Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
But honestly, the reporter should've had the integrity to not say anything about it. Get in touch with them and tell them hey you got me on here this is a mistake. But no, he had to publish it because he wants to be a dick and is probably a Democrat. He put clicks and putting down the administration over being a good citizen.

---

IndividualFreedom said:

This has been going through my head as well. This fella had an opportunity to be better. He also had an opportunity to take a step forward with his enemy and went the other direction. This fella is not a true playa

I also wonder about his decision to throw up all the details so quickly. Does that mean he knows it was truly a mistake and it will never happen again. Had he been quiet, could it have happen again. This is why I was asking about how Signal works. If this was some kind of group, and he was included, he could have had a true gold mine.

---

So, in your opinion, because that's all any of us are actually able to offer here, what would have been better? Go to the folks in the text group and say, "So, I'm from the Atlantic and y'all added me to this text group. I have receipts. Why?"

It's not like he asked to be added. He was added by someone in the know and 17 other people in the chat spoke freely. No one questioned who this guy was. If anything, it should certainly give someone, ANYONE, pause to say, "WTF is this guy?" before sharing anything. Can we at least acknowledge that? In this day and age where everything is AI/FAKE, our leaders should know better

---

Quote:

---

So, in your opinion, because that's all any of us are actually able to offer here, what would have been better? Go to the folks in the text group and say, "So, I'm from the Atlantic and y'all added me to this text group. I have receipts. Why?

---

Yes. Coulda Woulda but in this case the quote is above is the Shoulda. Because it was the right thing to do.



From now on, I think our leaders using this Signal app should have a disclaimer posted and individually response to.... something like:

If anyone is on this group chat without having signed the official USA group chat permission slip then you are in the wrong place and will be prosecuted. Leave now and no harm will follow.

The answer is not to use the app at all, it's a potential security breach…

ETFan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

amercer said:

---

So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.

---

I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

---

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?

---

Yes, very curious! Never mind the fact I've been here 11+ years and I owe TAMU a lot of money. Life happened brother.

Heg, Waltz, Vance, the press secretary, Trump, and everyone defending, deflecting, and minimizing this. HTH

---

So you think they are all stupid people? IDK. They've accomplished a lot more than most of us. I guess we're all REALLY stupid then.

Curious ... have you ever met Trump? Have you ever interviewed him one on one? If you have, what were you impressions of him?

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.

---

It's a video of the press secretary and a quote, all direct evidence. I'm not sure what you want? You can just watch what she said and ignore who tweeted it?

---

And thankfully there is an ignore feature on this site so we can all ignore your crap commentary.

---

why are you mad at me? Did I say something about you? Pretty weak response though.

Political Rant incoming on the Houthis Leaked Groupchat. If you don’t like my political rants just keep the line moving. pic.twitter.com/YjKN2u8YU5

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) March 26, 2025

ETFan said:

---

Leavitt: “If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well. And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and… pic.twitter.com/Ou6KpqRL4m

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) March 26, 2025

Complete joke of an admin. They can't handle the simplest, softball issues.

"Dissemination of this information, through the signal medium and the addition of a misidentified reporter was a mistake that could have jeopardized our troops, allies, and mission success. Luckily no such harm came to pass and we are taking every necessary step to be sure this doesn't happen again. Mike will be stepping down from his position as NSA"

Easy. Instead we have unqualified, weak men, and their weaker sycophantic base cheering on a denial tour. It's... completely baffling to any free-thinking person who gives two ****s about America.

---

Overreact much?

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.

---

It's a video of the press secretary and a quote, all direct evidence. I'm not sure what you want? You can just watch what she said and ignore who tweeted it?

---

And thankfully there is an ignore feature on this site so we can all ignore your crap commentary.

---

Yup, I did the same with the hullaballo troll a while back and it looks like he's still trying to reply to my posts in this thread lol.

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

amercer said:

---

So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.

---

I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

---

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?

---

Yes, very curious! Never mind the fact I've been here 11+ years and I owe TAMU a lot of money. Life happened brother.

Heg, Waltz, Vance, the press secretary, Trump, and everyone defending, deflecting, and minimizing this. HTH

---

So you think they are all stupid people? IDK. They've accomplished a lot more than most of us. I guess we're all REALLY stupid then.

Curious ... have you ever met Trump? Have you ever interviewed him one on one? If you have, what were you impressions of him?

---

Their positions have nothing to do with their intelligence. Otherwise, you've claimed the democrat admin was just as intelligent/qualified, by simply reaching those positions. I can't paint all of them with that brush, nor would I paint everyone in the Trump admin with that brush. But you asked, that's my answer.

