Nothing like ending a long day with a head explosion.
What does it say about an Administration when it uses its U.N. Ambassador and its National Security Advisor to mislead the news media and lie to the public?
What does it tell us when the U.N. Ambassador and its National Security Advisor so employed is the same individual?
Susan Rice’s complacent complicity in the mid- 2012 campaign efforts by the White House to blame the fatal Benghazi attack on an anti-Muslim video well after the CIA had concluded that the attack was planned and coordinated by Al Qaeda elements sent her to five TV news shows with a tailored lie. That deceit cost her the Secretary of State job, as it destroyed her credibility. So Obama defiantly made her his National Security Advisor. In this role, she is also, apparently, expected to continue to serve as White House liar.
Silly me: I can’t shake this habit of wanting to believe Presidential spokespersons in high positions. So when Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor, went on ABC and said this...
“Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield. We have a sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do our utmost to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle, and we did that in this instance.”
and that Bergdahl…
“…served the United States with honor and distinction…”
…I actually assumed that was true!
What’s the matter with me? What’s the matter with the news media? Most of all, what the hell is the matter with the President of the United States that he treats the public and the truth with such utter contempt?
And if you are still willing to tolerate being treated like this, what’s the matter with you?
We now know that Bergdahl probably wasn’t taken in battle, and instead went AWOL, and may well have deserted. He may have even cooperated with the Taliban after his capture.
How dare the White House send the National Security Advisor out on the telly…again…to mislead us? How dare this integrity-free, shameless woman deceive the public once more? How dare she use her high position and the office of the President to assert as fact what was not true, to cast an indefensible prisoner exchange in an artificially favorable light? How dare the President keep sending this woman out to lie, and how dare any American, of any political tilt, continue to excuse and defend such cynical, incompetent, inexcusable conduct by any leader, but especially one who pledged transparency?
I keep reading the pathetic “Green Lantern” rationalization from Obama’s bitter-enders. The theory: the challenges facing poor, brilliant President Obama are so daunting that those who criticize him for failure after failure are unreasonably expecting him to be super-hero.
More foul-smelling offal cannot be fount in a dysentery ward. It is not expecting a super hero to want to trust the President and his underlings to tell us the truth. The public simply expects an honest, honorable, competent leader who will not constantly try to deceive us for his desperate political ends.
And that, it seems, is expecting too much.
Unless a consensus forms that finally admits that our nation is in the hands of incompetents, rogues and fools, my head just might stay exploded. It is mind-blowing that any President can get away with this.
_____________________________
Source: Weekly Standard
Ethics Alarms 
Yes.
Come on, we all know that Obama doesn’t give himself enough credit for his foreign policy…
Thanks, Scott. I needed a good laugh this morning. That whole exchange was hilarious.
What the hell is going on? Just when I think a new low has been reached the bar is set even lower.
I have little doubt that the sergeant acted un-honorable, he was a volunteer, who took an oath and there is very little chance that his capture was under an honorable circumstance, barring mental illness or being snatched from a FOB I think he acted dishonorable. But this has not been proven so I can’t say for certain, but nothing at all points to him acting honorable, for the administration to try to paint him in that light, and have the confidence that much of the media would go along, highlights just how corrupt they are.
This douchebag had to be recovered, it sucks, as I personally believe he is a piece of shit but as repulsive as I find it getting him back had to happen, it is keeping faith, knowing no matter what we will do whatever it takes to bring our own home is expected. I may not like the cost and I suspect we have created a bigger problem for ourselves but the bottom line is sergeant dipshit had to be recovered. I won’t knock the administration on that, but to act as if they recovered a national treasure is appallingly, I don’t expect them to call him a piece of shit without a trial and I have no problem with them taking credit for his repatriation but don’t spin this into a romantic story of a hero returned.
don’t spin this into a romantic story of a hero returned.
**************
Too late!
His whole home town is gearing up for the big celebration.
Never mind the six other soldiers who died looking for this horse’s ass.
I am revolted.
Watching interviews of some of those from that town, stunning is all I can say.
I just read that the celebration at the hometown has been cancelled.
Extreme public outcry.
“How dare she use her high position and the office of the President to assert facts that were not true, to cast an indefensible prisoner exchange in an artificially flattering light?” While I agree with the overall statement, I do have a minor quibble. Namely the “facts that were not true” part. A fact that IS true presents no problems. But, if a fact is characterized as untrue, isn’t that self-contradictory? I’m just asking….
“Asserting as fact that which was not true.” Sloppy writing on my part. Inspired by you, I just fixed it.
The question is: Is there a single spokesman for the executive branch that doesn’t share her attributes?