Locator: 48363APPRENTICES.
Updates
March 26, 2025: when this story first broke, I was very, very upset. I felt the whole lot needed to be fired. But now, having listened to the opposition, it no longer bothers me. It has moved from the national security area to the political arena and it has taken on an entirely different argument / discussion.
March 26, 2025: in the big scheme of things, this breach in security was the best thing that could have ever happened to the Trump administration, and perhaps to any future administration.
March 26, 2025: I have now flip-flopped. More later. I have no problem with the Hegseth - Waltz - Trump trinity.
March 26, 2025: from the reporter's angle, another big story -- the reporter completely missed how big this story was -- he left the "Group Chat" early -- it is being reported -- because he found it boring.
March 25, 2025: following the unclassified House hearing on the breach, President Trump has to do the right thing, and decide between US law and his friends. This is a Shakespearian tragedy unfolding. A slow train wreck. [Wow, I certainly misread this story.]
March 25, 2025: based on the administration's "definition" of classified material, things have certainly changed since I was on active duty.
March 25, 2025: the breach is gaining very little traction. In addition, the emphasis -- by both the GOP and most media outlets -- is on the reporting by Goldberg, not on the breach itself, which I find more troublesome.
What little group chat text I read suggested not much was said except deciding on when and why the attack on the Houthis would be begin. If this is where the story stays, it will lost traction by the end of the week if not sooner. It is being reported that, for now, no heads will roll. From my perspective, that's the wrong emphasis.
I was not impressed with reported comments made by JD Vance.
Original Post
Senior Trump administration national-security officials held detailed discussions of highly classified U.S. plans to launch airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi militants using a nongovernment messaging service and mistakenly included a journalist in the conversation, U.S. officials said Monday.
The chats over the encrypted Signal app spanned days and included specific information about weapons, targets and timing used in the attack, according to the Atlantic magazine, whose editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included in the discussion and who disclosed the texts.
National-security experts and former officials say that use of Signal for conducting classified discussions about imminent military action was a serious breach of security procedures governing the handling of sensitive defense information.
It also opened a window into policy differences within the administration earlier this month.To highlight:
- highly classified chat was held over Signal, a non-government messaging service
- national-security experts and former officials say that use of Signal for conducting classified discussions about imminent military action was a serious breach of security procedures governing the handling of sensitive defense information
- upwards of two dozen high-level individuals were in on the call (and there could have been additional "strap-hangers" in the room) -- and no one notices "Goldberg's name"? -- a very, very well-known political writer covering DC politics -- in the "addressee list?
- the name is so well known, his name and telephone number on the "rolodex" of the national security advisor / or on speed dial.
- at that level of discussion, no one was in charge of who was on the "addressee" list?
- and, finally, most troublesome: the chats over the encrypted Signal app spanned days.
The users: none of the government officials saw "Goldberg's name on the addressee list?
The Signal chat group that discussed the planned strikes against the Houthis listed 18 users including Waltz, Hegseth, Vance, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, special envoy Steve Witkoff and a user identified as “MAR,” which appeared to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
- eighteen users: everyone but the president it seems.
- the group chat did not verify who was on the other end of the line?
Timing: unless I missed it, TWSJ article did not specify the days on which the group chat was held, but The Atlantic (IIRC) suggested the group chat began on March 11, almost two weeks ago to the day.
At the press conference today, President Trump clearly stated he was not aware of the Atlantic story or the broader issue. But at least some of the reporters at the press briefing were aware. Link here.
Geiger Capital is a straight shooter; credibility / insight beyond reproach. Link here.
Is this like Hunter losing his laptop computer?
Were the lapses in judgment .... Hillary ... Obama ... as charged ... as serious as this?
Sounds like 17 users in that group chat need to have another group chat and get their stories straight.
Right now, TWSJ stating that Trump is a) upset with his national security advisor, but b) still has complete faith in his team.
This sounds like something apprentices would do and someone needs to be ... shall we say it ... fired.
Again, this is only the first report of this and much is yet to be learned. These are simply personal thoughts on what is currently being reported.
We'll see how social media handles this story. Know what's weird? It's not even trending over at x. [Later: now it is: link here.]
ON THE OTHER HAND
This story is so incredulous, one wonders if "we're" not being set up.
I would like to say I'm agnostic on this one, but I'm not.
****************************
Much Later
I'm watching Gutfeld and Jesse Watters on Fox News tonight. The best way to weather the Signal debacle:
- a) ignore it; and,
- b) start making jokes about it.
The story will die.
98% of Americans will never pay attention to the story. Classified war plans against the Houthis? Oh give me a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.