It was Pete's wife that started the chat group

Another day, another assault on the constitution

74OA said:

---

Military pilots are understandably concerned at the lack of accountability.

"The mistaken inclusion of the editor in chief of The Atlantic in the chat and Mr. Hegseth's insistence that he did nothing wrong by disclosing the secret plans upend decades of military doctrine about operational security, a dozen Air Force and Navy fighter pilots said.

Worse, they said, is that going forward, they can no longer be certain that the Pentagon is focused on their safety when they strap into cockpits."


OPSEC

---

This is a New York Times report............highly suspect!

LOL!

Viper16 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Military pilots are understandably concerned at the lack of accountability.

"The mistaken inclusion of the editor in chief of The Atlantic in the chat and Mr. Hegseth's insistence that he did nothing wrong by disclosing the secret plans upend decades of military doctrine about operational security, a dozen Air Force and Navy fighter pilots said.

Worse, they said, is that going forward, they can no longer be certain that the Pentagon is focused on their safety when they strap into cockpits."


OPSEC

---

This is a New York Times report............highly suspect!

LOL!

---

out of over 20,000 ACTIVE Navy and Air Force pilots, I'm not surprised they were able to find 12 from the list of active and FORMER pilots that would be willing to criticize a Republican SECDEF.

My guess is that these 12 had absolutely nothing to say after 13 service members died at Abbey Gate.

jrdaustin said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Military pilots are understandably concerned at the lack of accountability.

"The mistaken inclusion of the editor in chief of The Atlantic in the chat and Mr. Hegseth's insistence that he did nothing wrong by disclosing the secret plans upend decades of military doctrine about operational security, a dozen Air Force and Navy fighter pilots said.

Worse, they said, is that going forward, they can no longer be certain that the Pentagon is focused on their safety when they strap into cockpits."


OPSEC

---

This is a New York Times report............highly suspect!

LOL!

---

out of over 20,000 ACTIVE Navy and Air Force pilots, I'm not surprised they were able to find 12 from the list of active and FORMER pilots that would be willing to criticize a Republican SECDEF.

My guess is that these 12 had absolutely nothing to say after 13 service members died at Abbey Gate.

---

As a former military pilot, I agree with your comment 100%........no doubt in my mind......this is how we get woke, leftist generals in our services.

🚨Scott Jennings torches Dem panelist calling for firings over Signalgate —

JENNINGS: “You don't have to make up hypotheticals, Lulu, about if this happened in a Democratic administration. Let me take you back in time in a Democratic administration. The secretary of defense… pic.twitter.com/CPBThXNspK

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 29, 2025

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-trump-officials-mistakenly-divulged-military-plans-journalist-2025-03-24/

"WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Top Trump administration officials mistakenly disclosed war plans in a messaging group that included a journalist shortly before the U.S. attacked Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis, the White House said on Monday, following a first-hand account by The Atlantic.
Democratic lawmakers swiftly blasted the misstep, saying it was a breach of U.S. national security and a violation of law that must be investigated by Congress.
The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg said in a report on Monday that he was unexpectedly invited on March 13 to an encrypted chat group on the Signal messaging app called the "Houthi PC small group." In the group, national security adviser Mike Waltz tasked his deputy Alex Wong with setting up a "tiger team" to coordinate U.S. action against the Houthis..."

OK Bubba, since you didn't want to read the FB link, here's snapshot from a story by Reuters that confirms Waltz's deputy, ALEX WONG, not Waltz himself, set up the Signal messaging attendees.

Furthermore, if you had read the FB link, you would have learned that Alex Wong's wife held many high ranking positions courtesy of the Democrats, such as serving as Assistant US Attorney for D.C. under BOTH the Obama & Biden administrations, prosecuting many of the Jan6th defendants, served as a law clerk to Justice Sotomayor, AND worked at the Covington & Burling law firm that lost its security clearance & had its government contracts terminated by an EO from Trump on 02/25/25.

