What the Benghazi Leaks Mean

Image this. It was well-known that in 2011 the United States was facilitating the weapons supply to Syrian rebels. The weapons were paid for by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and delivered through Turkey.

We have known for more than a year about this traffic. There were two big UN reports on this traffic. (By the way, this meant that the United States was arming Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups.)

What wasn’t known was a simple detail: the United States was also collecting and shipping the weapons.

That’s it! This is what was being concealed. After all, it was openly known previously that the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi were armed by the United States.

The whole mess was unnecessary!

If it had been known that the CIA guys in Turkey weren’t just watching the weapons supply but delivering it, to quote Clinton, what difference would it have made?

Would Congress have stopped the weapons traffic? No. After all, they wouldn’t even do anything about the arms to Mexican drug gangs that killed Americans.

Would Americans have revolted? No.

Would it have cost one percent of the votes in the election? No.

Sure, some bloggers would have talked about parallels to Iran-Contra and a handful of members of Congress would have complained, but the massive media machine would have ignored it and the majority of Republicans would have snored.

Did President Obama have to lie in a UN speech, saying the ambassador was just there to supervise a hospital and a school? No.

Did a video have to be blamed so as to blame Americans and Islamophobia for the attack? No