Trump’s Defense Secretary Accidentally Texted War Plans to The Atlantic: ‘I Didn’t Think It Could Be Real,’ Editor Says

[RDKirk]

Taking out Houthi terrorist with great prejudice. And they did it.

The Secretary of Defense Giving updates on a military operation with, what he thought was, top level personnel is his JOB not a teenage bragging about his access to information. The person who set up the group chat deserves a rebuke/reprimand and have it go on his record.

Let's look:

1. No names
2. no targets
3. no locations
4. no units
5. no routes
6. no sources
7. no methods

AND the reporter didn't know what they were talking about until he heard from other sources the Houthis had been hit.

You have a very shallow understanding of what constitutes useful intelligence data.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You have a very shallow understanding of what constitutes useful intelligence data.

And you think too much of your experience and opinion.

 

[RDKirk]

And you think too much of your experience and opinion.

If we were talking about brain surgery, I'd agree.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

And you think too much of your experience and opinion.

I don't know RDKirk, never met him, and there are a very few things that I have disagreement with in some of his posts, but he is the real deal and I trust his experience and value his opinions. He is old school, can think for himself, and has wisdom from both age and experience. I can see why the modern flavor of the week conservatives would not like that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If we were talking about brain surgery, I'd agree.

or rocket science - or what the Secretary of Defense - knows and does.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't know RDKirk, never met him, and there are a very few things that I have disagreement with in some of his posts, but he is the real deal and I trust his experience and value his opinions. He is old school, can think for himself, and has wisdom from both age and experience. I can see why the modern flavor of the week conservatives would not like that.

glad he has a fan club - he comes across intelligent and informed - I enjoy reading his posts - and yet - there are moments of disagreement - go figure....

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

glad he has a fan club - he comes across intelligent and informed - I enjoy reading his posts - and yet - there are moments of disagreement - go figure....

I am trying to understand why some are defending this incident. From what I've seen in the news, it seems the journalist was mistakenly added to the group chat and not deliberately included. Regardless of whether the discussion involved national security or military secrets, we can all agree that such conversations should remain confidential unless sharing is necessary. So, why the defensiveness?

Have we become so partisan that we cannot acknowledge a simple error?

A straightforward question for you: regardless of the content discussed, should the top national security team in this country include journalists in their privet discussions?

 

[loveofourlord]

I am trying to understand why some are defending this incident. From what I've seen in the news, it seems the journalist was mistakenly added to the group chat and not deliberately included. Regardless of whether the discussion involved national security or military secrets, we can all agree that such conversations should remain confidential unless sharing is necessary. So, why the defensiveness?

Have we become so partisan that we cannot acknowledge a simple error?

A straightforward question for you: regardless of the content discussed, should the top national security team in this country include journalists in their privet discussions?

it's to try to cover the fact they were dumb enough to use it on a site they aren't allowed too, the more people complain about signal the more idiots they look like.

 

[Say it aint so]

I am trying to understand why some are defending this incident. From what I've seen in the news, it seems the journalist was mistakenly added to the group chat and not deliberately included. Regardless of whether the discussion involved national security or military secrets, we can all agree that such conversations should remain confidential unless sharing is necessary. So, why the defensiveness?

Have we become so partisan that we cannot acknowledge a simple error?

A straightforward question for you: regardless of the content discussed, should the top national security team in this country include journalists in their privet discussions?

Deny, Denigrate, Double down. It's far more than just an executive branch policy.

 

[BPPLEE]

I am trying to understand why some are defending this incident. From what I've seen in the news, it seems the journalist was mistakenly added to the group chat and not deliberately included. Regardless of whether the discussion involved national security or military secrets, we can all agree that such conversations should remain confidential unless sharing is necessary. So, why the defensiveness?

Have we become so partisan that we cannot acknowledge a simple error?

A straightforward question for you: regardless of the content discussed, should the top national security team in this country include journalists in their privet discussions?

Of course they shouldn't. Is anyone saying otherwise?
It was a mistake but this is not the scandal that it's being made out to be

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It was a bone head mistake and the man who started it should be warned

At this level of national security only a warning? Has anyone's confidence here not been shaken in these guys?

