Trending Topics

Will Benghazi Scandal Lead to Calls for Impeachment?

After examining all the details that emerged on Friday relating to the efforts by members of President Barack Obama’s administration to remove references to Islamic terrorism when explaining the reasons behind the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, the panel guests on MSNBC’s Now agreed that the appearance of a scandal makes the White House “look terrible.” One guest even suggested that the controversy could lead to impeachment proceedings against the president.

NBC Reporter Kelly O’Donnell read from portions of emails in which high ranking State Department officials coordinated with the CIA to alter the official talking points on the Benghazi attack to remove any references to prior warnings or Islamic terrorism.

“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.

“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”

“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”

Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.

“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.

The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.

“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.

“I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian,” submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. “It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton.”

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

Source: Mediaite

What people are saying

48 thoughts on “Will Benghazi Scandal Lead to Calls for Impeachment?

  1. Danny Defenbaugh says:

    OH, wait, I know: It is all Bush's fault and if you do not believe that, you are a racist.

  2. Impeachment has been brought forward for Far LESS to others in the Past..
    Obama and his tactics & repeated LYING ( like Fast & Furious ) should have anyone with 1/2 a brain up in arms demanding better & calling for Full Imediate Impeachment.

  3. Obama, and Clinton needs to stand tall before the US military court for high treason under 18 USC CHAPTER 115 TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Since he is C-in-C he falls under the military code of justice.

  4. Roger Lamb says:

    Anyone that doesn't believe this is Bush's fault, must be an ignorant uneducated hillbilly, fundamentalist christian, anti abortion racist. No other explanation. We all know of course that Billary er Hillary, and Obozo, I mean Obama, never have done anything wrong. And if they did, "What does it matter now?"

  5. Anonymous says:

    I know there were 11 such attacks during the Bush admin. with at least 30 dead, and there's no outrage or suggestions for investigations into those. That's proof of purely political motivation for outrage over this incident, which, apart from some missteps after the fact, has no criminal or impeachable components.

  6. Levi Nowell says:

    You hit the nail on the head! lol! These liberal whackjobs are soon to get what they deserve for electing this disgrace.

  7. Rhonda Selser says:

    Lying about Benghazi to maintain politically favor is the same attitude the Democrates are accusing the Republicians of when Benghazi is being brought forward – Then you have to wonder about Ms Rice… when the State Dept knowingly gave her these lies to talk about was someone trying to keep ms Rices star from shining too bright for 2016?

  8. Aazoba Yuzuki says:

    no, just don't give obama secret service after this term…

  9. How soon we forget about the mass murders Bush and Cheney- but that is just dandy because they only killed innocent women and children, to the tune of over 150,000. You Rethug dicklickers are mentally retarded.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Like the story says, the only person that the GOP hates more than Obama is Hillary Clinton, who, happens to have some prospects at the moment. The facts of this issue don't really make a difference here. She is a target, this is a rock that can be thrown.

    Were mistakes made? Yes. In the context of the time before the attack, did any intelligence indicate an imminent threat? Immediately after the attack, was there adequate reason to tie this to an organized terror group?

    Spin spin spin is what we are getting from this, not real information.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The best thing that can happen to this country right now is the IMPEACHMENT of obama!!

  12. Mark Athas says:

    What would that be ? Rising GDP, shrinking unemployment, a roaring stock market, UBL dead and one of Bush's two wars concluded ? Go ahead, impeach Mr Obama on a straight party line vote in the US House (since you couldn't beat him in two elections). The GOP does not and will not have the 2/3 in the US Senate to convict and remove. And I'm sure Hillary will do plenty of explaining in the 16 campaign and at her first WH presser.

  13. Even if impeached, the Democrats control the Senate, ergo, no conviction, or removal from office, for President Obama. Hillary Clinton, will be the next president. Next story, please.

  14. Biden for president!

  15. Stephen Hurty says:

    This could be fun to watch and see if Obama throws Clinton under the bus to save himself. The ignore it and it will go away isn't working.

