By Matt Underwood US President denies knowledge of SEAL massacre in North Korea. Well, here we go again. The story, as I understand it, is this: a New York Times report details a classified 2019 SEAL Team 6 mission in North Korea that ended with the killing of unarmed North Korean civilians. And what does the former President say? He claims he didn’t know “anything” about it. Now, that’s a pretty bold statement, isn’t it?
This whole situation raises some pretty immediate questions, doesn’t it? I mean, we’re talking about a highly sensitive, classified operation involving a military incursion into another country. You’d think the President would be in the loop on something like that. So, the natural instinct, as someone looking at this from the outside, is to question his denial. Is it a case of genuine ignorance? Perhaps a cognitive issue, or is the military intentionally keeping him out of the loop with sensitive information? Or, as it seems to be the most plausible option, is this a blatant lie?
The response pattern is, unfortunately, all too familiar. If something goes well, he takes credit for everything, right? Nobel Prize, front and center. But when something goes sideways, especially something involving potential war crimes and civilian casualties, it’s “I didn’t know,” or “It wasn’t that bad,” or the classic, “It’s not my fault.” It’s a playbook we’ve seen countless times. In this case, the very fact that the mission happened would be a problem. The fact that civilians were killed is obviously a major problem. The fact that the President now claims no knowledge of it is, in itself, a problem.
If the President truly didn’t know, it opens up a whole other can of worms. Does it mean that SEAL Team 6 is operating with a degree of autonomy that bypasses the Commander-in-Chief? That’s a scary thought, wouldn’t you agree? It suggests a potential breakdown in the chain of command, especially in a situation where we have nuclear implications. This hints at a bigger problem, because his ignorance, in a situation such as this, is far more troubling than him knowing.
There’s also the undeniable pattern of denial and deflection. He struggles to handle this kind of delicate information in this manner. He lacks the poise of more experienced leaders, those with experience who may be better suited to navigate these sorts of situations. He simply resorts to a straight-up denial. One can only imagine the reaction if another nation’s military had been involved in something similar, resulting in a situation such as this.
The idea of him being kept in the dark is also problematic. It’s a suggestion that the military doesn’t trust him with classified information. Is this because of his potential for leaking information, or his potential for reacting in ways that could cause severe diplomatic problems? It’s a complicated question, but if that’s true, it suggests a lack of confidence in his ability to lead. Again, the man has no concept of accountability, as this is always someone else’s fault, or just “fake news,” or something done by previous administrations.
It’s difficult to interpret this denial without thinking of other incidents. The comparison to Benghazi and the accusations leveled against Hillary Clinton feels pertinent. She was held accountable for the deaths of a few marines, however, the incident involving SEAL Team 6, with the killings of civilians and potential war crimes, gets a simple denial? It doesn’t align with the normal expected response.
I have to ask if this isn’t simply an attempt to distract from something else, or perhaps deflect blame from the President. Could it be a distraction from something else, such as the Epstein list? There’s definitely a pattern here, a way of dealing with problematic information. This man, it seems, never assumes responsibility for anything negative, ever. It’s always a conspiracy, or it’s fake news, or it’s someone else’s fault.
In the end, it all boils down to one thing: trust. Or, more accurately, the lack of it. Whether he knew about the mission or not, his response—the denial, the deflection, the lack of accountability—erodes any remaining trust. It’s a symptom of a larger problem, a pattern of behavior that undermines confidence in his leadership. It’s a pattern, I must say, that is becoming all too familiar. And at the heart of it, the fact that the US leader denies knowledge of such a grave event is, in itself, a grave event.