest in its immediate defense? In fact, if it was a live CIA operation, extraordinary measures should have been taken in its defense.
Is Benghazi another Watergate?
I have a question that has disturbed me since the news first broke of the deaths of our American diplomat and Navy Seals. An issue no one has brought up recently, but was mentioned here on this blog months ago: The last meeting Ambassador Stevens had in Benghazi before the terrorist attack was with the Turkish ambassador. The ARB also reports that U.K. diplomatic personnel were in Benghazi on Sept. 11. The attack began immediately after U.K. security personnel left the U.S. mission. What was the purpose of Ambassador Stevens meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Benghazi? Did Stevens also meet with U.K. diplomatic personnel on Sept. 11?