TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

I will say - the fact that this happened is troubling and very worrisome. Everyone (regardless of party affiliation) should realize that this was a major F up, and people should, and hopefully will, be fired over this. Particularly since national security is such a huge concern at this point in time.

It's OK to point out when our team screws up - acting like it's OK when things go amiss is when questions arise.

---

Nah, **** em

---

In general I would agree with that sentiment, but it's also OK to say that this was a major f*** up

---

I already said it was a **** up and said someone should probably receive punishment for the security lapse.

The longer and harder this is blown out of proportion, the more I lean towards **** em.

Whats interesting is how little is being talked about what was actually shared in the messages. Looks like a very competent and driven geoup of people making very tough decisions.

Further, someone in the group already claimed responsibility. Thats a far cry more than anything from the previous admin and all their **** ups.


So, no, I dont care anymore. Don't give them an inch. Pull a "this is being handled in house" response and move on

Fdsa said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't think everyone is safe on this yet, and if it continues to suck up oxygen in the room that Trump may still ultimately conclude it's best to fire somebody to move on from this (Waltz being most likely).

---

Oh, agree. Because it's not clear could not do much better. But it's going to depend on if some of the posts and links here indicating to some degree artificially engineered to take advantage of a weakness; pan out. Because that changes the narrative.

---

the thing about this is, Trump did nothing wrong - fire Pete and this passes in a day. Do you know how many Trump loving 44 yo male military guys have more experience than Pete? I would guess at least 1,500…and they all hate DEI. They might be missing the Fox News credentials.

---

I think we all understand that the ultimate goal of this story was to get at least one of Trump's appointees fired.

The media did that numerous times the last time he was in office.

There were a number of people that ****ed up. But, I don't think any of them committed fireable offenses.

If anything, WALZ is the one that would need to go, since it appears he was the one who added Goldberg.

---

Maybe…It needed to be brought up, maybe not in a news article, but someone with some authority needed to know the SECDEF is making mistakes like a guy out of basic. I've actually never seen anyone be this stupid with classified information, so no disrespect to all the new boot camp grads.

---

I was a fed Leo for 16 years and had a TS/SCI and people were very lax when handling classified information and routinely did business on personal devices.

This is a nothingburger.

---

yes, people are lax often…but they usually make take the effort to create the classified on unclass…that takes a lot of effort and time. And it's usually not the guy in charge of the whole deal.

---

Which info was classified?

So is this non-story the new "Russian collusion"?

Nowhere near that magnitude, even for a sandbagging.

After all, it was a victimless screw-up. Potential disaster doesn't count. That's the learn from it part of the equation -- what could have happened. But since it did not, just fix the procedures and move on.

Artorias said:

---

So is this non-story the new "Russian collusion"?

---

They're trying awfully hard to make it so.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't think everyone is safe on this yet, and if it continues to suck up oxygen in the room that Trump may still ultimately conclude it's best to fire somebody to move on from this (Waltz being most likely).

---

Oh, agree. Because it's not clear could not do much better. But it's going to depend on if some of the posts and links here indicating to some degree artificially engineered to take advantage of a weakness; pan out. Because that changes the narrative.

---

the thing about this is, Trump did nothing wrong - fire Pete and this passes in a day. Do you know how many Trump loving 44 yo male military guys have more experience than Pete? I would guess at least 1,500…and they all hate DEI. They might be missing the Fox News credentials.

---

I think we all understand that the ultimate goal of this story was to get at least one of Trump's appointees fired.

The media did that numerous times the last time he was in office.

There were a number of people that ****ed up. But, I don't think any of them committed fireable offenses.

If anything, WALZ is the one that would need to go, since it appears he was the one who added Goldberg.

---

Maybe…It needed to be brought up, maybe not in a news article, but someone with some authority needed to know the SECDEF is making mistakes like a guy out of basic. I've actually never seen anyone be this stupid with classified information, so no disrespect to all the new boot camp grads.

---

I was a fed Leo for 16 years and had a TS/SCI and people were very lax when handling classified information and routinely did business on personal devices.

This is a nothingburger.

---

yes, people are lax often…but they usually make take the effort to create the classified on unclass…that takes a lot of effort and time. And it's usually not the guy in charge of the whole deal.

---

Which info was classified?

---

if you were an F-18 pilot going against potential Iranian SAMs provided to the Houthis, which part would you want to be classified ?

Not sure my star to your response and thumbs up to this reply suffices!