So, while I agree upon first blush that this was a collosal screwup because none of the 'big names' realized the journalist was included in the discussion group, it seems one of the concerns I mentioned in my original comment about it being an intentional leak is now an even greater possibility than originally thought, as there's now confirmation by Reuters and other outlets that Mr. Wong is the one that bears responsibility for organizing the Signal chat attendees. Since it's his ass that's on the line for including the journalist that jeopardized the secrecy of military operations, such absolutely warrants investigation into whether he did so on account of mere negligence or was it done intentionally, especially if Wong did so covertly so as to hide Goldberg's participation. IMHO his motivation to do so intentionally seems even more plausible when taken in conjunction with his wife's close ties to the Democrats.

Accordingly, the possibility of an intentional leak shouldn't be so casually dismissed in spite of your best efforts to lay blame solely at the feet of Hegseth, Waltz, Vance, or Trump. I've never used Signal, but if it indeed has a function to 'hide' the names of a chat's attendees, then how was anyone to know that Alex Wong decided to add Goldberg?!?!

Lastly, from an ethical standpoint, I still maintain Goldberg absolutely had a duty to notify the chat group of his inclusion, but his failure to do so may give even further weight to the notion that this was an intentional act orchestrated by Goldberg & Wong!!! "If true", BOTH ARE ****ED!!!

Day 5. Hegseth still on the job.

You can't really hide user names in that you can't be invisibly lurking in a chat group. You can make up a user name if you don't want to have your real name and info in the chat, but it still fall back on the folks in the chat to say "I recognize everyone but Cslifer, who is that".
It is kind of sad that folks are so quick to say the big shots are innocent, it is the staffers fault. We have fallen a long way from the days of the president having a plaque on his desk that says "the buck stops here".

I DONT KNOW WHAT WERE YELLING ABOUT

cslifer said:

---

You can't really hide user names in that you can't be invisibly lurking in a chat group. You can make up a user name if you don't want to have your real name and info in the chat, but it still fall back on the folks in the chat to say "I recognize everyone but Cslifer, who is that".
It is kind of sad that folks are so quick to say the big shots are innocent, it is the staffers fault. We have fallen a long way from the days of the president having a plaque on his desk that says "the buck stops here".

---

When was the last time the buck truly stopped with an administration? Please enlighten us. Who did Biden axe when there were major f-ups, which were PLENTY. Who did Obama axe? Who did Clinton or Bush axe?

What's ironic is the knock on Trump's first term is he fired too many people and then you had Sessions step down just because Al Franken (lol) asked him about dubious Russian ties. Seems Trump was the only one that allowed the left to take scalps.

Name one scalp the right took due to pressure on Biden or Obama.

You can bring up all those past administrations all you want, but we are talking about what THIS administration did. Just because there was previous crap admins doesn't mean you should repeat the bad behavior. Strive to be better. The whole "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument gets old.

cslifer said:

---

You can bring up all those past administrations all you want, but we are talking about what THIS administration did. Just because there was previous crap admins doesn't mean you should repeat the bad behavior. Strive to be better. The whole "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument gets old.

---

lol this attitude for the dems is not surprising. Hey y'all just forget about what we did!

Rockdoc said:

---

cslifer said:

---

You can bring up all those past administrations all you want, but we are talking about what THIS administration did. Just because there was previous crap admins doesn't mean you should repeat the bad behavior. Strive to be better. The whole "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument gets old.

---

lol this attitude for the dems is not surprising. Hey y'all just forget about what we did!

---

It's a classic leftist double standard. It wasn't "bad behavior", it was a mistake. They never have a problem with stuff like this during Democrat administrations, but man the worm turns when it's a Republican in office.

Mistakes were made, lessons learned, moving on. The mission was a resounding success. Hegseth isn't resigning or getting fired. Cry and whine as they might, Democrat hypocrisy is no longer dictating Republican actions or responses. They set the ground rules decades ago.

