Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I sense a disturbance in the Force.
In recent days, we’ve been treated to renewed hearings on the Benghazi cover-up, with witnesses who have been suppressed by the Obama Administration starting to come forward and detail how badly the public has been lied to.
Then the mainstream media, or at least some individuals and elements within it, have begun putting aside the I Heart Barry buttons and covering the story that’s been simmering for some eight months.
That was followed by rumors from some corners of the capital, including some Democrats speaking anonymously, that the Man Who Would Be King might be in trouble finally.
These facts alone were enough to generate a feeling that something had changed in the Halls of Power, that perhaps Obama’s hold on the Oval Office is not as strong as it once was.
Now come two events that would have been unthinkable even a week or two ago.
First, ABC News has come out with its story that the Obama Administration scrubbed the original CIA talking points of any reference to terrorism, and backed it up with copies of 12 different versions of the talking points that altogether prove that the White House and State Department knew from the beginning that al-Qaida was involved in the Benghazi attacks.
Second, in the wake of ABC’s story, the BBC has apologized for its coverage — or lack thereof — of the Benghazi story.
Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North American editor, wrote in an article titled “After Benghazi Revelations, Heads Will Roll” that he’s changed his mind about the Benghazi story now that ABC’s spoken up.
“In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. … It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
“This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment. …
“There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.”
It should do more than haunt Hillary Clinton; it should decimate this Administration and if justice were to prevail, drive this president from office.
The line “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack” is one of the parts the State Department had struck, along with any references to CIA warnings in the months leading up to the deaths of four Americans.
That shows an Administration that is willfully giving terrorists a pass when it comes to national security and foreign operations, then covering its tail when things inevitably go south.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If the media were to really start doing their jobs at long last, they would uncover an Administration that has colluded with al-Qaida terrorists around the globe while pretending to fight them in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Administration and the media may yet choose to continue the coverup. As the Benghazi hearings wound down on Friday, Democrats were circling the wagons, claiming there was no evidence of coverup. The White House was planning a confidential briefing on Benghazi with select members of the Press Corps, and Politico predictably had already declared the ABC report a “distraction.” The State Department has decided its official line is that the Benghazi hearings haven’t revealed anything new.
In one sense, that’s true, because this information has been circulating for some time.
What’s changed is that this is the first time a large (mostly liberal) portion of the population will hear it because they’ve been trained to ignore anything not from the sanctioned left-wing media.
The other thing that’s changed is that the opening of the discussion by first CBS, then ABC, then the BBC may finally put pressure on the rest of the press corps zombies to wake up and look at reality for a change.
If that happens, it may set a dangerous precedent — dangerous to the people in Washington who count on the public to remain blissfully unaware of what’s been going on.