Benghazi Cover Up Doesn't Warrant Impeachment ... Yet
President Obama has not started off with any easy second term.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) mentioned the future possibility of impeachment for the President due to the Benghazi case, during a radio interview on The Rusty Humphries Show. The Republican senator is not the first to mention this. MSNBC panelists discussed the possibility due to the Republican control of the House, among others. It also should be noted that Inhofe is not claiming that this will or ought to happen now, but rather has speculated that it might occur later on.
Have we come to the point of impeachment? Probably not. However, I do think that this is a wonderful time to remind ourselves that skepticism of government is a good thing ... regardless of which party occupies the White House.
Within the past couple of months, the Benghazi situation has picked up, the IRS has admitted to targeting conservative groups, the administration's push for increased gun control methods have failed, and Obamacare is taking scrutiny from even from Democrats that previously supported it. The right wing has portrayed the Benghazi situation as being worse than Watergate.
Given these issues, I do not yet see ground for impeachment. I do not want screams for impeachment to be like crying wolf. Impeachment is very serious and a strong case should exist before the word is dropped.
What I do see ground for is continued skepticism of the federal government. This, I believe, is not a partisan issue. Skepticism of powerful government is woven into the fabric of America. I believe that these issues need to remind our far-too-trusting-of-the-Federal-government-left-wing of this fact.
Before I continue, let's talk a little bit about impeachment itself. Removal from office due to impeachment, constitutionally speaking (Article II Section IV), is reserved for those convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The question is then presented as to whether President Obama committed an act of treason or another high crime. These are very serious allegations and a solid amount of evidence should be brought forth before words like this are even thrown around. From what I have seen (this could change), solid evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, has not been presented that would justify such actions.
As a self-described conservative-libertarian, I have reasonable skepticism regarding the details of the Benghazi case. Combined with other actions of the Obama administration (namely, Fast and Furious, executive orders regarding gun control, the IRS scandal –might not involve Obama, and others) I believe that we, as the American public, have not received a convincing enough story as to what happened in the Benghazi case. I'm not going to pretend to know everything, but I believe that we all have cause to question.
Mother Jones explained why the case might gain some traction, not due to the details of the case, but rather that the credentialed reports for the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room will feel betrayed and misled by the White House press secretary. It just seems too odd that there are so many red flags in this case, and that alone is cause for investigation.
It is inevitable that the left will chalk most of this discussion up to extreme right-wing conspiracy, yet I think that the talk needs to be considered a little more closely. All of these situations, developed by the Republicans to demonize Obama or not, certainly makes me think again when deciding to blindly trust the Obama administration or others in government. Regardless of partisanship, we all can agree that skepticism, to a reasonable extent, is very necessary and a good thing. If our next president is Republican, you can sure bet the Democrats will be formulating their own Benghazi-like claims about the new president's actions.
After all, skepticism of government is a very American value. Let's remember that.