Sorry, I had a longer, more thoughtful post written up about this, but I scrapped it, because it gave the President too much benefit of the doubt. And he doesn’t deserve that, in my opinion.
This guy is scum. It’s that simple. Manipulative, self-interested, narcissistic, insular political scum. And his use of that line was intentional, I have no doubt, and meant to be subtly suggestive — to blunt the beating he’s rightly taking in conservative media and social media (the mainstream press has tried to cover for him, but they can only do so much) over his inaction in Benghazi, where he in fact left Americans behind to die.
So no, I don’t think he was simply tone deaf in his remarks. I believe he was, as he always is, looking for a way to play a political angle that he hoped would be beneficial to Barack Hussein Obama. And I hope it sickens others as much as it sickened me to hear it coming from this guy in a clumsy attempt to rehabilitate himself.
Because the truth is, he simply couldn’t stop himself from politicizing the crisis. It’s who he is. It’s what he does.
If I hadn’t already been pushed over the line by Obama’s horrible handling of the attack and its aftermath, this latest statement of his would have done it for sure. It makes me so angry I cannot allow myself to think too deeply about it.
If this doesn’t convince a person that Obama is not “a good man” then nothing will.
Obama’s the guy who’ll puke in your lap, then use your shirt-sleeve to wipe his mouth.
He used that same line in his speech at the DNC (and throughout his campaign speeches). I think he truly means it in the socialist/communist/progressive sense , but used in THIS episode – so quickly on the heels of Benghazi – well, he’s just an asshole who thinks he can re-write recent history with his speeches.
I mean – honestly – how many non-news junkies really know about the Benghazi story? He believes he can make these comments regarding the storm and the idea will somehow transfer to the other event.
Electoral defeat isn’t enough for this turd. Hopefully, there’s a grand jury and a prison cell in his future. His name should become a swear word and join that of Benedict Arnold in infamy.
NObody behind?
Obama bellows (as Zed) at his fleeing electoral support: “You sorry little ingrates!”
What say we all leave him behind?
Greetings:
First, let me say that I don’t disagree with your assessment of President Obama’s behavior in this regard.
But then, and on the other hand, for a while now, the “Leave No Man Behind” (LNMB) concept has been a bit of a burr under my cerebral saddle. It seems to have a great deal of resonance, especially with military and former military webizens. Recently, I re-read Mark Bowden’s “Black Hawk Down” about the “Battle of the Black Sea” in Mogadishu, Somalia in the early part of President Clinton’s first term and that reading brought forward in what’s left of my mind a concern about what’s involved in that concept and its implications for today’s soldiers.
Admittedly, it has been a long time since my military service. That was back when the draft didn’t have anything to do with ventilation. So, I have no direct experience of today’s volunteer military. But, be that as it may, I am concerned that LNMB seems to be progressing from a mantra to something approaching a fetish and I worry about its impact on our troops.
When I went off to see what kind of an infantryman I could be, dying wasn’t my greatest fear. My father had survived his infantry stint in WW II and I fancied myself as good a man as he. And, as a twenty year old, my sense of mortality was in its earliest stage of development. My greatest fear, by far, was being crippled. Secondarily, it was failing in my duties. Subsequently, when I became a squad leader, which was somewhat after I was made a squad leader, I bumped up against the LNMB concept big time. And it’s the resonance of that emotional experience that has me concerned.
Even at the mantra end of the spectrum, LNMB seems so terse as to be almost mindless. I have to wonder if there is some super-secret calculus that I failed to apprehend. I mean, are our troops all committed to dying lest one get left behind? While “Black Hawk Down” may be the exception rather than the rule, my take on it is that its “Lost Convoy” is an adequate example as to how very wrong military thinking can go when it is overly influenced by such thinking.
(For those unfamiliar with “Black Hawk Down”, the “Lost Convoy” was supposed to remove the American soldiers from Mogadishu after their raid. When the first Black Hawk was shot down, the convoy was diverted to the crash site and was exposed to heavy enemy fire while trying to follow radio directions. It ended up returning to base without ever reaching the crash site but with very heavy casualties.)
At the other end of the spectrum and in spite of all the technology, efforts, and bravery, American soldiers were tragically left behind at the second helicopter crash site.
Thus the crux of my concern, has LNMB become some kind of unit macho fetish as opposed to say, and this will sound trite, an organizational goal? Has it become a too easy answer to too difficult problems? Are we setting our soldiers up for failure or worse by allowing LNMB too much of their and their superiors mindshare. Hopefully, nobody wants to leave anyone behind but isn’t more complex thinking better than relying on slogans?
So no, I don’t think he was simply tone deaf in his remarks.
Middle-finger salute, anyone? It’s not beneath him.
This guy is scum. It’s that simple. Manipulative, self-interested, narcissistic, insular political scum.
