Trump Admin Shares War Plans w Journalist

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Here is a good one:

ooooo the outrage!!!!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is “deeply concerned” about the unauthorized release of classified documents on Israel’s preparation for a potential retaliatory attack on Iran, a White House spokesman said Monday.

 

https://apnews.com/article/united-states-israel-iran-classified-documents-5cc9b0f30b7119a039d122599bf0c285

I wish the Republicans would do something like this. Actually take accountability. Admit that there was a problem. 

HAVE SOME INTEGRITY!!!!!

[mspart]

I don't disagree.   Who I listen to on radio are poo pooing this.   They wouldn't have with Biden or Obama that's for sure.   If true that no classified info was given, that's lucky.  Whoever let the journalist on needs to be fired.   Period.   A review of the use of signal should be happening now.  

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

so if trump comes out and says he 'is deeply concerned'

you would be ok? 

[Paul158]

14 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

Where do the Houthis live, Paul?

Not trying to be smart. I don't see where Houthi is mentioned. Remember I am much older than you and I could be wrong. It says target terrorist is at his known location. That probably is 200 to 300 locations in the middle east. There are and you probably know exactly a great number of terrorists in the middle east. 

[uncle bernard]

 

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, mspart said:

I don't disagree.   Who I listen to on radio are poo pooing this.   They wouldn't have with Biden or Obama that's for sure.   If true that no classified info was given, that's lucky.  Whoever let the journalist on needs to be fired.   Period.   A review of the use of signal should be happening now.  

mspart

lol at still saying “if true”

[uncle bernard]

 

[jross]

My thoughts continue to evolve on this.  Originally I thought this must be a staffer that accidently or purposely included the reporter to cause leadership turnover.  Hearing the director say he doesn't know how this occurred indicated he's a buffoon.  But he's not a buffoon.  So then I thought it must be that social engineering exploited a device vulnerability.  Now that I've read the actual texts, I'm leaning to this being an intentional disclosure.

The message goes to one of the last people you would expect (Goldberg).

The messaging accomplishes this:

• US is decisive
• US provides global security in a way that Europe cannot
• US interests are important - let's make Europe pay for the benefit we provide

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

Yup. Gabbard should actually be put in prison for perjury. This is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. It isn't even close. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:20 PM by red viking

[mspart]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

lol at still saying “if true”

Was there classified info disclosed?   You laughing does not show that to be true.   I don't know what was said and haven't looked at anything that the Atlantic has published on the matter.   That's why I put if in there.   If you know please share the details.   Please laugh out loud with some evidence if the laughing is well founded.  I for one would appreciate any knowledge you have on the matter.

mspart

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

Was there classified info disclosed?   You laughing does not show that to be true.   I don't know what was said and haven't looked at anything that the Atlantic has published on the matter.   That's why I put if in there.   If you know please share the details.   Please laugh out loud with some evidence if the laughing is well founded.  I for one would appreciate any knowledge you have on the matter.

mspart

Links to what was said have already been shared in this thread.  Why comment if you can’t even bother to look up what was in the messages?

 

 

 

[mspart]

Thanks for sharing.   Not sure what was classified info but that is more than I've seen on the topic.   Unlike RV, when asked you provided info, thank you.

mspart

[Le duke]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

Thanks for sharing.   Not sure what was classified info but that is more than I've seen on the topic.   Unlike RV, when asked you provided info, thank you.

mspart

I provided it hours ago.

[Le duke]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Not trying to be smart. I don't see where Houthi is mentioned. Remember I am much older than you and I could be wrong. It says target terrorist is at his known location. That probably is 200 to 300 locations in the middle east. There are and you probably know exactly a great number of terrorists in the middle east. 

if you're actually being serious:

What is the name of group chat where all of these messages were sent?

 

 

[Caveira]

Wait. Do the houthirs now know we have f18s?

[Scouts Honor]

[Scouts Honor]

white house has tapped Musk to investigate it

 

[1032004]

33 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

white house has tapped Musk to investigate it

 

I’m sure he owns a company he’d be glad to charge the government to use for communications

[Scouts Honor]

6 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I’m sure he owns a company he’d be glad to charge the government to use for communications

is that better or worse than a congressman/woman/senator doing the same? 

