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.