Not at all what I said. We should discuss the sins of the past from both parties and all administrations, they were all far from perfect. That still doesn't make the "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument care any more weight when discussing a screw up by the current administration.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

cslifer said:

---

You can bring up all those past administrations all you want, but we are talking about what THIS administration did. Just because there was previous crap admins doesn't mean you should repeat the bad behavior. Strive to be better. The whole "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument gets old.

---

lol this attitude for the dems is not surprising. Hey y'all just forget about what we did!

---

It's a classic leftist double standard. It wasn't "bad behavior", it was a mistake. They never have a problem with stuff like this during Democrat administrations, but man the worm turns when it's a Republican in office.

Mistakes were made, lessons learned, moving on. The mission was a resounding success. Hegseth isn't resigning or getting fired. Cry and whine as they might, Democrat hypocrisy is no longer dictating Republican actions or responses. They set the ground rules decades ago.

---

The nation is moving on. If f16 dems want to talk about this for years, that's ok with me.

Ironic post when f16 spends shocking amounts of time talking/complaining about folks that haven't been in office for years.

cslifer said:

---

Not at all what I said. We should discuss the sins of the past from both parties and all administrations, they were all far from perfect. That still doesn't make the "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument care any more weight when discussing a screw up by the current administration.

---

Simple question. What was the last administration you felt the buck truly stopped with the POTUS. Just let me know. Stop playing games and let me know. YOU said you wanted to go back to a time when the buck stopped with the big guy. Name one.

"Stop playing games and let me know", lol ok internet tough guy. The easy answer is likely Nixon, at least he stepped down over his transgressions. Unfortunately taking responsibility for their actions or the actions of their cabinet members/appointees is not a trait displayed by any president we have had for the last several administrations.

You didn't even read the article. Nowhere does it say or imply that Alex Wong had access to the signal thread, let alone ability to invite anyone. He was simply tasked with setting up a Tiger team; a roster of individuals to include in the battle plan. He wasn't physically asked, nor had the ability to create a group chat. Again, to invite someone he had to have access and he didn't. Unless you think he stole Waltz's personal phone which is neither speculated nor alluded in any story.

The rest of your post is a conspiracy theory that honestly would make it worse for Hegseth. If a deputy security advisors wife was able to covertly add someone unauthorized to a classified discussion of battle plans…like, you realize it's worse if this was an intentional breach and exactly WHY you don't use an app like Signal?

cslifer said:

---

"Stop playing games and let me know", lol ok internet tough guy. The easy answer is likely Nixon, at least he stepped down over his transgressions. Unfortunately taking responsibility for their actions or the actions of their cabinet members/appointees is not a trait displayed by any president we have had for the last several administrations.

---

OK thank you so now we have a baseline, 1974. I think a case could be made for Trump's first term but he never held Fauci accountable so I suppose he failed as well.

So after 50 years we finally want to hold a POTUS and his admin accountable when we all know once a Dem is back in office it goes right back to (corrupt) business as usual. So why should Trump's cabinet take the hit when the past dozen cabinets all got a pass.

cslifer said:

---

Ironic post when f16 spends shocking amounts of time talking/complaining about folks that haven't been in office for years.

---

Uhhh… that and claiming throwing rocks from glass houses is pretty much all real politics is anymore. That and ****posting.

cslifer said:

---

We have fallen a long way from the days of the president having a plaque on his desk that says "the buck stops here".

---

That was Truman, I believe. I've always been cynical about that plaque since I don't remember Truman taking responsibility for any mistakes on his watch. He certainly didn't fire himself.

Anytime I see such a plaque in real life, I always assume that it really means "the buck stops at some point below me".

Finally, how do you know that no one was disciplined regarding this? Is the only form of appropriate discipline to fire someone? Why? Were you fired for every mistake you made in your career?

Logos Stick said:

---

Day 5. Hegseth still on the job.

---

ZOMG wHy DiD hE pUt ThE hOoPtEeS oN tHe GrOuP cHaT??!!!11?

cslifer said:

---

"Stop playing games and let me know", lol ok internet tough guy. The easy answer is likely Nixon, at least he stepped down over his transgressions. Unfortunately taking responsibility for their actions or the actions of their cabinet members/appointees is not a trait displayed by any president we have had for the last several administrations.