I've seen Trump talk more times than I care to hear. Same for Biden. I wish neither had come anywhere close to the POTUS position.

EDIT: Imagine being so fragile you block people because they have a different opinion. Trolling their post history and length of forum usage. I have said nothing negative towards these posters, but the simple existence of a different opinions makes them that upset. lmao. It's also a distraction and thread derailing, but hey mods for me not for thee.

This thing appears to be pretty much a screw up or miscarriage of security habits, that also may have been a product of deliberate action by some involved. The security setup failure of using a method not sufficiently rigorous is separate from the possibility it may not have been an accident (that's the part playing out) But the reaction to it has been a bit too defensive and a PR lesson about not overdoing just saying "Well its A or B and we are trying to figure the cluster out still."

But again, the outrage is faux. You can't have been okay with enabling crime and open border like many of those feigning outrage in the commentariat were, and be remotely concerned with security.

titan said:

---

This thing appears to be pretty much a screw up or miscarriage of security habits, that also may have been a product of deliberate action by some involved. The security setup failure of using a method not sufficiently rigorous is separate from the possibility it may not have been an accident (that's the part playing out) But the reaction to it has been a bit too defensive and a PR lesson about not overdoing just saying "Well its A or B and we are trying to figure the cluster out still."

But again, the outrage is faux. You can't have been okay with enabling crime and open border like many of those feigning outrage in the commentariat were, and be remotely concerned with security.

---

I like your take…I've never voted for a dem in my life and the border and deficit have been my biggest concerns. I think it's okay to want your senior officials following the rules. Not all of us questioning this are saying kacklin could do it better. I'm just questioning the current qb on the field for DoD.

Can someone help me understand what I'm missing? Here's how I see it:

-Signal is a good app, but there is evidence to suggest it may not be fully secure (Russian targeting of Signal network)
-At a minimum, it lacks verification for who you add to a group chat. That seems like an important feature for any communication platform with high level sensitive information being passed around.
-Goldberg got added to the chat. Even if the encryption is not broken by the Russians, the human element provides an obvious security hole in the use of this app
-Discussion was had about the operation, then somewhat more specific information was shared
-This information doesn't tell you or I enough details to potentially disrupt the operation or put American lives in danger. However, if it were in the hands of the enemy, there are plausible/feasible actions that could have been taken by the enemy to limit the effectiveness of the attack and/or put Americans at risk. I'm not sure if the Houthis have the capability of shooting down an F-18, but they could certainly tell all of their senior leaders to immediately leave their current locations and move to secure ones if they had received the information posted by Hegseth.

So to me it is neither a nothingburger nor a massive earth shifting leak. It is an example of a number of significant mistakes compounding to create a situation where we are lucky that the mistakes did not cost us more than a political firestorm. Without serious consequences and revisions to how this sort of communication occurs, it is totally plausible that in the future another mistake could have much bigger consequences.

Focusing on what happened is important. The consequences should reflect the fact that in the end nothing actually bad happened (the operation was a success, etc). However, if we act like this is a total nothing burger and do not take the "playbook" laid out here seriously, it is basically a guarantee that our enemies will try to exploit this weakness and create a situation that has much more significant consequences in the future.

I have zero doubt that many high ranking officials could fall prey to a phishing attack or phone number spoofing operation that seemingly could get a foreign agent/asset access to one or more of these chats in the future. That needs to be taken seriously and addressed. Phones these days have highly capable biometric security measures, the fact that someone could be added by phone number and screen name alone without any sort of positive ID that the person being added is the one who is intended is a massive security hole.

The people who made the mistakes here should be punished, but it's also important to take a critical look at what processes led to the mistakes and remedy them immediately. This doesn't need to be a witch hunt. If the Trump admin would take accountability and say "we are putting processes in place that will prevent anything like this from happening in the future" I would be pretty satisfied with the outcome, assuming they actually follow through.

The fact the Hillary had a server, Biden authorized Signal, Benghazi happened, or any other separate event is not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. We are the USA, we should be the most secure, the best, the badass-est from top to bottom. Why should anyone on either side be willing to accept any less?

ETFan said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.

---

It's a video of the press secretary and a quote, all direct evidence. I'm not sure what you want? You can just watch what she said and ignore who tweeted it?

---

And thankfully there is an ignore feature on this site so we can all ignore your crap commentary.

---

why are you mad at me? Did I say something about you? Pretty weak response though.

