Benghazi could possibly lead to an Obama impeachment , according to one US Senator.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R – Okla.) mentioned the “I word” in a radio interview discussion of the alleged Benghazi cover-up.
On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Benghazi — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements and rescue teams despite pleas for help. Three State Department Benghazi whistleblowers testified on Capitol Hill this past Wednesday about what they knew about what happened to the four Americans who died in the terrorist attack, testimony that conflicted with the administration’s rendition.
The investigation by the House Oversight Committee is ongoing.
The role of Hillary Clinton , the former Secretary of State, in this matter is also coming under further scrutiny.
In a radio interview with Rusty Humphries a day later, Sen. Inhofe said “People may be starting to use the I-word before too long.” The senator then confirmed he was referring to the impeachment of the president , the man ultimately responsible for the response or non-response to the embassy attack in Libya.
Added Inhofe, who serves on the Armed Services Committee: “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.”
Inhofe acknowledged, however, that impeachment would be a non-starter in the Senate as long as the chamber is controlled by Democrats, even if articles of impeachment were voted through in the House.
Yesterday, emails were leaked to the press that apparently showed that the so-called talking points about Benghzi were revised 12 times beyond the version written by the CIA. The emails show the White House coordinating with the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points on Benghazi, which were then turned over to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in television appearances in the days after the attack. In particular, the Benghazi emails show that the State Department wanted to remove all references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the deadly attack.
The White House has continued to downplay its involvement in the talking points edits.
With the presidential election looming, you’ll recall that the Obama administration blamed the attack on the embassy compound on a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video.
Even an MSNBC panelists roundtable recently concluded that all this looks bad for the White House. One panelist, Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky, admitted that “it becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House.” A BBC editor said on television on Friday after the e-mails came out that he believes that “heads will roll” over the Benghazi cover-up and that “Hillary Clinton will have to eventually confront the allegations that her department deliberately altered talking points and advanced a false narrative to explain the Benghazi attack.”
For what it’s worth, Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has predicted that the president will be forced out of office, Watergate-style, as a result of Benghazi.
Do you believe that impeachment proceedings will ever be invoked over the Benghazi cover-up? Was Jim Inhofe speaking in hyperbolic terms or is there something to this?