I wish the media and Democrats would get past the Text/Using Signal/Incompetence issues of this thing and get to the meat on the bone. Why were US pilots put in harms way to create a way to shake down Europe for protection $? This was more a publicity stunt than a real War plan. "We need to send a message" - to whom? Did killing a bunch of civilians and a couple of Houthies on land open up the shipping lanes? No it did not. So why was it done? So Trump can look strong and make Europe pay. So again, why put our servicemen in harms way? What did Trump know about it and when did he know it? Go for the head of the Regime, not the useless co-conspirators.
Good point but not one that is reallly going to get any traction. There will be some excuse that it was done in some indirect shape or form to serve Americaâs interests. To Trump⦠sending a message might be sufficient justification.
Now if American lives were lost in the conflict (especially if it was in conjunction with an information leak)⦠there would be more questions raised as to the âwhyâ of it.
I wish the media and Democrats would get past the Text/Using Signal/Incompetence issues of this thing and get to the meat on the bone. Why were US pilots put in harms way to create a way to shake down Europe for protection $? This was more a publicity stunt than a real War plan. "We need to send a message" - to whom? Did killing a bunch of civilians and a couple of Houthies on land open up the shipping lanes? No it did not. So why was it done? So Trump can look strong and make Europe pay. So again, why put our servicemen in harms way? What did Trump know about it and when did he know it? Go for the head of the Regime, not the useless co-conspirators.
Thereâs no question that the Democratic Party is suffering an identity crisis. The party screwed up. And here we are.
But that doesnât make Democrats responsible for Trumpâs contemptuous (and contemptible) dealings with our allies. It doesnât mean that Democrats get the blame for the current gutting of vital government projects. The assault on scientific research, the anti-science of Kennedy, the antics of Musk â none of that is on Democrats. And yet some of the commentary I read and discussions I hear suggest or communicate as much.
Just as Kurtster is trying to pin this Marvel Comic Book mishap on the Atlantic Reporter 'who didn't speak up' when the frat boys were lighting a bonfire to sensitive military information for everyone to see, is a textbook example of Trumpist blame shift.
Yes, If Democrats had been smarter, humbler, more realistic, someone as lawless and lavishly flawed as Trump wouldnât have reclaimed the presidency mere years after his unconscionable attempt to steal it.
But don't lose sight of the fact that while Democratic error helped open the door to Trump, it didnât compel him to wreak havoc once he sauntered through it. It didnât foreordain his cruelty and nihilism. He and his team are the agents of the wreckage since his inauguration, each bit of it their considered, even gleeful, choice. Republicans are responsible for this.
Fair points. I do remember that. Kinda got lost in the dust up. Not a shining moment for anyone involved.
got lost in the dust that YOU threw up (well your handlers while working on their response).
This doesn't look bad for Goldberg. He took the appropriate cautions and it's fucking sad that he was being reasonable thinking it was a disinformation campaign. It's fucking pathetic that would be the smart cause, but instead it's just garden variety incompetence. And then you come around trying to defend it. You look as dumb as the team on that chat.
Perhaps Goldberg was somewhat skeptical that the people in the chat were actually who they claimed to be. He didn't confirm what had transpired in that chat until he had heard that the bombs were actually falling. ...After receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
Fair points. I do remember that. Kinda got lost in the dust up. Not a shining moment for anyone involved.
You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You need to be challenged more often to raise your game.
Your laurels are too well rested to be of any meaningful support these days.
Actually itâs the other way around. Your arguments donât even rise to the level of weak. Your continued support of a bunch of reckless, incompetent fools falls flat when the main problem you see is not with the idiots sharing the timing and results of a sensitive military attack but with the reporter who was included in the chat group. Almost like calling a witness to a crime responsible for the crime.
Of course he had to let it play out to see whether someone would realize what is happening. The fact that no one did is a further indictment of the lack of security being employed by your boob masters. Who do you think should get fired for this Kurtster? I mean if your buddy Musk can fire thousands for no reason, this would certainly be a reason to let some people go. The Signal app is not considered a secure channel of communication anyway so why are they even using it?
What ally of ours is ever going to provide us with sensitive information if they believe that their information could be compromised? You need to start thinking big picture (not small) about the repercussions of things like this and what it says about this administration and our eroding standing in the world.
If this incident would have happened under Biden you would have had a field day posting about it. As it is, you are playing defense but itâs not working. You need to acknowledge it for what it is: A dangerous colossal f*ck up by people who should know better but donât.
...
The reporter was wrong for not alerting the participants that the call could be unsecured and compromised. You don't see that way though.
This is how people can look at the same thing and have different reactions and conclusions. This is not the next January 6th. Get over it.
Perhaps Goldberg was somewhat skeptical that the people in the chat were actually who they claimed to be. He didn't confirm what had transpired in that chat until he had heard that the bombs were actually falling.
...After receiving the Waltz text related to the âHouthi PC small group,â I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
So now you're saying Jan 6th was a big deal? it's so hard to keep up with your stream of bullshit. I know you can't stop the bullshit, so maybe just post less?
I was thinking of posting more actually.
You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You need to be challenged more often to raise your game.
Your laurels are too well rested to be of any meaningful support these days.
Yeah, it was a group chat. Calling it a call doesn't change what I said.
He still could have spoke up figuratively speaking by texting uh, guys, am I supposed to be on this call ? Something's wrong and if I can be on this call, anyone can. You guys should terminate this conversation immediately.
Doesn't change what I referenced regarding the reporter's misguided concerns. He could have acted, but didn't. He made a conscious choice not to. It would have been the right to do thing if he was truly concerned about national security.
This would be two wrongs on one "call". The administration did act swiftly and acknowledged the call, said it was a mistake and steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. No cover up, no denials.
The reporter was wrong for not alerting the participants that the call could be unsecured and compromised. You don't see that way though.
This is how people can look at the same thing and have different reactions and conclusions. This is not the next January 6th. Get over it.
So now you're saying Jan 6th was a big deal?
it's so hard to keep up with your stream of bullshit. I know you can't stop the bullshit, so maybe just post less?
Here, try this one. If the Atlantic "journalist" was actually worried about our national security, especially with his background, he would have spoken up during the call and said, uh, guys, am I supposed to be on this call ? Something's wrong and if I can be on this call, anyone can. You guys should terminate this conversation immediately. But no. He just played fly on the wall only thinking about himself and the big "scoop" he was about to get. To hell with the best interests of the US. Me, me, me. Got 'em. I'll be a hero ! Fortunately, the information discussed was no big deal to begin with as noted by the reduction of hyperbole used to describe the call and the mission was a success.
Here try this one.
Go back and read up on what this was all about. There was no call… dummy!! Become at least somewhat informed about something before you post about it. Oh and yeah, this is all the reporter’s fault that sensitive information was shared with him.
Yeah, it was a group chat. Calling it a call doesn't change what I said.
He still could have spoke up figuratively speaking by texting uh, guys, am I supposed to be on this call ? Something's wrong and if I can be on this call, anyone can. You guys should terminate this conversation immediately.
Doesn't change what I referenced regarding the reporter's misguided concerns. He could have acted, but didn't. He made a conscious choice not to. It would have been the right to do thing if he was truly concerned about national security.
This would be two wrongs on one "call". The administration did act swiftly and acknowledged the call, said it was a mistake and steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. No cover up, no denials.
The reporter was wrong for not alerting the participants that the call could be unsecured and compromised. You don't see that way though.
This is how people can look at the same thing and have different reactions and conclusions. This is not the next January 6th. Get over it.
