Liar of the Year: Susan Rice


I would have laid odds that Jay Carney would win this award, or perhaps Debby Wasserman Schultz. But no, it is Susan Rice, National Security Advisor and designated Obama Administration Sunday Morning Lackey who wins the prize. And yes, I’m awarding the 2014 honor in June, because you can’t be more deceitful than this.

Deceit, remember, is when you say something using phrasing that is literally accurate in some, often technical or tortured, respect,  in such a way that you know a listener or listeners will understand it to mean something very different that is not true. This is a kind of lie, a very effective kind. It is the official language of Washington D.C., however, (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky [because where I come from we don’t regard oral sex as sexual relations, but go ahead and think I mean sexual relations in the common usage sense, and I’ll explain the confusion once I’m caught].”) and politicians think it is perfectly acceptable.

As I commented upon earlier, Rice reprised her infamous Sunday morning talk show tour of last September, when she told America that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous uprising over a YouTube video while the White House knew very well that this was a misleading and incomplete version of what had occurred, this time saying on ABC that  Bowe Bergdahl“…served the United States with honor and distinction…”This description, of course, was and is contradictory to what is known about Bergdahl, who either went AWOL, deserted, or assisted the enemy of the United States. There is no doubt that he at very least left his unit without leave, precipitating his capture. The White House, the military and the national security apparatus had been aware of this for not just days or months, but years.

Rice, however, maintained to CNN that her description of Bergdahl was not intentionally false and misleading, telling an interviewer,

“…what I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing.”


Here is where competent journalists not in league with those in power are supposed to say,

“What? Wait a minute, Ambassador Rice, you didn’t say Bergdahl was honorable. You said he served with honor and distinction. Enlisting is honorable and admirable to be sure, but service is what an enlistee does after volunteering for service. Are you saying that the act of enlisting makes a soldier’s service honorable whatever he does on the field of battle? So the soldier who went rogue and shot several of his comrades would still be, by your definition, honorable? Do you really believe that we should honor any soldier, even a deserter? A traitor? Is there anything in your definition of honorable that a soldier could do after volunteering for service that forfeits that honor?

“You also said that Bergdahl served with distinction. How is that covered by the mere fact of his enlisting? Do you mean “distinction” literally, as in, “not every soldier walks away from his post and gets himself captured by the Taliban”? For I agree—that’s certainly distinctive—thank God—but how is it honorable?

Then, since CNN’s reporter Jim Acosta isn’t a competent journalist and the best he could come up with was a weak, “Honor and distinction?,” Rice changed the subject into an endorsement of “innocent until proven guilty”—the issue at hand was “honor and distinction no matter what” —and then had the gall to say this:

“I’m upfront with the American people and I always do my best on behalf of my country and I do my best to tell the facts as I know them.”

She said this after offering, seconds before, this flagrantly and insultingly dishonest spin on her obviously false characterization of Bergdahl as a soldier who served “with honor and distinction”! She just lied to our faces, and she lied again by saying that she always does her best to tell the facts as she knows them, having just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she does not.


10 thoughts on “Liar of the Year: Susan Rice

  1. I have to wonder if Ms. Rice is in any way tired of being BO’s scapegoat…or liar-in-chief? Seems like every time he has a whopper to tell, he sends her on Sunday Shows to lie about it. She has to feel like she is being taken advantage of.

    • Quid pro quo. She’s in the Valerie Jarrett category; not qualified except by her relationship to the President. She is not highly regarded in foreign service circles and has flown way past the Peter Principle line. She owes everything to Obama. Lies on Tv are a small price for a career, apparently.

  2. “And yes, I’m awarding the 2014 honor in June, because you can’t be more deceitful than this.”

    Bold prediction there, Jack, given the fact that we’re not halfway through the year and this is an administration that seems to enjoy heaping outrage atop outrage.

    I predict you’re going to have to change the rules to allow for “pre-All-Star break” and “post-All-Star break” awards.

      • I don’t know. But it wouldn’t surprise me if we find out. These characters are capable of doing the reveal.

        • You know what’s disgusting? E. J. Dionne wrote that the exchange was “mostly” just peachy, but that Rice “should probably avoid Sunday Morning TV.” Flip enough? The ambassador to the UN/National Security Advisor lies to the public and the media at the direction of her long-time pal the President, and this biased, integrity-free “respected” columnist—how can someone like Dionne be respected by anyone?— thinks it’s a joke!

          • Jack, I’ve been maintaining for many years that politicians (those on the left seem to have a small advantage over their more conservative ilk but, sadly, only a pitifully small one) have only one principle: expediency.

          • In the circles Dionne moves in, it is a joke when someone can display a huge dollop of gall, followed by yet another and walk away unapologetically. The American press still has Clinton on the brain.

  3. I think Dear Leader sent her out specifically this time just to show us that he can and will do anything he wants and there is nothing we can do about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.