...and then someone ate the dog?

Of course they reject that finding. The Obama Administration has already sent arms to the Syrian rebels while warning Assad against the use of chemical weapons. To have the UN report that we are actually lending aid to and arming extreme Islamic factions who are using chemical weapons on civilians for political advantage...well, that just won't do. Does not fit the narrative.

Let's review the bidding on Chesimard: American citizen on the FBI list of wanted terrorists, Government knows where she is, wants to apprehend her, but is prevented from doing so. That sounds like it meets their criteria for a drone strike. It should be easier since SOCOM is in Florida and she's in Cuba.

Scatocracy

There are supposed to be blood samples which prove exposure to Sarin. The argument being offered to prove the rebels aren't involved is that it would be pretty hard to find volunteers who would expose themselves to Sarin just to get those blood samples. This assumes that a) The samples were taken from rebels soldiers b) Those who were exposed volunteered. I strongly suspect the rebels launced these small-scale Sarin attacks on civilians in the hopes of prodding the U.S. into action. After all, if they can get us to fight their war for them, so much the better.

No, not a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, at least, somebody gets a return on their investment. It's not exactly a con game either. There is an element of purposeful deception involved in a con. This is more like those internet stocks which cropped up before bubble burst. Somebody comes up with an idea which seems to be great. They weave a story of how this idea will change the world (or at least make an obscene amount of money) and get investors on board. Everything falls apart when the idea can't be made into reality and/or nobody wants the product/service. Just one more reason the Government should not get into the capital investment - they go for the story that suits their ideology and, when they loose, we pay.

You've been getting your facts from Realhistoryww.com, evidently. Well, I use the term "facts" loosely in this case...

Spud Webb disputes your theory.

If there is such a restraining order, then your advice is spot on.

His error should have served as a warning to future Congresses / Administrations. Since we now seem determined to ignore history, we are, as Santayana said, doomed to repeat it. So, in the end, perhaps "nothing" is the tragically correct answer.