It’s evident that the Obama administration was involved in a significant coverup over the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

“U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, “No one … believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob — no one.”

Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault.

The claims that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who from the beginning have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

“I think we should have answers right away. … I think they’re reluctant to tell us what this event really was probably because it’s an election year. But the American people deserve to know answers about what happened at our embassy in Libya,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told Fox News.

This afternoon in a conversation with a source on the Hill I was told that for the first time in years the idea of impeachment is being floated about in a bi-partisen manner.

Whether or not this would happen would depend entirely on whether Obama get’s reelected and whether there is enough support in congress to carry it through. As we saw with Bill Clinton that’s questionable. The question of course would be whether or not the President used his responsibilities of office, to uphold the Constitution and protect the United States of American deliberately lied, ordered others to lie, in order to protect his reelection chances.

I’m not a legal eagle, and not particularly a fan of impeachment except in extreme cases. It’s never good for the nation unless it serves a greater good.

I am a fan of elections and using them to oust corrupt politicians.

However if this is the truth, and at this point it looks like it is, that Obama lied to keep his job then he should be impeached immediately or be forced to resign from office.