Ryan Lizza Says 'Leading From Behind' Quote Came From White House Official

NEW YORK -- When "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno asked President Obama this week about "leading from behind" in Libya, the president pointed out that he never actually said those three words, which have frequently been used to describe his foreign policy strategy. "This was a phrase that the media picked up on," Obama said, adding the U.S. actually "led from the front" through the United Nations and in NATO.

It wasn't just the media that ran with the phrase, originally attributed to an unnamed "adviser" in a May piece by the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza. Several Republican candidates brought the phrase to the stump while trying to depict the administration as weak or taking a backseat on the international stage. In August, HuffPost reported on the "evolution" of this blind quote, which evolved a bit more on Thursday.

In a USA Today piece about the origins of phrase, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said that "no one in this White House ever" used it. Vietor pointed out that that Lizza had sourced the phrase to an "adviser" and argued that "there are hundreds of people who could credibly be called an 'adviser' to the president, and there are hundreds more who go to D.C. cocktail parties and claim to be one."

Lizza responded on Twitter that the phrase came out of the mouth of a White House official, even though that attribution wasn't in the original piece. HuffPost asked Vietor about his statement to USA Today in light of Lizza's clarification that the phrase had come out of the White House. He responded in an email:

My point is this -- there's has been an enormous amount of press attention given to a background quote that didn’t reflect reality then, and I'd argue that with the death of bin Laden, the U.S. leadership of the civilian protection effort in Libya, and our foreign policy record generally, hasn't worn wear well over time. Until now, despite many conversations with Ryan and others at the New Yorker and months of the line being twisted and used to attack the President, it was always thinly sourced to an 'adviser.' Why Ryan decided to change his sourcing is a mystery to me, but that doesn’t change the fact that the President has been leading on foreign policy since his first day in office, and has an impressive record to show for it. I guess I should've said 'no one at the WH who knows how the President actually thinks' said that, but regardless I hope we can start talking about our actual record and not an article from May.

Lizza, too, doesn't seem to want to say much more about that article from May. When reached by email, he declined to comment about using a different description Thursday for his source than he did when the piece was published six months ago.

Comments

[JFaye]

03:56 AM on 10/31/2011

Lead from behind ... whatever; the former President led with his behind and that proved quite costly with lives (the deceased and physically disabled now ... as well their families) and our nations resources. Take your pick.

[92102]

09:34 PM on 10/30/2011

Quite frankly I like the 'leading from behind' strategy. It's about time the Europeans had some real skin in the game.

Americans usually have the privelage of footing the bill finacially and in terms of manpower while the Europeans enjoy free healthcare and more vacation time. How about we start spending the money used to defend the rest of the world on ourselves. Let them pay for their own military.

[apoyo]

09:34 AM on 10/30/2011

I don't know why everyone focuses on the "behind."

The key word in this phrase is: Leading.

All managers get the job done through others,
in a way, leading from behind.

[Reader2323]

07:22 PM on 10/30/2011

How true. The best boss I ever had drew organization charts upside down, showing himself at the bottom and the front line folks at the top.

[Sirlarek]

01:29 AM on 10/31/2011

Good management will climb into the ditch with the workers. If leaders won't do it....why would the followers.

Just saying.

[ydnas639]

02:05 AM on 10/31/2011

There is nothing like good management, and the GOP and its supporters are nothing like good management.

[SWEET MONTANA]

11:29 AM on 10/28/2011

Only a huge man can lead from behind ;) I love it when they do, if you know what I mean.

[apoyo]

09:35 AM on 10/30/2011

They?

[MakersMark]

10:12 AM on 10/28/2011

Lizza coined the phrase himself and Joe S. picked it up and kept it going for 3 hours every day about this President.

[Screed]

07:50 AM on 10/28/2011

Better than Bush, who led from behind Cheney.

[wendy scott]

02:02 AM on 10/29/2011

Bush lead from his behind.

[Sirlarek]

01:31 AM on 10/31/2011

They both lied from behind

[kstatements]

06:57 AM on 10/28/2011

So many unnamed informants.........so many lies.

[kokobin]

09:26 AM on 10/28/2011

So many unnamed informants­.........s­o many lies.
****
So many re_pukes

[grayforester]

11:01 AM on 10/28/2011

I know - ain't the right wing media a marvel?

[Absolute]

06:42 AM on 10/28/2011

Lizza is running from his claims.

[Subvet]

04:13 AM on 10/28/2011

The republicans are embarrassed that President Obama's approach to military strategy, that is, Police Action-like surgical strikes with SEAL Teams, drones, and NATO airpower support of Libya's anti-Ghadafi forces, instead of the failed full-scale Bush/Cheney-like shock-n-awe invasions resulting in guerilla war and quagmire, have proven that the Democrats military strategy is clearly superior and more cost effective than what the republicans have accomplished this past decade.

Although republicans have assumed they were superior in military matters, the facts on the ground prove different. The Democrats skills far exceed their wildy expensive and ineffective conservative approach.

[Janet Root Wetherell]

05:37 AM on 10/28/2011

It is a matter of using brain over braun..with what we have in the miltary arsenal there is no reason to put our soldiers in harms way if it can be helped..makes me wonder why the rpeub/tp are complaining about that?? Why would they rather have it the other way..war machine money maybe?? or just plain envy for a job well done, they did not do previously..

[kstatements]

06:54 AM on 10/28/2011

It is also a matter of not being a slave to companies like Halliburton who are only looking at the profit such costly engagements like Bush and Cheney wanted could bring them and their business. Not to mention those guys own stock in said companies also directly, indirectly or both. Much of what Bush and Cheney did in those 8 years was to transfer the wealth of the country to their friends and families at the expense of the nation. We have now seen how modern warfare can and should be conducted......and could have been conducted over during the Bush administration but wasn't so that his friends could profit from a false war he started just to transfer the weath of the country. It was partially about oil, but it was mostly about transferring personal wealth to his friends.

