Paul Ryan: “I don’t know” if there was a Benghazi cover-up

[DonViejo]

"We just need to investigate this for the sake of good government," he added

BY JILLIAN RAYFIELD

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said on this week’s episode of Fox News Sunday that he does not know whether there was a “cover-up” related to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but the investigation needs to run its course.

“Those of us who have had the briefings, seen the videos, know there was no protest involved,” Ryan said. “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. Why did they continue to push this kind of a story when they knew nearly immediately afterwards that that was not the case?”

Host Chris Wallace asked Ryan if he thinks the White House “purposely misled” the American people to help win the election. ”I don’t know the answer to that question,” Ryan replied. “Rather make a conclusion before an investigation has been completed, we just need to investigate this for the sake of good government.”

As The Huffington Post points out, this is a slightly different approach from the one Ryan has been taking: 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.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/paul_ryan_i_dont_know_if_there_was_a_benghazi_cover_up/

[Vietnameravet]

1. It's the new face of moderation in the GOP!!

[liberal N proud]

2. Where was the investigation following the Iraq invasion?

And the lies about WMDs.

That cost thousands of lives.

[Cha]

3. Yeah, he doesn't know much.

[brewens]

4. Have they determined that it was a "terrorist" attack? This one has been

bugging me. Did we call every attack the Viet Cong launched in Vietnam a "terrorist attack"? I know it's in a part of the world we associate with terrorist groups, but a bunch of armed men willing to be shot back at, aren't what we ever called a terrorist attack in the past.

That might be splitting hairs I suppose. It's the rights zeal to label anything they can a terrorist attack on Obama's watch, would make the administration resist calling it that.

[formercia]

6. The GWOT demands it.

Without Terrorists, the Global War on Terror would be redundant.

[bunnies]

5. uh huh.

And lets also investigate which one of you assholes doctored the emails. Shall we? You know... for the sake of "good government".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. O-M-G!

Sigh!

[Life Long Dem]

8. When they knew nearly immediately afterwards that it was "an act of terror".

"Why did they continue to push this kind of a story when they knew nearly immediately afterwards that that was not the case?”

Notice they can't say the truth.

[Beacool]

9. You know that the Repugs have jumped the shark when Ryan sounds like the moderate one.