[fishbane]

8 hours ago, jross said:

My thoughts continue to evolve on this.  Originally I thought this must be a staffer that accidently or purposely included the reporter to cause leadership turnover.  Hearing the director say he doesn't know how this occurred indicated he's a buffoon.  But he's not a buffoon.  So then I thought it must be that social engineering exploited a device vulnerability.  Now that I've read the actual texts, I'm leaning to this being an intentional disclosure.

The message goes to one of the last people you would expect (Goldberg).

The messaging accomplishes this:

• US is decisive
• US provides global security in a way that Europe cannot
• US interests are important - let's make Europe pay for the benefit we provide

Doesn't the strike itself do all those things without the "inadvertent" disclosure to Goldberg?  I think the disclosure erodes those messages with one of incompetence. 

[jross]

9 hours ago, fishbane said:

Doesn't the strike itself do all those things without the "inadvertent" disclosure to Goldberg?  I think the disclosure erodes those messages with one of incompetence. 

There have been many strikes where I didn’t “get it.”

The leak’s too convenient, curates a specific narrative, and makes this a conversation.  They did not want the blow back but they wanted the exposure.  People are paying attention and the intent is clear as to why we would interfere.

Besides the leak, everyone looks competent.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Just now, jross said:

There have been many strikes where I didn’t “get it.”

The leak’s too convenient, curates a specific narrative, and makes this a conversation.  They did not want the blow back but they wanted the exposure.  People are paying attention and the intent is clear as to why we would interfere.

Besides the leak, everyone looks competent.

Besides the incompetence, everyone looks competent?

That is some of the hardest, most covoluted rationalizing I have ever seen.

[jross]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Besides the incompetence, everyone looks competent?

That is some of the hardest, most covoluted rationalizing I have ever seen.

If spotting a staged leak is convoluted, try explaining Goldberg’s invite as a whoopsie.

----

The least likely event is an accidental invite of a despised reporter.

The obvious scenarios are a staffer, Russia via social engineering, or Waltz himself.

Why would this chat, framing the U.S. as strong compared to Europe and Iran/Houthis as trade-route villains, include this reporter?

A staffer might want to to embarrass Waltz/Hegseth, hoping to spark turnover.  Who is this staffer and do they have access to Waltz device?

Russia would go about this a different way.  They wouldn't want to expose their insights, know it will give reason to cramp down.  They also wouldn't benefit from leadership turnover or projection of America's strength.  Remember... "Hegseth is unqualified"... so why would Russia want him out?

It is unlikely that Waltz would knowingly end his career to embarrass Hegseth.  Waltz, likely with a partner, staged this; the narratives are too sharp for chance.

Edited Thursday at 01:27 PM by jross
simplify sentence/question

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, jross said:

There have been many strikes where I didn’t “get it.”

The leak’s too convenient, curates a specific narrative, and makes this a conversation.  They did not want the blow back but they wanted the exposure.  People are paying attention and the intent is clear as to why we would interfere.

Besides the leak, everyone looks competent.

It seems like the majority of people didn't get the same message you did.   Most people got the message that these guys are incompetent.  I think you're just wrong on this.  If the goals were what you stated earlier (decisiveness, etc ) why include the name of a covert CIA operative that the CIA had to ask Goldberg not to publish in the communication?  It doesn't make sense. It is unnecessary for the goals.  It makes them look incompetent. 

Assuming you are right and they were trying to send those signals to the world, I'd say they failed in their objective.  Most people got the message that they are incompetent and not any of that other stuff.  Any reasonable person could have predicted this is how including a reporter in the chat would be viewed by the public.  You logic doesn't seem to work in the end.  They are not buffoons so it had to be intentional, but any reasonable person could see the plan wouldn't work and they would look like incompetent buffoons. Yet they did it.

[jross]

Just now, fishbane said:

It seems like the majority of people didn't get the same message you did.   Most people got the message that these guys are incompetent.  I think you're just wrong on this.  If the goals were what you stated earlier (decisiveness, etc ) why include the name of a covert CIA operative that the CIA had to ask Goldberg not to publish in the communication? 

covert CIA operative?

Ratcliffe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25, 2025, that the "operative" was one of his aides and not undercover.