The question has been asked many times: why was Susan Rice selected to appear on the talk shows to discuss the Benghazi attack? At the time, Rice was our ambassador to the U.N. There was no connection between her job and Benghazi.
Now I think I know why Rice was selected. She is willing to say anything on television.
Consider her appearance on ABC News to discuss the trade in which we released five senior Taliban commanders in exchange for American POW Bowe Bergdahl. Rice stated, among other things, that Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”
Both statements are very probably untrue. There is substantial evidence that Bergdahl deserted the Army, or at least went AWOL.
Before leaving, Bergdahl wrote, “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” After he left, American soldiers reportedly were killed trying to get him back.
Thus, it seems fairly clear that Bergdahl did not serve the United States with “honor and distinction,” as those words were understood before the time of Obama. And it’s quite unlikely that Bergdahl was captured on the battlefield, as that term is commonly understood. More likely, he was captured while deserting.
Rice was aware of the substantial allegations against Bergdahl. Indeed, she alluded to them in the ABC interview saying “we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”
So why did she insist that he has served the U.S. with honor and distinction and was captured on the battlefield?
The answer, I can only conclude, is that she has no regard for the truth. She will employ any words she believes will help President Obama. She serves him with distinction and, in her view perhaps, honor.
This probably explains why, back in September 2012, Susan Rice was selected to purvey Team Obama’s lies about Benghazi.