Political Rant incoming on the Houthis Leaked Groupchat. If you don’t like my political rants just keep the line moving. pic.twitter.com/YjKN2u8YU5

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) March 26, 2025

---

Already posted pages ago. Do better.

ETFan said:

---

Leavitt: “If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well. And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and… pic.twitter.com/Ou6KpqRL4m

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) March 26, 2025

Complete joke of an admin. They can't handle the simplest, softball issues.

"Dissemination of this information, through the signal medium and the addition of a misidentified reporter was a mistake that could have jeopardized our troops, allies, and mission success. Luckily no such harm came to pass and we are taking every necessary step to be sure this doesn't happen again. Mike will be stepping down from his position as NSA"

Easy. Instead we have unqualified, weak men, and their weaker sycophantic base cheering on a denial tour. It's... completely baffling to any free-thinking person who gives two ****s about America.

---

They made a mistake and let a reporter who shouldn't have been a part of the conversation into the conversation. Lesson learned. You can bet it won't happen again. Nobody was hurt, the mission was a success.

It is Trump's choice as to whether anyone's head will roll for this, or if there will be a private reprimand that we likely never hear about. It's his call to make. He certainly won't let upset Democrats dictate what his response will be. I realize they want their pound of flesh, but he doesn't owe them a damn thing.

There is also nothing wrong with the press secretary pointing out that the person involved is a well documented, politically motivated left wing hack that at best is not unbiased towards Trump and is obviously intentionally using this opportunity to try and hurt him and his administration politically.

Weak Democrats and their weaker sycophantic base piling on and creating drama like they always do, being inescapably driven by their TDS. It's sad, but then again, it's well known they don't give two rips about America or anything in its best interest.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Already posted pages ago. Do better.

---

So very very sorry! Thank you for pointing that out!

ETFan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

amercer said:

---

So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.

---

I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

---

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?

---

Yes, very curious! Never mind the fact I've been here 11+ years and I owe TAMU a lot of money. Life happened brother.

Heg, Waltz, Vance, the press secretary, Trump, and everyone defending, deflecting, and minimizing this. HTH

---

So you think they are all stupid people? IDK. They've accomplished a lot more than most of us. I guess we're all REALLY stupid then.

Curious ... have you ever met Trump? Have you ever interviewed him one on one? If you have, what were you impressions of him?

---

Their positions have nothing to do with their intelligence. Otherwise, you've claimed the democrat admin was just as intelligent/qualified, by simply reaching those positions. I can't paint all of them with that brush, nor would I paint everyone in the Trump admin with that brush. But you asked, that's my answer.

I've seen Trump talk more times than I care to hear. Same for Biden. I wish neither had come anywhere close to the POTUS position.

EDIT: Imagine being so fragile you block people because they have a different opinion. Trolling their post history and length of forum usage. I have said nothing negative towards these posters, but the simple existence of a different opinions makes them that upset. lmao. It's also a distraction and thread derailing, but hey mods for me not for thee.

---

I haven't blocked anyone. It took me 15 seconds to check your history and length of forum usage. I wanted to know who I was discussing this matter with. I am far from upset.

I have interviewing Trump twice one on one. I found him to be anything but stupid. I highly doubt Vance or Heg or Waltz or Vance or the press secretary are stupid either. I also believe that most -- if not all people -- that reach that level, regardless of which side they are on, are far from stupid.

But you're entitled to your own, albeit less informed decision ...

ETFan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ETFan said:

---

amercer said:

---

So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.

---

I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

---

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?

---

Yes, very curious! Never mind the fact I've been here 11+ years and I owe TAMU a lot of money. Life happened brother.

Heg, Waltz, Vance, the press secretary, Trump, and everyone defending, deflecting, and minimizing this. HTH

---

Again, for those in the back.

But hey after 2 1/2 months of greatness, this is all you can really get excited over.

National security advisor Michael Waltz assumed "full responsibility" for a leaked Signal group chat of senior Trump officials that discussed plans for a forthcoming strike on the Houthis in Yemen.

"I take full responsibility. I built the group,"Waltz said on "The Ingraham Angle" Tuesday. "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it."

Logos Stick said:

---

This is noise from the left that should be ignored. Correct the process and move on.

---

They are but it's their new J6 cry.

It's literally all they have.

Ag87H2O said:

---

There is also nothing wrong with the press secretary pointing out that the person involved is a well documented, politically motivated left wing hack that at best is not unbiased towards Trump and is obviously intentionally using this opportunity to try and hurt him and his administration politically.

Weak Democrats and their weaker sycophantic base piling on and creating drama like they always do, being inescapably driven by their TDS. It's sad, but then again, it's well known they don't give two rips about America or anything in its best interest.

