Obama guilty of treason?

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, whomever commits such an act, is a treasonable offense. When one gets past the nuances of what constitutes aid, wartime and who qualifies as the enemy, having established that such an act has been perpetrated, the individual or individuals so accused will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble. In most countries, including the United States of America, there remain provisions for the execution of those convicted of treason.

On Sept. 10, President Obama addressed the nation on the subject of executing a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The pretext for this is the administration's contention that Assad employed the chemical gas sarin in an attack near Damascus on Aug. 21. The attack allegedly killed over 1,400 people.

The most ironic, audacious and disgusting aspect of Obama's proposal is that it would directly benefit the terrorist organizations that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001, and that he made this televised appeal on the eve of the 12th anniversary of those attacks. It is also the first anniversary of the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans and which has Obama's bloody fingerprints all over it.

Last week in this space, I analyzed Obama's haste in this desire to go into Syria. Against the will and advice of our closest allies, the will of the American people and with the risk of unduly agitating Syria's allies (most notably China and Russia), the president has displayed an almost obsessive eagerness in executing this attack.

As we know, due to an almost amusing turn of events, the Assad regime abruptly acceded to a Russian-brokered deal to place its chemical weapons under international control, presumably as a prelude to their destruction. We also know that despite the loss of face and credibility suffered by the U.S. and Obama himself attendant to this fiasco, the White House is already framing this development as a diplomatic coup for the president, a narrative that will no doubt be carried to some extent by the American press.

Many such as myself have argued that diminishing America's influence and standing in the world was in fact part of his plan in "fundamentally transforming" America, so one would think that Obama simply has one more item to cross off his list. I do not believe, however, that he intended to manifest this by diminishing his own influence and standing. He may be able to manipulate the message told to the American people, but the world has come to see him as a rash, self-serving, diplomatically un-savvy opportunist. Even his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood appears to have soured.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say "rebels in Syria" rather than "Syrian rebels" because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi's benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama's destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama's desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.