---

Voters dont care about this issue and neither does Trump. Its okay to move on

You claim I didn't read the article; how do you know? Truth is, I did indeed read the damn article, along with other articles; YOU actually bragged that you didn't read the Facebook article I offered, but when I offered content from a Reuters article that also blamed Wong, you try to suggest that it doesn't state that Wong wasn't the one responsible for organizing those attendees of Waltz at his direction, which is incorrect. It's been established that Goldberg was an invitee from Waltz's group/list; now we know Wong was responsible for creating Waltz's invitee list, which included Goldberg.

Look, I agree using that App was a mistake; I agree the journalist being in the chat was a mistake. Those mistakes can be corrected, & I hope they are because it is indeed a screw-up & a bad look for those involved.

HOWEVER, you're clearly being obstinate about the POSSIBILITY that the journalist's participation could have been intentional, & instead you're content with slandering those involved without any curiosity about how it happened & possibly why; in fact, when I first mentioned that one my concerns was the possibility Goldberg's inclusion was intentional, you ignored that concern & instead totally mischaracterized my initial post in its entirety by suggesting I was only blaming the journalist for the screw-up. As I've state repeatedly, I only blame him for participating in a chat that he surely knew he shouldn't have been a part of; further, you are adamant without ANY proof that the journalist's participation wasn't intentional. How do you know?

But it's now clear that you Dems don't want investigations of any kind to find out exactly how this screw-up happened, & since it's indeed Wong's fault for including the journalist (unless Waltz added Goldberg himself), did Alex Wong act with malice by intentionally including Goldberg or just malfeasance? You don't care; you just want heads to roll irrespective if they are at fault or not.

Your position is an obvious example of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy; for 8 damn years, y'all encouraged investigations against Trump to try & find issues or crimes, & when nothing turned up, y'all made **** up! But now that Trump is in office, y'all don't want any investigations, & y'all damn sure don't want any audits- even if such might expose waste, fraud, or corruption that would benefit the tax payers & could result in an increase in entitlement benefits!

It's utterly illogical; are y'all against the DOGE audits because you're afraid it'll expose Democrat corruption, waste, & abuse? Truth is, I bet there's a BUNCH of Republicans that'll be exposed for the same BS! You also don't want an investigation into this leak; why? Are y'all trying to protect Wong because he may have intentionally included Goldberg; are you ok with treasonous or at least criminal activity as long as it benefits your team? What if an investigation reveals Wong did nothing wrong, & instead it's Waltz's fault entirely; wouldn't that be a good thing for 'Team Democrat'?

It's pathetic & juvenile, chef's kiss and all

With all of these folks on the left clammoring for a scalp, I'm reminded of two interesting points in history.

First is during the Civil War, when public opinion was against Grant and wanted him removed. Lincoln flatly refused, saying "I can't spare this man. He fights." Grant would go on to take Vicksburg, and ultimately become POTUS himself.

On to WWII, where if there ever was a politically incorrect general, it was George Patton. He embarrassed the administration so much that he was removed from command, until it was determined that his prowess as a commander was such that he could not be left on the sidelines. Ike asked him back to command the 3rd Army, and he rolled over the Germans from that point forward.

I am in no way comparing Hegseth to Grant or Patton.

But I am happy to compare Hegseth as a leader to Lloyd Austin all day every day.

What I am saying is that history tells us effective leaders may not always be in the public favor. But that's not a reason to remove them. What world would we now live in if Lincoln or Eisenhower had ultimately bowed to the critics?

I don't think it's just the left (or their useful idiot mouthpieces), but the military industrial complex coming for him. Ship rarely comments on stuff like this.

It was defense contractors going thru their Senate surrogates that targeted Hegseth - first with Joni Ernst then Wicker and others.