[wendy scott]

02:01 AM on 10/29/2011

Cheeney and Bush had to "break" everything so_Halli.burton could then charge us to come in and "fix it"

[nlkennedy]

03:06 AM on 10/28/2011

This president seems to be leading from above.

Letting others play themselves right out of the game.

[emma richmond]

03:04 AM on 10/28/2011

Thanks HP for the Article, the MEDIA won't talk about it, but they sure got on the fast track to say he led from behind, why don't they man up and apologize to the PRESIDENT.

[Nell608]

02:01 AM on 10/28/2011

"Lead from behind" is one more catchy sound byte that too many people seem to accept without looking at Obama's approach to governing. He has been in charge without coming across as "the boss;" he brings together people to discuss a specific issue, more of a consensus builder. Thus far he has a commendable list of accomplishments. So perhaps his take-charge style should be thought of as a bringing together for a common interest/goal in the manner of a shepherd who is moving his flock to new grazing land - not the out-front guy. That's a new paradigm.

Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, or Rick Perry suggest that their leadership would be "seat of the pants" flying, and in some cases based on their religiously-based political views. Considering those alternatives, Obama's collegiality sounds good; however, it would be a lot more effective if he had majorities in both the House and Senate. That's what Progressives should be working toward.

[PatrickforO]

02:43 AM on 10/28/2011

Quite. Fanned and faved. Obama's leadership around the Libya situation was very good. He didn't 'lead from behind,' he led from behind the scenes, and strongly at that. I'm ready to support him again in 2012. And, as you suggest, do everything I can during the campaign and and with my vote to get these Tea Partiers out. It is one thing to have genuine disagreements with people over real issues and then sit down and pound out a compromise everyone can live with - this is what the American people expect - and quite another to be so obstructive that nothing gets done at all, which is what we have now. We simply must enact some tax increases as well as making some cuts, and many of those cuts should be on the corporate welfare side (Lockheed Martin has received $17 billion in US tax dollars so far this year, and 27 companies have received over a billion to date) - that's not right when our kids average $26,000 in student debt, 1 in 4 American children under 5 is living in poverty, 47 million still don't have healthcare but we spend more than any other country on it. Not right.

[h111aryc1inton]

08:05 AM on 10/28/2011

Not right at all - seems wrong to me when corporations get sweatheart loan deals that only leave the US Taxpayer on the hook when the company files for bankruptcy.

And check out this great deal - $737 Million in Loan Guarentees to Tonopah Solar (a company that Nancy Polosi's brother-in-law is involved with). $737 MIllion to create 600 direct jobs and maybe another 4,300 more jobs, that works out to $147,000 per job.

[Nell608]

04:09 PM on 10/28/2011

Thank you. Issues haven't been broken down into bite-size pieces that people understand; they vote for catchy slogans, not substance. My comments are not for your benefit, PatrickforO.

We should stop favor-the-rich/financial/ business-complex and find balance between business and government, sans Citizens United. Favor-the-rich stuff is like the Middle Eastern countries now trying to get out from under wealthy dictators who seized power. And many Americans can't see how foxy Fox/Murdoch is leading the way with Hannity etc. It's not just the Middle East that needs awakening.

I wonder how many people understand that a billion is 1000 millions. If Lockheed Martin had a billion less, that would be 1000 million we could spend on student loans or something else. Divided equally, each state would get 1000 /50 = 20 millions which reasonably covers a major part of student expenses - although distribution should be based on population. Our budget should be addressing and relieving many of the problems facing large numbers of people. So government-supported industries should also feel cutbacks. And voters who support business without consideration of human costs ought to realize that they are putting this country on the path to the deplorable conditions we see in 3rd world countries where advantages go to the wealthy and powerful. That's not the vision I have for this country and why I cannot support GOP candidates with their vision of a GOP/business ruling class they want to replace our democracy.

[PAULETTE WILLIAMS]

12:54 AM on 10/31/2011

Go tell it on the Mountain, Nell608! Yes, Yes, Yes

[DMSmith]

01:58 AM on 10/28/2011

Leading from behind is not the same as leading from behind the scenes.

[kstatements]

06:56 AM on 10/28/2011

I guess there wasn't much point in your statement there.

[DMSmith]

08:29 PM on 10/28/2011

The point is obvious. Guessing won't help you figure it out.

[dorothy bnks]

01:24 AM on 10/28/2011

There was no "adviser." Lizza coined the term himself and those wanting to make President Obama look weak, latched onto. it. Lizza got caught in his lie. He should have told the truth and admitted that it was his personal opinion that the president was leading from behind in Libya. Lizza is one I don't take seriously, one word that pundits and bloggers say. Especially those who make themselves a part of the story.

[Giverny]

08:13 AM on 10/28/2011

Yes, and he is anything but weak in foreign affairs as they had previously reputed.

[PAULETTE WILLIAMS]

12:58 AM on 10/31/2011

Um-Huh, tell em Ms. Dorothy! Before anybody want to know, let me tell you, I am the Amen Choir. Just Sayin

[SMK1414]

11:27 PM on 10/27/2011

The lesson: don't believe that all the media follow a journalistic code of ethics. I always think twice when reading, esp stuff from sources or the general statements that direct opinion conclusions. The media are getting irresponsible and this shows it.

Good for Obama for calling the media out. It works when we question what we are reading or watching,

[PAULETTE WILLIAMS]

01:02 AM on 10/31/2011

Check out how cool he was with his response. Herb Cain should take some lessons from our Prez. Fav & Fanned.