---

The real bottom line is that somehow, some way, Trump has now got Democrats in the following positions;

• Oppose secure borders
• Oppose efficient government
• Oppose eliminating waste/fraud in the government
• In favor of more war(s)
• Opposed to bringing more industry/manufacturing back to the US
• In favor of legal rights for illegal alien gang members who are criminals
• Opposed to healthy foods and product liability for big pharma
• Opposed to American electric vehicles
• Opposed to continuing resolutions to keep the government open
• Opposed to returning education regulation to the states/local governments
• Opposed to free speech online and elsewhere
• Opposed to ending the prosecution of the black Democrat mayor of NYC
• Concerned about classified communications being securely handled to take out American enemies after the Hillary/Obama/Bill Clinton years/scandals.

I swear, he's a magician or something. Next he should light a cigar on camera in the Oval Office so they can come out against those being allowed there.

annie, they are the party of hate and spite and they're looking for anything they can desperately cling to for as long as they can talk about it. They'll get tired of it in a few days while the rest of us move forward.

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

This thing appears to be pretty much a screw up or miscarriage of security habits, that also may have been a product of deliberate action by some involved. The security setup failure of using a method not sufficiently rigorous is separate from the possibility it may not have been an accident (that's the part playing out) But the reaction to it has been a bit too defensive and a PR lesson about not overdoing just saying "Well its A or B and we are trying to figure the cluster out still."

But again, the outrage is faux. You can't have been okay with enabling crime and open border like many of those feigning outrage in the commentariat were, and be remotely concerned with security.

---

I like your take…I've never voted for a dem in my life and the border and deficit have been my biggest concerns. I think it's okay to want your senior officials following the rules. Not all of us questioning this are saying kacklin could do it better. I'm just questioning the current qb on the field for DoD.

---

Correct. Not all of your are implying that at all. You and other posters are not the `commentariat' .

annie88 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This is noise from the left that should be ignored. Correct the process and move on.

---

They are but it's their new J6 cry.

It's literally all they have.

---

Yep.

annie88 said:

---

National security advisor Michael Waltz assumed "full responsibility" for a leaked Signal group chat of senior Trump officials that discussed plans for a forthcoming strike on the Houthis in Yemen.

"I take full responsibility. I built the group,"Waltz said on "The Ingraham Angle" Tuesday. "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it."

---

Excellent! That's a good start. Now get the most public figure to do the same, do the same in front of congress. the loudest people with the most exposure are doing the most deflecting.

But, props for taking some responsibility. It really is that simple.

EDIT: The "Democrats just want to be outraged or things to be broken" opinion is bogus af. I have military of every branch in my family, I also happen to live in America! Imagine. So, I prefer the government not be clueless. I would love to never have another controversy to discuss here about Trump or Biden or anyone. But... I'm not secdef breaking opsec...

nortex97 said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

There is also nothing wrong with the press secretary pointing out that the person involved is a well documented, politically motivated left wing hack that at best is not unbiased towards Trump and is obviously intentionally using this opportunity to try and hurt him and his administration politically.

Weak Democrats and their weaker sycophantic base piling on and creating drama like they always do, being inescapably driven by their TDS. It's sad, but then again, it's well known they don't give two rips about America or anything in its best interest.

---

The real bottom line is that somehow, some way, Trump has now got Democrats in the following positions;

• Oppose secure borders
• Oppose efficient government
• Oppose eliminating waste/fraud in the government
• In favor of more war(s)
• Opposed to bringing more industry/manufacturing back to the US
• In favor of legal rights for illegal alien gang members who are criminals
• Opposed to healthy foods and product liability for big pharma
• Opposed to American electric vehicles
• Opposed to continuing resolutions to keep the government open
• Opposed to returning education regulation to the states/local governments
• Opposed to free speech online and elsewhere
• Opposed to ending the prosecution of the black Democrat mayor of NYC
• Concerned about classified communications being securely handled to take out American enemies after the Hillary/Obama/Bill Clinton years/scandals.

I swear, he's a magician or something. Next he should light a cigar on camera in the Oval Office so they can come out against those being allowed there.

---

Fairly juvenile, partisan, inaccurate summary of "dem positions", but glad we can agree that signalgate is bad

EDIT: Going to check out of this one now. I've said plenty, it's just a circle of "sharing military secrets through signal is bad but..."

Quote:

---

Fairly juvenile, partisan, inaccurate summary of "dem positions", but glad we can agree that signalgate is bad

EDIT: Going to check out of this one now. I've said plenty, it's just a circle of "sharing military secrets through signal is bad but..."