They thought Ernst could lead the charge because of her military “service,” and her strong position on sex harassment in the military.

But they… https://t.co/eJJQr7f0T3

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 29, 2025

The link he was talking about in the video.

Quote:

---

The memo, "Initiating the Workforce Acceleration and Recapitalization Initiative," which is addressed to senior Pentagon leadership, combatant commanders, and defense agency and DOD field activity directors states that DOD will "realign the size of our civilian workforce and strategically restructure it to supercharge our American warfighters consistent with [Hegseth's] interim National Defense Strategy guidance."
The memo states that DOD seeks to reduce duplicative efforts and reject excessive bureaucracy through an honest analysis of the workforce. Additionally, it states automation through technological solutions will be sought out, particularly at the headquarters level.
"The net effect will be a reduction in the number of civilian full-time equivalent positions and increased resources in the areas where we need them most," the memo reads.
It then lists two courses of action to implement Hegseth's intent.

---

Quote:

---

First, Hegseth calls on the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness to immediately implement DOD's Deferred Resignation Program and to also offer voluntary early retirement for all eligible DOD civilian employees.
The DRP, first implemented by the Office of Personnel Management Jan. 28, 2025, offered most full-time federal employees including most of the nearly 900,000 DOD civilians the limited opportunity to resign with full pay and benefits until Sept. 30, 2025. OPM also offered early retirement for eligible personnel.
With this newly signed memo, the DRP and the early retirement program are being reopened for nearly all DOD civilians, only this time under the authority of the Defense Department rather than OPM.

---

Quote:

---

Second, Hegseth directs senior DOD leadership to provide "a proposed future-state organizational chart" of those leaders' respective departments. A summary of all those charts which should include functional areas and consolidated management hierarchies with positional titles and counts clearly depicted is due from USD(P&R) to the defense secretary no later than April 11, 2025.
While the memo does not specify a targeted percentage for layoffs at DOD, it mentions that important changes are required "to put the department on ready footing to deter our enemies and fight for peace."
To accomplish that goal, it states that the intent of the realignment is to "execute a top-to-bottom methodology that results in a force structure that is lean, mean and prepared to win."

---

This is not popular in the contracting class, nor among Northern Virginia realtors.

cslifer said:

---

You can't really hide user names in that you can't be invisibly lurking in a chat group. You can make up a user name if you don't want to have your real name and info in the chat, but it still fall back on the folks in the chat to say "I recognize everyone but Cslifer, who is that".
It is kind of sad that folks are so quick to say the big shots are innocent, it is the staffers fault. We have fallen a long way from the days of the president having a plaque on his desk that says "the buck stops here".

---

Thanks for the clarification about whether or not someone can be hidden; I didn't know that. Further, I'm not entirely excusing Waltz because we know Goldberg was added from his group & "respondeat superior" still applies, but since he delegated the task to Wong, he still must answer for Wong if Wong F'd up. BUT, if Wong maliciously added Goldberg, that negates to some degree the narrative that using this method of communication was careless. That's why I'm simply urging an investigation into how the journalist's inclusion happened & why; maybe it's entirely Waltz's fault because he actually added Goldberg. Maybe it's Wong's fault because of malfeasance or actual malice; OR, maybe as Waltz's deputy, when Waltz delegated the creation of a list of invitees, Wong then delegated that task to a junior associate, & they're the one that F'up or intentionally added Goldberg, either by using his actual name or under a different name as you suggested could happen. Further, do we even know the number of folks who had access to the chat? If it was just Vance, Hegseth, Waltz, & 2 or 3 others, then I agree that it would be incumbent on those in the chat to call out a name they didn't recognize; however, if there were over 50 or 100 folks reading but not actually talking, exactly like Goldberg did during the chat, then obviously that's a different set of circumstances the negate the probability that someone foreign to the chat would be recognized, especially by those from the Vance or Hegseth's group for example.

Look, I freely admit I have no idea how it happened, but I do want an investigation to provide answers as to how & why- ESPECIALLY if this was an intentional leak meant to subvert this Administration, as it could have jeopardized the mission but thankfully did not.