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

Nothing was classified. And bear in mind that those throwing wall-eyed fits were silent when 13 Americans were killed in the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal. This is nothing but politics.

Fdsa said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't think everyone is safe on this yet, and if it continues to suck up oxygen in the room that Trump may still ultimately conclude it's best to fire somebody to move on from this (Waltz being most likely).

---

Oh, agree. Because it's not clear could not do much better. But it's going to depend on if some of the posts and links here indicating to some degree artificially engineered to take advantage of a weakness; pan out. Because that changes the narrative.

---

the thing about this is, Trump did nothing wrong - fire Pete and this passes in a day. Do you know how many Trump loving 44 yo male military guys have more experience than Pete? I would guess at least 1,500…and they all hate DEI. They might be missing the Fox News credentials.

---

I think we all understand that the ultimate goal of this story was to get at least one of Trump's appointees fired.

The media did that numerous times the last time he was in office.

There were a number of people that ****ed up. But, I don't think any of them committed fireable offenses.

If anything, WALZ is the one that would need to go, since it appears he was the one who added Goldberg.

---

Maybe…It needed to be brought up, maybe not in a news article, but someone with some authority needed to know the SECDEF is making mistakes like a guy out of basic. I've actually never seen anyone be this stupid with classified information, so no disrespect to all the new boot camp grads.

---

I was a fed Leo for 16 years and had a TS/SCI and people were very lax when handling classified information and routinely did business on personal devices.

This is a nothingburger.

---

yes, people are lax often…but they usually make take the effort to create the classified on unclass…that takes a lot of effort and time. And it's usually not the guy in charge of the whole deal.

---

Which info was classified?

---

if you were an F-18 pilot going against potential Iranian SAMs provided to the Houthis, which part would you want to be classified ?

---

I wouldn't give two honky shlts what the houthis knew. But I'm sure their spy network is quite sophisticated.

The houthis or the Iranians?

I generally think any and all digital messages are compromised. If I were king, my people would only be meeting in person or by a directly secured hard phone line.

But, that's not the modern world. So, every use of a phone is a potential problem. Just try not to make it easy on em.

I'd like to add:

Biden and his team ****ed up the Afghanistan withdrawal. He said there wouldn't be a chopper on the roof photo. And boom, it ****ing happened.

One photo shows US leaving Saigon(end of Vietnam War) and the other shows them leaving Kabul(end of Afghan war).

Same story 46 years apart pic.twitter.com/Ecpe1mfdXx

— Mykolo (@GumisirizaM) August 15, 2021

Then, everyone remember the images of afghans falling from the sky off our planes?

Tragic footage from Kabul airport. #Afghanistan pic.twitter.com/TBbfuqIP6J

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) August 16, 2021

Total opsec failure.

Then, remember when we had 13 Marines killed at abbey gate? Biden doesn't. Harris apparently didn't either.

How many people were punished for that monumental embarrassment and failure? No one.

Then, remember when bidens sec def went ****ing missing because he didn't tell Biden or anyone he was having surgery? Remember that **** up?

Punished? Nope. Not a damn thing happened to him despite going AWOL.

So, spare me. Walz, I guess, should be punished for inviting this dbag reporter onto the chat.

Or, just move on. Eff the dems trying to drive a divisive stake right now.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Nothing was classified. And bear in mind that those throwing wall-eyed fits were silent when 13 Americans were killed in the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal. This is nothing but politics.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with option 2

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Nothing was classified. And bear in mind that those throwing wall-eyed fits were silent when 13 Americans were killed in the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal. This is nothing but politics.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with option 2

---

Option 5: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/25/mike-waltz-signal-fox-interview-00249896

Take responsibility. Deal with the consequences. Move on.

Except I don't say it's fake news.

Go read my posts.

Nice try though

Who?mikejones is not engaging in whataboutism. Its comparison that the same crowd generally acting so out of breath about this had nothing to say about the absolute lack of any consequences or result from the Afghanistan fiasco. They just have no place to complain or remonstrate.

That leaves it to the internal critics, and they right censure the stupidity of the error. But the breathless stuff is nonsense when weighed to precedents on that side.

Its also why any firing probably out of line --- nothing happened for far, far more. A punishment of some kind would probably suffice. Unless you just want to replace some of them.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

You haven't provided evidence that this is more than a nothing burger

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Nothing was classified. And bear in mind that those throwing wall-eyed fits were silent when 13 Americans were killed in the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal. This is nothing but politics.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with option 2

---

Option 5: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/25/mike-waltz-signal-fox-interview-00249896

Take responsibility. Deal with the consequences. Move on.