 

[Say it aint so]

Of course they shouldn't. Is anyone saying otherwise?
It was a mistake but this is not the scandal that it's being made out to be

Sen Ossof: Director Radcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?
CIA Director Radcliffe: No.

They aren't even admitting mistakes have been made.

 

[loveofourlord]

Of course they shouldn't. Is anyone saying otherwise?
It was a mistake but this is not the scandal that it's being made out to be

.....anyone else would have been court martialed or gone to jail, but yeah it's not make it a big scandal, lets ignore that such things should never be usd on a unsecure network. Oh I forgot since trump did it, it's not a big deal who cares, stop whining about national secrets out in the open. I love watching the hypocrisy and hilariousness of 8+ years of, "Hilary emails." on a far more secure device, but, "Stop whining." when it's a far less secure, far more aggregious violation.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Of course they shouldn't. Is anyone saying otherwise?
It was a mistake but this is not the scandal that it's being made out to be

Thank you. It was a mistake, and I agree. End of the story.

Regardless of the scandal or conspiracy theories propagated by the media or on social platforms, can we agree within this forum of Christians that this incident was a mistake and should not have occurred?

 

[BPPLEE]

Thank you. It was a mistake, and I agree. End of the story.

Regardless of the scandal or conspiracy theories propagated by the media or on social platforms, can we agree within this forum of Christians that this incident was a mistake and should not have occurred?

Yes it was a mistake and should not have happened.

 

[BPPLEE]

.....anyone else would have been court martialed or gone to jail, but yeah it's not make it a big scandal, lets ignore that such things should never be usd on a unsecure network. Oh I forgot since trump did it, it's not a big deal who cares, stop whining about national secrets out in the open. I love watching the hypocrisy and hilariousness of 8+ years of, "Hilary emails." on a far more secure device, but, "Stop whining." when it's a far less secure, far more aggregious violation.

Likewise if it had been anyone but Hillary they would've been charged

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Deny, Denigrate, Double down. It's far more than just an executive branch policy.

That's fine. I understand if the administration wants to deny it. I get why the national security advisor would deny it; he doesn't want to lose his job. I see why Republican politicians might deny the incident; criticizing the Trump administration could impact their re-election chances. Right-wing media also has a reason; supporting Trump helps maintain their viewership and revenue.

However, I am curious about what CF members have to lose by stating that this was a mistake and should not have happened.

 

[rjs330]

What was the goal?

To strike Houthis. They were going after certain sites and people. According to the Admin, they were successful hitting their targets.

Hegseth acted like a teenager bragging about his access to information. There is no justification for posting this information in an unsecured channel. He owns this (and his lies). The military will have good reason never to trust him again with such information.

First if all it wasn't unsecured. It's encrypted. Secondly this group was assembled regarding this purpose and it wasn't Hesgeth who assembled it. He had no reason to believe the group had a journalist in it, who wasn't supposed to be there.

He didn't act like a teenager. That's your prejudice talking. Waltz had a right to assemble this group. And none of us would have known anything about this if someone attached to Waltz hadn't invited the journalist by mistake. Which was a mistake which should be delt with.

 

[durangodawood]

That's fine. I understand if the administration wants to deny it. I get why the national security advisor would deny it; he doesn't want to lose his job. I see why Republican politicians might deny the incident; criticizing the Trump administration could impact their re-election chances. Right-wing media also has a reason; supporting Trump helps maintain their viewership and revenue.

However, I am curious about what CF members have to lose by stating that this was a mistake and should not have happened.

My sense is partisanship has become a matter of deep personal identity. And so talking about flaws or errors from your "side" threatens ones sense of self.

 

[rjs330]

That's fine. I understand if the administration wants to deny it. I get why the national security advisor would deny it; he doesn't want to lose his job. I see why Republican politicians might deny the incident; criticizing the Trump administration could impact their re-election chances. Right-wing media also has a reason; supporting Trump helps maintain their viewership and revenue.

However, I am curious about what CF members have to lose by stating that this was a mistake and should not have happened.

I dont think the American people care all that much. The Trump haters do of course. And I think most of us have said this was a mistake. There are quite a few right wing mediaites who have acknowledged this mistake. Is it the big deal the left wishes to make out of it? No. The mission was still a success, and someone learned a real lesson over who's part of a group like this.

We actually are doing something about these terrorists who just were pretty much ignored by Biden.