Lyin' Ryan backs up on Benghazi

[homersapien 12,329]

http://www.huffingto...html?ref=topbar

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday that he does not know whether President Barack Obama intentionally misled the public about the nature of the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, backtracking from previous comments that the administration had engaged in a "cover-up."

"What we now know from congressional testimony is that the number two man in Benghazi, the deputy chief of mission, informed his superiors including the secretary of state that this was a terrorist attack," Ryan said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

"Those of us who have had the briefings, seen the videos, know there was no protest involved. To suggest afterwards that this was the result of a spontaneous protest, we now know is not the case. So the burden of proof here is on the administration's side. It is -- why did they continue to push this kind of a story when they knew nearly immediately afterwards that that was not the case?"

"Do you believe that the White House purposely misled the American people on Benghazi to try to beat you and Mitt Romney and win the election?" host Chris Wallace asked.

"I don't know the answer to that question," Ryan responded. "Rather make a conclusion before an investigation has been completed, we just need to investigate this for the sake of good government."

As recently as last week, Ryan insisted to conservative radio that there is "no doubt" a cover-up took place, an assertion that remains on his official congressional website.

But a day after Ryan's talk radio appearance, the White House released more than 100 pages of emails that cast doubt on the Republican theory that the administration had altered its talking points about the attack for political gain.

The emails detailed revisions to the talking points that were ultimately used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in appearances on Sunday talk shows. Although one State Department email did voice concerns about the talking points being "abused" by members of Congress to "beat up the State Department," the documents show that both the CIA and the State Department had urged revisions, with both agencies voicing concerns that the talking points not interfere with an investigation into what had taken place in Benghazi. The repeated GOP refrain that Rice had been responsible for doctoring the talking points was discredited.

Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, repeatedly attacked the Obama administration on Benghazi during the campaign.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

He was being gracious. There was a cover up, still is, and he knows it.

[cptau 169]

I think he's saying there has been a coverup, he's not ready to say if it was just the state department covering or if the White House is also part of the coverup.

Either the senior staff people in state and or the white house dreamed up the coverup/ story and never told Clinton and or Obama, or it was done under their direction. Congress will find out from the senior staff people when they are called to testify.

[homersapien 12,329]

He was being gracious. There was a cover up, still is, and he knows it.

Well, I'd say you can't possibly know what he thinks.

After all, he went from "no doubt" to "I don't know the answer to that question".

People like you have much more fealty to the message than you do to the truth.

[homersapien 12,329]

I think he's saying there has been a coverup, he's not ready to say if it was just the state department covering or if the White House is also part of the coverup.

Either the senior staff people in state and or the white house dreamed up the coverup/ story and never told Clinton and or Obama, or it was done under their direction. Congress will find out from the senior staff people when they are called to testify.

Perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of "no doubt".

No wonder folks like you supported the invasion of Iraq.

[autigeremt 7,260]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that.

[homersapien 12,329]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that.

Well..... it involved a similar "sense of certainty".....?

And you have to admit, there was a lot more fealty to the message instead of the truth.

[autigeremt 7,260]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that.

Well..... it involved a similar "sense of certainty".....?

And you have to admit, there was a lot more fealty to the message instead of the truth.

It's D.C.....what do you expect?

[jj3jordan 2,172]

EMT, when you say "with all due respect" to homer, you don't really give much do you?

[homersapien 12,329]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that.

Well..... it involved a similar "sense of certainty".....?

And you have to admit, there was a lot more fealty to the message instead of the truth.

It's D.C.....what do you expect?

A lot more resistance from the opposition!

Or at least that's what I would have liked to seen.

[homersapien 12,329]

EMT, when you say "with all due respect" to homer, you don't really give much do you?

What a total a-hole comment to make.

You aren't a real a-hole are you?

[Grumps 3,706]

"There is no doubt that there was a cover-up." "I do not know the answer to the question as to whether the White House is responsible for the cover-up." How is this backtracking? Homer, please explain the error in my line of thinking.

[autigeremt 7,260]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that. :)/>

Well..... it involved a similar "sense of certainty".....? :dunno:/> :big:/>

And you have to admit, there was a lot more fealty to the message instead of the truth.

It's D.C.....what do you expect? :)/>

A lot more resistance from the opposition!

Or at least that's what I would have liked to seen.

Maybe they were in it themselves? I'm sure they had something to gain in their respective districts.

[autigeremt 7,260]

EMT, when you say "with all due respect" to homer, you don't really give much do you?

You may be surprised. We don't agree on most things (most being nearly anything....lol), but I have his back. He knows what I'm talking about.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

EMT, when you say "with all due respect" to homer, you don't really give much do you?

What a total a-hole comment to make.

You aren't a real a-hole are you?

Dude, that describes every comment you make.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I think you deserve a warning for lying yourself.

Ryan didn't lie. There absolutely IS a cover up.

[homersapien 12,329]

"There is no doubt that there was a cover-up." "I do not know the answer to the question as to whether the White House is responsible for the cover-up." How is this backtracking? Homer, please explain the error in my line of thinking.

Please refer back to the OP and post #4.

[homersapien 12,329]

With all due respect, Iraq has nothing to do with this one. But you knew that. :)/>

Well..... it involved a similar "sense of certainty".....? :dunno:/> :big:/>

And you have to admit, there was a lot more fealty to the message instead of the truth.

It's D.C.....what do you expect? :)/>

A lot more resistance from the opposition!

Or at least that's what I would have liked to seen.

Maybe they were in it themselves? I'm sure they had something to gain in their respective districts.

Probably true. And to be fair, they were probably giving a fair representation of their constituents regarding general support for the war, which is perhaps the larger problem.

Regardless, they certainly didn't show much back bone.

[cptau 169]

I think he's saying there has been a coverup, he's not ready to say if it was just the state department covering or if the White House is also part of the coverup.

Either the senior staff people in state and or the white house dreamed up the coverup/ story and never told Clinton and or Obama, or it was done under their direction. Congress will find out from the senior staff people when they are called to testify.

Perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of "no doubt".

No wonder folks like you supported the invasion of Iraq.

I do understand how it was used in the sentence you listed. And State did organize a coverup. How high up the coverup went is

what is not known.

Obama claims he only learns of things when watching cable news or reading the newspapers. His staff never tells him..... Blazing Saddles?

And no I was not in favor of putting ground forces into Iraq. Air attacks to destroy all their military capability would have been the best.

Eventually their fearless dictator would have died in one of those attacks or been killed by his own people.

Fewer US troops and Iraq civilans would have been killed too. Civilians there are still being killed by terrorists bombs.

You cant change the culture of a country unless you are willing to stay and occupy for 50 or 60 years....

[Richard78 73]

Classic plausible deniability by Obama. How could I mislead when I didn't know? We still don't know where he was after Pannetta updated him at about 5 p.m.

Pannetta's testimony before Congress:

Sen. Kelly Ayotte: 'Did you have any further communications with [President Obama] that night?'

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: 'No.'

Sen. Kelly Ayotte: 'Did he ever call you that night to say, ‘how are things going? What’s going on? Where’s the consulate?'

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: 'No, but we were aware, as we were getting information that was taking place there, particularly when we got information that the ambassador [Chris Stevens] – his life had been lost – we were aware that that information went to the White House.'

Sen. Kelly Ayotte: 'Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?'

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: 'No.'

[augolf1716 22,032]