Yes, but to be fair we're much closer to rationalizing creatures than rational ones. We make up good stories to justify our decisions, but it seems unlikely they are at all accurate.
It's one of the reasons I don't trust bayesians who present posteriors and omit priors. The cargo cult rigor blinds them to their own rationalization in the highest degree.
Rationalization is an exercise of (abuse of?) the underlying rational skill
Rationalize: "An attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate"
Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
They sure seem like related concepts to me. Maybe you have a different understanding of what "rationalizing" is, and I'd be interested in hearing it
But if all you're going to do is drive by comment saying "You're wrong" without elaborating at all, maybe just keep it to yourself next time
But this exercise of "knowing how to fake" is a certain type of rationality, so I think I agree with your point, but I'm not locked in.
[0] Maybe constantly is more accurate.