---

You only start consider an option like that if the first 4 options are not as effective as you'd like putting out the fire. Which in this case is seems what has happened. They've been using all of the primary four options, and still actively are, but also got backed somewhat into 'yeah a mistake was made' corner because of the chats now being in public domain.

Ol Goldberg thought he had struck gold boy!

He could feel the tingles in his groin as he accepted that Pulitzer.

Didn't think to say, 'hey get me off this text chain, I'm not the intended recipient ... thats Gold stein you lookin' for'

Nope he saddled up that pony and rode like the wind,

Now here we are at.

Three days in the news cycle for some idiot fat-fingering his phone and nobody catching it.

The Atlantic of all people. and a boy name Goldberg.

What a time to be alive.

I Read the chats. Still don't care.

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't think everyone is safe on this yet, and if it continues to suck up oxygen in the room that Trump may still ultimately conclude it's best to fire somebody to move on from this (Waltz being most likely).

---

Oh, agree. Because it's not clear could not do much better. But it's going to depend on if some of the posts and links here indicating to some degree artificially engineered to take advantage of a weakness; pan out. Because that changes the narrative.

---

the thing about this is, Trump did nothing wrong - fire Pete and this passes in a day. Do you know how many Trump loving 44 yo male military guys have more experience than Pete? I would guess at least 1,500…and they all hate DEI. They might be missing the Fox News credentials.

---

I think we all understand that the ultimate goal of this story was to get at least one of Trump's appointees fired.

The media did that numerous times the last time he was in office.

There were a number of people that ****ed up. But, I don't think any of them committed fireable offenses.

If anything, WALZ is the one that would need to go, since it appears he was the one who added Goldberg.

---

Maybe…It needed to be brought up, maybe not in a news article, but someone with some authority needed to know the SECDEF is making mistakes like a guy out of basic. I've actually never seen anyone be this stupid with classified information, so no disrespect to all the new boot camp grads.

---

I was a fed Leo for 16 years and had a TS/SCI and people were very lax when handling classified information and routinely did business on personal devices.

This is a nothingburger.

---

yes, people are lax often…but they usually make take the effort to create the classified on unclass…that takes a lot of effort and time. And it's usually not the guy in charge of the whole deal.

---

Which info was classified?

---

if you were an F-18 pilot going against potential Iranian SAMs provided to the Houthis, which part would you want to be classified ?

---

I wouldn't give two honky shlts what the houthis knew. But I'm sure their spy network is quite sophisticated.

---

well, considering they get intel from Iran, I would just prefer to keep them asleep while I'm flying.

titan said:

---

Who?mikejones is not engaging in whataboutism. Its comparison that the same crowd generally acting so out of breath about this had nothing to say about the absolute lack of any consequences or result from the Afghanistan fiasco. They just have no place to complain or remonstrate.

That leaves it to the internal critics, and they right censure the stupidity of the error. But the breathless stuff is nonsense when weighed to precedents on that side.

Its also why any firing probably out of line --- nothing happened for far, far more. A punishment of some kind would probably suffice. Unless you just want to replace some of them.

---

That is literally the definition of Whataboutism. And both sides constantly do it.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

I don't think anyone is defending this or saying what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be that national secrets were compromised from what we have seen. I laugh at the left's "I don't ever want to hear about Hillary's e-mail server again!" You can criticize this and Hillary's e-mail server (which we still don't know what was on it because she destroyed it despite an order not to. Guess we'll have to ask the Chinese. Just sayin'). They are not mutually exclusive.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Nothing was classified. And bear in mind that those throwing wall-eyed fits were silent when 13 Americans were killed in the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal. This is nothing but politics.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with option 2

---

Option 5: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/25/mike-waltz-signal-fox-interview-00249896

Take responsibility. Deal with the consequences. Move on.

---

You only start consider an option like that if the first 4 options are not as effective as you'd like putting out the fire. Which in this case is seems what has happened. They've been using all of the primary four options, and still actively are, but also got backed somewhat into 'yeah a mistake was made' corner because of the chats now being in public domain.

---

Again, I agree this was a **** up and a bad look.

Your basically saying they are going through a standard pr crisis response. That's fine

I've just gotten to the point of not caring anymore. Theres no evidence the mission was damaged or threated in any way. Punish, fix, and then move on.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

A) information about the timing of an ongoing operation is Secret. I'm not assuming. This is standard.

