Jake Tapper will not say that Jay Carney is lying, because the host of "The Lead With Jake Tapper" does not like to use the term, but he is certainly not happy with the White House Press Secretary's explanation of the Ben Rhodes Benghazi email, stating, "Calling somebody a liar is, it’s, that’s not normally the kind of language I use," he said, " but I think that the comments that are being made are dissembling, obfuscating, and often insulting."

Tapper was a guest on Thursday evening's Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the White House reaction to the Rhode's letter, which was released Tuesday because of a court order arising from a Judicial Watch freedom of information lawsuit. The host began by listing all the White House Press Secretaries from Ron Ziegler (Pres. Nixon) through today and commenting that based on the past two days explanation of the Rhodes Benghazi letter, Jay Carny had to be the worst of the entire lot. He asked Tapper what he thought of the last two days.

I mean, it’s, look, I’m a reporter, and what I do is the opposite of what press secretaries do, quite often. Their job is to paint somebody in the most flattering light, regardless of what the truth is. And my job is to head right for the truth.

And you know, I think that to me, what bothers me most about these Benghazi emails, and the newly released one, is that they should have been released a year ago when the White House did that document, when they released a hundred pages of them.

After a commercial break Hewitt suggested that if he was into Doonsebury, he would pull out the Doonsebury "Liar, Liar, Liar" to point out that Carney was just lying.

Tapper was uncomfortable calling someone a liar, but expressed that he thought Carney was deliberately trying to confuse the matter, and added that from the beginning he has reported that there were people in the White House who didn't know why the administration was pushing the video story.

They have an interpretation of events that does not fit with what I think happened. But you know, calling somebody a liar is, it’s, that’s not normally the kind of language I use, but I think that the comments that are being made are dissembling, obfuscating, and often insulting. So I mean, I don’t disagree with those who don’t care for what’s going on at the press conferences.

I think that you know, when it comes to these emails, look, one of the documents in the emails that was just released was a story that I wrote for ABCNews.com, and I did on the air as well in September of 2012 saying that there were people in the administration who didn’t understand and questioned when the White House was so aggressively blaming the Benghazi attacks on the video. Now what the people in the White House were circulating this article were saying was redacted, so I don’t know why they were emailing it around.

But that’s been my position, my judgment, the information I had from close to the very beginning of this affair, is that intelligence and diplomatic officials on the ground did not understand why the White House was so aggressively leaning into the idea that this was all because of a video, and it was a spontaneous attack by demonstrators and not a terrorist attack that was planned.

Hewitt then asked Tapper whether or not he thought a "cover-up" was underway, to which Tapper replied that while he did not have enough information, it would not be "out of bounds" to speculate that the administration "leaned heavily into" it:

I don’t have enough information to say that there is a cover-up. They clearly said in the heat of a political campaign that this was the fault of a video and not a terrorist attack. That is a fact. Another fact is that in this heated campaign, one of the reasons, one of the arguments President Obama was making was that he was strong on terror, he had killed bin Laden, you know, under his command, bin Laden had been killed and it was a gutsy call to do so, and that al Qaeda was on the run, and that this undermined that argument. That’s just a fact. I’m not, you know, nobody in the White House, there was no email that I know of saying oh, this undermined, you know, if this gets out, then it will undermine the whole argument. But it’s just the fact that we all know.

And the third fact is that diplomatic and intelligence officials early on were saying that they didn’t understand why anybody was suggesting that this was definitively a spontaneous protest and not a preplanned terrorist attack. And it was just a few weeks later that the secretary of Defense, Panetta, disputed it and said that wasn’t their judgment. They thought it was a terrorist attack. So you have those facts. And what’s the conclusion? Well, you can speculate, and I don’t think it’s out of bounds to think that they leaned heavily into something that was A) the cause for unrest in other locations like Cairo, and B) something that fit their worldview and their campaign argument.

At the end of the interview, Tapper said he has been chasing this story since September of 2012 when he was at ABC, he has run Benghazi stories at CNN, and he will continue to chase the facts until the facts are known.