  16. Hmm Bush had permission for war. Obama lied and still lies. But I guess your godking can get a free pass by you. Wish Reagen was POTUS he would have dealt with this muslim scum the right way again. Bombs away.

  17. Mark Athas says:

    So, is the smoking gun Rice covering for the Obama WH, or in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city…oh wait, wrong Rice.

  18. Mike Taylor says:

    Isn't this "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." as defined in the Constitution?

  19. Exactly how would this fall under the Military Code? More important, what would be the charge? Changing talking points? Doesn't that happen every day, including Republicans? How can you possibly prove that Americans were killed because the president did not do "something" to stop the criminals or terrorists or the mob – whomever they were? I believe those points were all covered in the testimony and more security was unable to get there in time.

  20. Nope, never happen. Until all the Obama bashers came out of the wood work, I never knew their were so many dumb people.

  21. Anonymous says:

    That is because people are not outraged over the attack occurring on Obama's watch, they are outraged because his administration intentionally mislead the press and the american people about what it was and why it happened. Bush did not do that in any of the attacks that came on his watch so there was nothing to be outraged over and no cover up to investigate.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Whaaaa……whaaaaa….Bush did it….whaaaaa…….

  23. Lou Dubin says:

    The House can do as it likes. If they spend all their time trying to throw out the President, they are going to lose the next few election for what purpose? Obama cannot be elected nor will he be removed.
    Work on Obama care, immigration , tax reform , winning or holding congressional seats in up coming elections.
    This lets shame Obama business is like little kids calling names. .it accomplishes nothing.

  24. Karl Quick says:

    No, there will be no impeachment. Carney will resign. Kerry will save BO by revealing the miscreants that misled the President, Hillary and Rice were political supporters of Hillary over reacting to the fact that reality (terrorist associated with Al Qaeda) did not fit the campaign theme ("Bin Laden Dead, terrorism in retreat") He will fire them with dispatch (and a wink) while promising an end to political influence in the State Department. He will be rewarded with the nomination in 2016.

  25. Tom Goetz says:

    Let's see……..Bush, Cheney, Rice……mislead the public on weapons of mass destruction, uranium cake from Niger, exposing an agent's name……..declared war on Iraq with not 4 Americans killed but 1000's and where are the conservatives on that one? Oh, wait they are Republicans so it was ok to lie………and not be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. It was only several thousand killed and billions of wasted tax payer money on top of it. Fiscal conservatives….Ha!

  26. Karl Quick says:

    All such attacks were in Iraq during the Iraq war…. we WERE at war then. Obama continues to insist there is no war on terrorism and these deaths were the result of a riot that got out of hand. You know the truth. Boston reminded us.

  27. Steve Pounds says:

    Why are we spending so much time going after the President instead of the terrorists? The Repulicans act as if the President planned and carried out the attack himself. Give the thinking American Public a break. Even if the President or more likely his staff, put some political spin on it during the first days afterwards, this is by no means unusual in the political history of this government. Since when has political spin been a impeachable offense. The Republicans need to grow up and help the President find the real villians in this tragedy.

  28. Karl Quick says:

    …and all that BS will fly as the truth because the media has no honesty.

  29. Steve Pounds says:

    Bush never intentionally milead the press and the american people?? Somewhere I remember him proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" years before a war ended and thousands dead soldiers later would agree the mission was not over.

  30. Mark Westmann says:

    Just look at where the Iraq WMD theory came from, here are some quotes, from before Bush: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." — Bill Clinton in 1998 ,
    "Saddam's goal… is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." — Madeline Albright, 1998.
    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

  31. Again these racist morons trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If someone need to be impeached are bush cheney war criminals that lied to every one to make Iraq war, so they friends and halliburton can make tons of money. Wake up republicans it is 21st century.

