In spite of all the evidence, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice is not distancing herself from controversial comments she made asserting that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl served his country with “honor and distinction”:
To a certain extent, I understand the spin here: Sgt. Bergdahl volunteered to serve in the armed forces during a time of war and therefore that sacrifice, in and of itself, was honorable. But what about everything else we now know about him?
At least six members of his former platoon have come forward and accused him of desertion and want to see him court martialed. (He even reportedly left a note behind saying that he planned to desert). He wrote anti-American emails to his father bemoaning the U.S. military and its role in Afghanistan -- referring to his country as "disgusting." Allegations are also swirling that he collaborated with and sought out the Taliban and that shortly after he went missing, U.S. forces experienced increased hostility in the field. None of these developments suggest that he served his country honorably or with distinction. So why did Rice say that?
She also noted that to “condemn” Bergdahl before he had an opportunity to defend himself would be “inherently unfair.” That’s true. But that doesn’t mean she should have gone on national television and paraded him as a war hero, either. Clearly, that was a mistake -- one she's now paying for.