B) I never claimed cyber actors were in the network but it wouldn't be the first time. See Russia on our unclassified network, 2015.

C) Thanks for informing me about the widespread use of Signal. I've used it to coordinate within DOD many times. Primarily personnel issues. Always unclassified. This is standard.

stetson said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

I don't think anyone is defending this or saying what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be that national secrets were compromised from what we have seen. I laugh at the left's "I don't ever want to hear about Hillary's e-mail server again!" You can criticize this and Hillary's e-mail server (which we still don't know what was on it because she destroyed it despite an order not to. Guess we'll have to ask the Chinese. Just sayin'). They are not mutually exclusive.

---

Yep, and Hillary's server issue and this are not in the same universe.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

titan said:

---

Who?mikejones is not engaging in whataboutism. Its comparison that the same crowd generally acting so out of breath about this had nothing to say about the absolute lack of any consequences or result from the Afghanistan fiasco. They just have no place to complain or remonstrate.

That leaves it to the internal critics, and they right censure the stupidity of the error. But the breathless stuff is nonsense when weighed to precedents on that side.

Its also why any firing probably out of line --- nothing happened for far, far more. A punishment of some kind would probably suffice. Unless you just want to replace some of them.

---

That is literally the definition of Whataboutism. And both sides constantly do it.

---

I agree both sides do it. But explained why his particular post was not. Put another way -- there is no onus for anyone to resign over this. It hasn't much been the practice. Even 9/11 didn't have much consequences--- the director was rewarded even. So there is no `obligation' ---- if they want to set a level, fine. But no obligation.

That's what his post reminded of.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

Lefties should learn the meaning of the idiotic fallacy term they made up.

"Whataboutism" would be when a person tries to justify current behavior based on past similar behavior by someone else.

Conservatives are not trying to justify the behavior based on what Dementia Joe did. They are telling libs to shut their corrupt, degenerate pieholes about it because they don't have a leg to stand on.

One of your fellow lefties accused me of whataboutism when he made the claim that past admins would have acted immediately to dismiss the responsible party. I responded with numerous examples of past incidents much worse than the current incident where no one was dismissed. The lefty then yells "whataboutism". Complete ****ing ******ation and fully expected from the left. You don't understand your own lexicon.

Fdsa said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

titan said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't think everyone is safe on this yet, and if it continues to suck up oxygen in the room that Trump may still ultimately conclude it's best to fire somebody to move on from this (Waltz being most likely).

---

Oh, agree. Because it's not clear could not do much better. But it's going to depend on if some of the posts and links here indicating to some degree artificially engineered to take advantage of a weakness; pan out. Because that changes the narrative.

---

the thing about this is, Trump did nothing wrong - fire Pete and this passes in a day. Do you know how many Trump loving 44 yo male military guys have more experience than Pete? I would guess at least 1,500…and they all hate DEI. They might be missing the Fox News credentials.

---

I think we all understand that the ultimate goal of this story was to get at least one of Trump's appointees fired.

The media did that numerous times the last time he was in office.

There were a number of people that ****ed up. But, I don't think any of them committed fireable offenses.

If anything, WALZ is the one that would need to go, since it appears he was the one who added Goldberg.

---

Maybe…It needed to be brought up, maybe not in a news article, but someone with some authority needed to know the SECDEF is making mistakes like a guy out of basic. I've actually never seen anyone be this stupid with classified information, so no disrespect to all the new boot camp grads.

---

I was a fed Leo for 16 years and had a TS/SCI and people were very lax when handling classified information and routinely did business on personal devices.

This is a nothingburger.

---

yes, people are lax often…but they usually make take the effort to create the classified on unclass…that takes a lot of effort and time. And it's usually not the guy in charge of the whole deal.

---

Which info was classified?

---

if you were an F-18 pilot going against potential Iranian SAMs provided to the Houthis, which part would you want to be classified ?

---

So nothing was classified, noted.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

stetson said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

I don't think anyone is defending this or saying what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be that national secrets were compromised from what we have seen. I laugh at the left's "I don't ever want to hear about Hillary's e-mail server again!" You can criticize this and Hillary's e-mail server (which we still don't know what was on it because she destroyed it despite an order not to. Guess we'll have to ask the Chinese. Just sayin'). They are not mutually exclusive.

---

Yep, and Hillary's server issue and this are not in the same universe.