Thus, if this was due to an idiot's gross malfeasance, they should suffer appropriate consequences. If it was an intentional leak, whether Waltz, Wong (given his wife's troubling political affiliations that run contrary to Trump's agenda & Republican affiliation), or some other unnamed 3rd party, I want to know & the American public deserves to know. However, the resistance folks are offering to the notion of an investigation is worrisome IMO; they're content throwing stones in a glass house that, thanks to DOGE, has shown that our beauocracy is bloated, wasteful, & proven to be anything but efficient. Yet, anyone with a degree of common sense didn't need to DOGE to recognize that the same thing has been going on in every prior administration.

Lastly, given Waltz & even Wong's important positions & job duties, if folks really think they'd be the ones who would assume the clerical task of actually manually entering the invitees' contact info/names/addresses/numbers, or whatever the hell they used to add those folks to the chat from their particular group (unless directly ordered to do so by their direct superior), that's simply naive. Still, maybe that's exactly how it happened, but we would only know that occurred if there was an investigation that revealed that very scenario.

Hey Dems and MSM…

NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS…

Next ??

Just a piece of friendly advice, put the lunatic on ignore. It's not worth your time.

FYI re: Alex Wong. Waltz confirmed last week that "a staffer was not responsible" and "I built the group to coordinate".

Prosperdick said:

---

cslifer said:

---

Not at all what I said. We should discuss the sins of the past from both parties and all administrations, they were all far from perfect. That still doesn't make the "but Biden/obama/hillary" argument care any more weight when discussing a screw up by the current administration.

---

Simple question. What was the last administration you felt the buck truly stopped with the POTUS. Just let me know. Stop playing games and let me know. YOU said you wanted to go back to a time when the buck stopped with the big guy. Name one.

---

DJT. That's my answer.

Sir/ Madam:
Thanks for sharing this video with me & others. I agree Waltz unequivocally took responsibility for the screw-up at a particular moment of the interview, & in so doing, exhibited IMHO an admirable character trait that's typically found in a strong leader/ manager. As a result, his admission should make "CSLifer" happy because he didn't publicly throw any subordinate under the bus (presumably due to the absence of any definitive evidentiary proof at this time) & instead was basically declaring that 'the buck stops with him', which legally speaking is true pursuant to the Respondeat Superior doctrine that I too mentioned a few times in my comments/ rebuttals.

Furthermore, his primary messaging was to focus upon the achievements of the Trump administration to date rather than getting bogged down with a bunch of "what ifs" & speculation surrounding the event. In fact, he stayed on this messaging so as to dodge Laura's attempts to dig deeper into the 'how & why', as well as who might be responsible, if anyone, for the screw-up, which according to her, there's been rumblings heard that maybe it was indeed an intentional leak that was meant to subvert the Trump administration. I submit this revelation by Laura illustrates that I didn't pull some potential conspiracy theory out of thin air if others are likewise considering that possibility. Regardless, in response to her specified inquiry about how Goldberg was included, Waltz seemed to side step any detailed discussion about such & instead urged folks to focus upon more pressing matters. Consequently, Waltz's approach should resonate with "Maroonthrunthru", as he echoed the same pathway forward.

Nevertheless, during the interview Waltz did quickly mention that there are folks currently investigating how Goldberg was added, which if true, is what I was asking for all along. Thus, I submit the results of a finalized investigation into this matter MIGHT cause serious fallout if it's discovered Goldberg's inclusion was indeed done intentionally. If it's ultimately determined Wong was the source/ cause for Goldberg's inclusion, he alongside anyone else that may have helped facilitate such will be in SERIOUS trouble. Also, you can be certain that Waltz will be singing an entirely different tune if that happens!!!

maroonthrunthru said:

---

Hey Dems and MSM…

NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS…

Next ??

---

I agree, this "story" has lost traction.
No U.S. personal were hurt and terrorist were disposed of. That is what people want to hear.