Middle East Web of Weaponry

At this moment, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says signs point to Syria using weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons, on their own people. The uprising in Syria, in large measure, has been regrettably aided by The United States in levels extending beyond appeasement.

Larry Kudlow of CNBC chats with John Batchelor on the Syrian crisis.



Starting with speeches around the world proclaiming the transgressions of America, President Obama set out to right these perceived wrongs. As part of this effort, Obama implemented uprisings in the middle east, toppling enemies we knew for those unknown, as least by most. Although Obama spoke publicly about the enhanced chances for democracy and freedom, Obama privately knew those positioned to fill the vacuum, the Muslim Brotherhood, would advocate, or install by force, Shari-ah Law, as is currently the case in Egypt.

But let us regress. Although Syria has a weapons program, are the majority of the weapons of mass destruction currently possessed by Syria the same weapons we never found in Iraq?

Indeed they are.

No longer politically expedient to admonish George W. Bush for going to war with Iraq on false assumptions of the existence of these weapons, it should come as no surprise that stories shining light on the weapons transfer from Iraq to Syria are emerging in frequency. While many reports are discussing recently discovered pathways of weapon movement from Iraq to Syria, hidden behind the discussion is the transfer during the postponement of the invasion of Iraq that France President Jacque Chirac, a dishonest broker who worked against US interests, bought.

The second to none editorial page of Investors Business Daily leads the way as usual in presenting and detailing the truth. IBD, in an editorial yesterday, continues to present the facts even if few Americans are willing to absorb it.

Although I remain incensed regarding the antics used by the opponents of President Bush, most notably regarding the propaganda regrading the weapons, the discussion pales in comparison to what is happening now.

Benghazi, who most Americans think is some folk singer, should have been a story that would detonate and destroy the Obama administration.  There was supposed to be a presser by a handful of Republicans, however, these GOP members snatched defeat from the jaws of victory as they did not want to seem as playing politics and not caring for the victims as super storm Sandy slapped the northeast.

However, the events in Benghazi supersede politics. Four Americans, including our Ambassador to Egypt and two NAVY Seals, were murdered. The Ambassador, and the Seals, requested help on various occasions but were turned down.  Although many have called out Obama on this horrendous act of war against the Untied States, perhaps the commentary by Jeanine Piro on FOX News Channel hit him the hardest, and appropriately so.

As previously noted on the blog, Ambassador Stevens, who inexplicably was meeting with a Turkish contact in a dangerous area outside of our embassy, is thought to have been working to secure weapons.  The weapons Stephens is thought to have been attempting to corral are weapons the United States, under Obama, had been supplying rebels in Egypt and Libya.

Recent reports, including from The New York Times, give confirmation of the central theme of the story, which is gun running by the Obama administration.  Although not an optimal source, some strong information on this subject can be found over at blog site Lame Cherry.  Regrettably, these weapons have gotten loose and have fallen into hands of those who aim America harm. Imagine that.

Although the issues surrounding Benghazi, in which a US Ambassador was murdered for the first time in over 30 years and an administration appears to be running guns seemingly without Congressional approval, seems to be a story which would dwarf Watergate, apparently no journalists are interested in winning a Pulitzer Prize.

On the heels of winning the election, the Obama administration is embolden by a new found sense of arrogance.  With a complicit media in their hip pocket, why should they worry?  What could happen with some weapons, perhaps some of mass destruction, loose in the hands of Al-Queda, Hamas or other groups or countries who wish us harm?

Well, take a listen to Dennis Kucinich (D:OH), of all people, who is asking some very alarming questions and not getting any answers:



This was a debate needed at the time in 2011, and one critically needed right now.  Kucinich rhetorically asked who should be held accountable, and the answer is President Obama.

Unfortunately, the media is criminally negligent in coverage of the Obama administration.  The Democrats are in support of the actions of Obama, as are the Progressives in both parties, who have been working toward reducing the superpower status of the US for quite some time.  The GOP members in strong opposition are few in numbers and fearful of being labeled an extremist.  See Rep. Allen West, (R:FL).

It is far time for someone to step forward, and take on those in power.

This type of thing used to be a big deal, for I recall missing General Hospital for days on end while a Congressional panel hammered Col. Oliver North.  However, while America wonders who is on the next Dancing With The Stars cast and enjoying the ever expanding entitlements coming their way, lies are being presented as truth, unrecognizable to the "low information voters" who re-elected Obama.

I hope and pray America, and the media, wake up before a catastrophic tragedy occurs.  While the likelihood of such en event favors a financial issue, that may be welcomed against the possibility of a weapon of mass destruction altering life in America forever.

Should such an event occur, while Kucinich wonders whose fault it would be, I would have no doubt who to hold to accountability.