---

Hillary action was deliberate while Waltz was an accident. So I agree different. That said, Waltz f***ed up. Apparently the name of a female undercover CIA operative/source (in Yemen?) was mentioned in the thread that the CIA asked the Atlantic to leave out of the released chat messages. That is obviously classified info that the CIA has clearly said 'don't print that'. And the f***up had a journalist reading that kind of stuff with nobody knowing he is on the thread.

Even though nobody was hurt it was still bad 'OpSec' and luckily it wasn't some other accidentally added contact on Waltz's phone that might have had a worse outcome. So people getting flogged and run through the grinder a bit is totally warranted

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

stetson said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

I don't think anyone is defending this or saying what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be that national secrets were compromised from what we have seen. I laugh at the left's "I don't ever want to hear about Hillary's e-mail server again!" You can criticize this and Hillary's e-mail server (which we still don't know what was on it because she destroyed it despite an order not to. Guess we'll have to ask the Chinese. Just sayin'). They are not mutually exclusive.

---

Yep, and Hillary's server issue and this are not in the same universe.

---

Hillary action was deliberate while Waltz was an accident. So I agree different. That said, Waltz f***ed up. Apparently the name of a female undercover CIA operative/source (in Yemen?) was mentioned in the thread that the CIA asked the Atlantic to leave out of the released chat messages. That is obviously classified info that the CIA has clearly said 'don't print that'. And the f***up had a journalist reading that kind of stuff with nobody knowing he is on the thread.

Even though nobody was hurt it was still bad 'OpSec' and luckily it wasn't some other accidentally added contact on Waltz's phone that might have had a worse outcome. So people getting flogged and run through the grinder a bit is totally warranted

---

That paragraph as written there is correct, fair. Just stay about there. That's correct.

Logos Stick said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

Lefties should learn the meaning of the idiotic fallacy term they made up.

"Whataboutism" would be when a person tries to justify current behavior based on past similar behavior by someone else.

Conservatives are not trying to justify the behavior based on what Dementia Joe did. They are telling libs to shut their corrupt, degenerate pieholes about it because they don't have a leg to stand on.

One of your fellow lefties accused me of whataboutism when he made the claim that past admins would have acted immediately to dismiss the responsible party. I responded with numerous examples of past incidents much worse than the current incident where no one was dismissed. The lefty then yells "whataboutism". Complete ****ing ******ation and fully expected from the left. You don't understand your own lexicon.

---

You calling me a 'lefty' because you apparently disagree with something I posted. Congrats. You chose a variation of option 3: Attack The Messenger. Great choice.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

But what info was classified? Do you know for sure something was classified? Are you just assuming something was?

It wasn't classified that we had a carrier group there. It wasnt classified we struck the houthis not very long ago. It wasnt classified we shot down one of our own jets recently. It wasn't classified we having a little fight or doing the things like moving assets into the region.

Do you have proof said chat group was infiltrated by a foreign power or malicious actors? Or just the guy who was erroneously invited?

Do you know how widespread the use of such chat programs is across every single govt agency? Because it's very very widespread.
Just pointing out youre making a lot of assumptions and then arguing about your assumptions.

---

Politics 101 Damage Control Playbook:

1) Fake News!
2) Whataboutism (but what about when the other side did [insert a mistake made by other side])
3) Attack the Messenger (he/she is a despicable person)
4) Minimize (eh, nothing burger)

Good choice with a combination of options 1 & 4

---

Lefties should learn the meaning of the idiotic fallacy term they made up.

"Whataboutism" would be when a person tries to justify current behavior based on past similar behavior by someone else.

Conservatives are not trying to justify the behavior based on what Dementia Joe did. They are telling libs to shut their corrupt, degenerate pieholes about it because they don't have a leg to stand on.

One of your fellow lefties accused me of whataboutism when he made the claim that past admins would have acted immediately to dismiss the responsible party. I responded with numerous examples of past incidents much worse than the current incident where no one was dismissed. The lefty then yells "whataboutism". Complete ****ing ******ation and fully expected from the left. You don't understand your own lexicon.

---

You calling me a 'lefty' because you apparently disagree with something I posted. Congrats. You chose a variation of option 3: Attack The Messenger. Great choice.

---

No, I'm calling you a lefty based on your body of work in forum 16. You're not new here.

Dude you're just trying too hard. Your bias is weighing you down. Lessons will be learned, people will be corrected and everyone will move forward. Nobody needs to be fired over this. Calm down.