John Kirby is probably the most competent communications person in the Biden Administration, today or since its inception.

He isn’t perfect and is often infuriating, but then again Tony Snow infuriated Democrats while charming the press and not being a total douchebag liar. You can easily see why Kirby was made Rear Admiral, and why he was elevated to his position as spokesman for the National Security Council.

Unfortunately for Kirby, he is often in the position of defending the indefensible.

At today’s briefing, he faced an unusually hostile audience. Held at the White House he was asked about a lot of non-defense-related questions, and it didn’t go well for him. For some reason, Karine Jean-Pierre gets off easy from everybody but Peter Doocy of Fox News, but Kirby tends to face tougher questions.

Perhaps it’s because he isn’t so obviously a dunce. Maybe people think it’s cruel to expose Jean-Pierre’s incompetence daily.

Two particular questions stick out to me from the briefing. One on President Biden’s rather tenuous mental state, and the other on the horrible billions for hostages deal with Iran. Watch:

Reporter: The President has lied about being at Ground Zero the day after the attacks, falsely claimed he saw the Pittsburgh bridge collapse, etc.

What is going on with the President is he just believing things that didn't happen, or is he just making stuff up? pic.twitter.com/oJTP39SWk4

— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 13, 2023

You have to cringe. As somebody who used to deal with the press regularly, I wasn’t offended by his answer, as most people would or should be.

I felt sorry for John. His job is to defend the indefensible, and he did as well as he could. Biden is a liar, on things big and small, and these particular lies are merely clues to his character and mental state and not especially relevant to being president. But the fact that he lies constantly is, and Kirby knows it.

What does one say in that situation? What Kirby did: deflect.

The second question was much more damaging, because it went directly to the president’s awful policies, and Kirby was forced to defend the indefensible again. But given that the indefensible thing here is the selling out of America’s vital national interests I have much less sympathy for Kirby.

REPORTER: "You just said Iran is not gonna do this for nothing. But, didn't they also get five Iranians [prisoners]"

KIRBY: "They will get five Iranians."

REPORTER: "Why did we need to add $6 billion dollars on top of that?"

KIRBY: "This is the deal we were able to strike to… pic.twitter.com/o6tjToCrWi

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 13, 2023

Kirby is forced to defend paying $1.2 billion a head, plus a prisoner, in exchange for US hostages. And while the Administration claimed that the money would only be used for food and medicine, the Iranians quickly denied that assertion. They will use the billions as they damn well want to, including nuclear enrichment.

As a former Rear Admiral Kirby knows exactly how bad a move this is, and it shows. He basically snaps at the reporter, which is unusual for him. Worse, he made what amounted to a blanket admission that the US would be blackmailed by anybody with the guts to kidnap Americans and get away with it.

Is it any wonder that Russia is holding a Wall Street Journal reporter in jail? Why not? He could be very valuable indeed.

$1.2 billion is a lot of money, even in these inflationary times.

I have no idea if Kirby supported the policy choice or not–it is his job to defend it, not discuss its merits. But I expect a bit more integrity from a Rear Admiral, even if he is retired. He should have resigned rather than defend this policy.

Kirby, of course, cares nothing about what I think, nor should he. But he does have to look in the mirror, and after a day like this, it’s hard to see how he faces either himself or reporters.