  32. Jack Handy says:

    Your memory doesn't serve you very well. Bush never proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That was a banner that the troops put up after accomplishing their mission. It was the left-wing nutjobs that distorted that as if it meant there was nothing left to do. Nice try though.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Absolutely Wrong. Clinton, Gore, Albright all said very publicly in print on more than one occasion that Iraq had WMD. Further, they said military action was imminent.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Absolutely Wrong. Clinton, Gore, Albright all said very publicly in print on more than one occasion that Iraq had WMD. Further, they said military action was imminent.

  35. Under article 18 he can be tried. How he is C-in-C which makes he the highest military officier so military justice is the right move. We are to believe what comes out of the Obama admin? Remember fast and furious? Just more lies from a confirmed liar. Hang for treason.

  36. Daniel Killman says:

    You might as well give up on the impeachment thing. It didn't work for those trying to talk it up for Bush after it became clear he used false information to lead America into war. It won't work here either. The nation is too focused on other things.

  37. Impeachment is the "best thing" that can happen to this country? Please don't tell us what you think is the "worst thing" that can happen.

  38. Adam Knapp says:

    If you'll remember, Clinton cruise-missile'ed the shit out of Iraq. We didn't need boots on the ground with B-52's in the air.

  39. Jim Brown says:

    No matter which political party has a seated Pontiff the other political party calls wolf (Impeach) at every opportunity. These two opposing groups of buffoons have been crying wolf so hard so long that even the People that elect them doubt their truthfulness. Today’s American politics seems to have nothing to do with what is actually best for America or the American Citizens it’s all about the Party, and has nothing to do with honesty, integrity, ethics, principles or morals. Our elected buffoons need to focus MORE on serving the American People and LESS on serving the Parties and their SPONCORS.

  40. The idea that Obama gets a pass on everything because Bush was a bad guy is a asinine thought process. It makes Democrats look delusional and ripe with hypocrisy.

    Neither party represents the American people, only the rich and the powerful. The only reason the government pretends that "we" matter at all……is the simple fact the the poor outnumber the rich. Best to keep the mob at bay.

    "Left wing…Right wing….both wings of the same bird of prey".

  41. Daniel Killman says:

    Couldn't agree more. Everybody looks for the spin. Yeah, it's definitely true the administration didn't want the terms "terrorist attack" exploited during an election. Is it totally honest what was done and not let facts come out? No. Spinning the facts, however, is how all politics works. Total and complete honesty has nothing to do with politics. Trying to stifle the voting rights of minorities, as some GOPs did during the same election, was also dishonest, but politics is politics…Next issue please.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Obama is the commader in chief..he blew bengazi and his refusal to follwo the constituion.. he should be impeached, then tried for treason and sentemced accordingly.

  43. Constance Elmore says:

    Right on, Tom!

  44. Duane Cook says:

    'Me' get your facts straight. Who said there was no outrage? Each one was investigated by Congress…no exceptions. Can you name one that wasn't? Didn't think so. Is preventing troops who were ready and told to stand down, 'after the fact' in your mind? It substituting one cause (a video) for another (terrorist attack) acceptable? The causality was created from whole cloth. Is that acceptable?

  45. Anonymous says:

    As someone who voted for him, twice, I have to admit this controversy seems to have a substance that is making me increasingly skeptical of the Obama administration's credibility. My question is WHY did the State Dept., CIA, and whoever else may have been involved, feel it was necessary in any way to "scrub"/spin the facts as they knew them about the Benghazi attacks before they were presented to the public(notably, by Susan Rice on all those Sunday morning talk-shows in those now-(in)famous "talking points")? What did those involved stand to gain/lose?

  46. Tim Ervin says:

    My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing them!

  47. Anonymous says:

    I think as Americans we need to seriously keep black people from gaining power in office especially running for President again. Look at what Obama has done and with the Benghazi incident how can we trust a black in office to properly run anything? If this was a white man in office this would have been taken care of and the Middle East would have been dealt with.

Leave a Reply

Back to top