How many lies does it take to get to the center of a Biden Pop?
First there was the Libya coverup. Now, we have the Syria coverup.
In last week’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden asserted that the United States was working to isolate al-Qaeda in Syria by ensuring that aid was directed to moderate elements of the Syrian opposition. “We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes — and he will go — there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al-Qaeda-sponsored government that follows on,” Biden declared.
Paul Ryan immediately challenged Biden’s claim, saying that the administration’s inaction has allowed al-Qaeda to get a foothold in Syria. “The longer this has gone on, the more people, groups like al-Qaeda are going in,” Ryan said, adding, “We could have more easily identified the Free Syrian Army, the freedom fighters, working with our allies, the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, had we had a better plan in place.”
Biden denied it, declaring: “We are in the process now — and have been for months — in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria. That is underway.”
Well, according to a report in this morning’s New York Times, Biden’s statement was not true.
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.
The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”
In other words, what Biden said was false. Worse yet, Biden knew his statement was untrue when he said it. According to the Times, “President Obama and other senior officials are aware [of this conclusion] from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives,” adding the intelligence assessments “casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.”
If this is the assessment of our intelligence community, why did Biden say the exact opposite in the debate last week? When Biden was asked during the debate why requests for additional security in Libya were denied, he pleaded ignorance and blamed the State Department, declaring: “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” But in the case of Syria, the Times reports, the President and his national security team were told that the aid was going to “hard-line Islamic jihadists.” Yet Biden plainly asserted aid was going to “people who deserve the help” and “free forces inside Syria” and not jihadists. It is simply implausible that, if President Obama and his top national security advisers were aware of the intelligence assessments, Biden was not.
The revelation that the Obama administration has presided over the development of an arms pipeline to al-Qaeda in Syria — and Biden’s apparently deliberate untruth about it in last week’s debate — is the latest Obama foreign policy coverup. With foreign policy on the agenda in tomorrow’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to challenge the president on his administration’s latest national security scandal.
Romney needs to ask the president tomorrow night: How is it that most of the aid in Syria is going to al-Qaeda and its allies? Why did your administration knowingly mislead the American people about this? And when are you going to stop subcontracting our responsibilities to others and start making sure aid and training get to those who share this nation’s values?
With any luck, Obama will slip up and let us know from his own mouth what we already know from his Administration’s foreign policy: the idea is to destabilize the middle east and level the playing field of power in the region, even (and especially) if that means a weakened US and a more vulnerable Israel. After all, Obama believes himself a new kind of Lawrence of Arabia, albeit one who will undo the colonialism of the past and return the region to its rightful peoples — who will be lead by 7th-century iron-fisted theocrats whose political ideology, married to its religion, is to destroy the West and its interests.
Which, with any luck, will keep us busy and on guard such that we can’t go poking into the affairs of other nations — and having lost that hyperpower status, will be more amenable to transnational coalitions to aid in keep peace in the region through economic “fairness”.
It’s a dangerous and naive pipe dream, but then, Obama’s entire worldview, and the tactics and strategies used to will it into being, is built on the needy radicalism of spoiled Americans steeped in Marxist fantasies. It is faculty lounge radical chic, innocuous and demonstrably simplistic in its understanding of global dynamics until such time as it is smuggled into the White House and into our State Department and begins to take its turn at the chess board.
At which time it arrogance refuses to let is see just how out of its depth it is — believing still that it is calling the shots and moving the pieces, even as it becomes increasingly clear that much of the world has recognized its weakness and confusion and is rushing to take advantage of every last misstep the smart set played, not realizing it was never the smart set in this particular game.
The marriage of convenience between transnational progressivism and militant Islamism our brilliant leftist academics and statesman believed they could control is turning into an abusive relationship. And I don’t think it takes much teasing out of details to see just who keeps getting bitch slapped.