I had him pegged as NPD ages ago, but now I’m wondering if he doesn’t also qualify as a sociopath.
I don’t toss that one out lightly: most NPDs are not sociopaths (though all sociopaths are narcissists). My dad is NPD but is not a sociopath. Other PDs I’ve run into are not sociopaths.
I’d have to know that he was indifferent to those men’s fate because he lacks utterly the ability to care, and he’s annoyed at any suggestion that he should. My dad would never do anything that despicable. He may lack empathy but he doesn’t lack simple ethics.
Maybe you have to be a sociopath to make it in the Chicago machine.
Hopefully, nobody wants to leave anyone behind but isn’t more complex thinking better than relying on slogans?
Should more be taken into consideration than just LNMB?
Of course it should. Let’s apply it to this situation: Was it possible to send in air support to bomb a few choice locations to assist the folks on the ground? Was it possible to do so without losing more people than you’re trying to save?
If there was a very real and probable danger of the support aircraft being taken out by RPGs or similar armaments, then what’s wrong with telling the public that very thing? Why the ink cloud about the video?
The coverup suggests that they were doing something wrong and it went sideways.
But, be that as it may, I am concerned that LNMB seems to be progressing from a mantra to something approaching a fetish and I worry about its impact on our troops.
Not being a military person (but married to retired Army) – from my basic understanding of LNMB is that it isn’t just the operational policy, but a mindset that binds soldier to soldier. Men can go out and fight, because they know their brothers will do whatever it takes to help them out. Bring them home. Even if it’s just a body.
The thought that they will be abandoned … or not supported? This is how many feel with Obama as CiC.
A 2013 impeachment would be immensely gratifying but charges brought would be vastly more so. Plus, Biden.
Trial and conviction probably only happen when Little Collectivist Man is out of office and, hopefully, a legit Justice Dept goes to work. So elect Romney, all the more so because he’s not Obama.
I dare say Obama has just galvanized even us blinkered Paulbots.
As an aside, perhaps improperly, I look forward to a day when the country has regained its sanity enough to leave platitudinous branding behind forever.
OPERATION DEEPLY PATRIOTIC NOMENCLATURE! (just killed some kids in Pockestawn…)
All due apologies to military honor. It’s because of it that freaks at the top abuse it to lie to us about their shenanigans here and abroad.
“Homeland security”. Bite me.
Thus the crux of my concern, has LNMB become some kind of unit macho fetish as opposed to say, and this will sound trite, an organizational goal?
I think Car has it right — that it’s a basic piece of morale and unit cohesion. I understand your question about the limits of the doctrine, as well. It’s a kind of paradox: you know that your buddies will do everything they can to rescue you. You expect it. But at some level, you don’t really want them to; it means putting them in harm’s way for your sake, which isn’t something you would force on them.
The only way out of such a paradox is to trust your unit and your leaders, to know that they really will do whatever they can to get you out of trouble, with the understanding that such heroics are not always possible. You don’t want to see a mission jeopardized because your unit took heavy casualties trying to drag your sorry ass out of a corner.
Leaving good men to die at the hands of animals, because rescuing them might be politically inconvenient? Doesn’t do much to foster the necessary trust in one’s leaders.
Greetings: especially “Car” and “Squid”
I appreciate your responses.
My concern is one of disproportion. I certainly understand the cohesion and morale aspects of LNMB. While I don’t think many would stand up and say “No KIAs” or “No WIAs”, LNMB always seems to have a pretty full panoply of promoters ready to proclaim their loyalty.
I just wish that those folks would tone it down some. War fighting is a pretty complex and fast moving business and no casualties is not often an option.
11B40,
It gets more repetition and thought, in part, because we left a fair amount behind in Korea and Viet Nam – when now we have even more superior technology, ability and desire to not write people off. It is very much a consideration both in terms of morale, retention and suchin a volunteer force – but also in info ops too. Nobody wants US personnel paraded ala the Norks, N. Vietnamese or starring in an AQ headlopper video.
God knows when I was alone (and I do mean only US soldier for miles) in Iraq, I knew I could hit the panic button on my lovely GPS enable tracker beacon and really badass dudes would jump into Blackhawks and come look for me. Lets you focus on the job at hand a bit more.
Why did the “Lost Convoy” consist of unarmored vehicles? Because that was what we had.
Why was the “Lost Convoy” directed to the rescue? Because that was what we had?
Why was the “Rescue Convoy” more successful? Because it consisted of armored vehicles.
Why did it take so long to get the “Rescue Convoy” underway? Because the vehicles belonged to and were manned by two other countries.
Why did we have to beg for armored support? Because a Democrat President wanted a light footprint and so denied any integral US armored support.
Deja vu.
Why do Democrats not care for the security of our people overseas. Because their leadership are all raging narcissists who consider other people only as means to their own ends which ends are always power for them.