---

No worries, but the juvenile part is not my own, but the repetitious sanctimony of those on the left who want to excoriate Trump officials for using a Biden-approved communications platform, and some junior staffers who invited a communist propagandist to the chat, after excusing Hillary, Hunter, Joe, Schiff, Swalwell, etc. for leaking/sleeping with Chinese spies etc. deliberately over many years, to say nothing of General Milley or any number of other officials who betrayed their oaths to give classified information and comfort to our nations enemies.

The positions are quite real to us 'non rabid Democrats' who are watching with open eyes. We'll see who pulled this shenanigan off, and I hope this is wrong, but wouldn't be surprised (oh btw, the CCP ran the Obama and Biden White Houses, fwiw):

I swear if Loomer found the Signalgate leaker before our CIA did…

Read this deep dive and tell me it’s not conpelling https://t.co/LJZMeIjPyx

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) March 26, 2025

This is a gigantic blunder, but this editor and reporter compounded it by posting screenshots and jeopardizing the operational security of our armed forces.

Pete Hegseth: "Nobody is texting war plans. Well I noticed this morning, out came something that doesn't look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to 'attack plans,' because they know it's not war plans." pic.twitter.com/sJY3ZkIGsW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2025

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

This is a gigantic blunder, but this editor and reporter compounded it by posting screenshots and jeopardizing the operational security of our armed forces.

---

He did it after the operation had been completed, and after the administration denied it ever happed, and after administration officials denied the chat had classified information.

It will be interesting to see if any kind of angle /cause like that ^^^ plays out, but it doesn't take away the carelessness of the setup in use and that's the issue that should be dealt with less defensively.

But now just going to wait and see. Have explored the various scenarios involved. Ultimately yes, there is not much to this in the actual "what it did to anything" sense. At worst its a close-call that should be treated as an opportunity to correct some things.

At this point more interested in the streaker woman's motives at DFW and this ruling by the SC that seems to be a setback for the 2nd A.

Quote:

---

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

I must assume you are too young to have seen some of Rumsfeld's epic press confrontations. They'd ask him a very stupid question and he would zing them for it.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Pete Hegseth: "Nobody is texting war plans. Well I noticed this morning, out came something that doesn't look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to 'attack plans,' because they know it's not war plans." pic.twitter.com/sJY3ZkIGsW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2025

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

He's probably hammered

Anonymous Source said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Pete Hegseth: "Nobody is texting war plans. Well I noticed this morning, out came something that doesn't look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to 'attack plans,' because they know it's not war plans." pic.twitter.com/sJY3ZkIGsW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2025

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

He's probably hammered

---

He's right -- he titled his chat message.

It's a TEAM UPDATE.



With exact times and resources being used.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

I must assume you are too young to have seen some of Rumsfeld's epic press confrontations. They'd ask him a very stupid question and he would zing them for it.

---

I think most people left and right would say Rummy was a terrible SecDef

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

I must assume you are too young to have seen some of Rumsfeld's epic press confrontations. They'd ask him a very stupid question and he would zing them for it.

---

And, really, Dick Cheney in his prime was fairly entertaining as Sec Def. from the podium and in interviews (Bob Novak, RIP, here is doubly ironic, given the hysterical slander against him for unmasking the wife of a political operative who happened to have worked for the CIA, Valerie Plame):

Fun fact, he was confirmed 92-0 for the role, after the senate refused to approve John Tower (over essentially womanizing/drinking allegations).

And, look, for the young 'uns reading, going after the Defense Secretary for GOP presidents has been fair game at least back to Nixon, for the media. They got to Weinberger, of course.

Quote:

---

I think most people left and right would say Rummy was a terrible SecDef

---

Sacrilege! Without him we would not have the phrase "Unknown Unknowns"

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

regardless of what you think about how big of a deal or small of a deal this "leak" was. Is it too much to ask that our Sec Def be stoic and well reserved? I don't want a tv personality podcast bro as sec def giving sick clips in interviews.

---

I must assume you are too young to have seen some of Rumsfeld's epic press confrontations. They'd ask him a very stupid question and he would zing them for it.

---

Don't compare Pete to Rummy. Rummy was a master at it. Pete is a boy.

If you missed today's show, I'd highly recommend you watch at least the first segment. @gabbycuccia gave us some incredible insight and perspective on the SIGNAL story.

Our government has been using SIGNAL since 2014. https://t.co/ornmi1WDba pic.twitter.com/f6SSMMhYbh

— Jon Herold (@patel_patriot) March 25, 2025