[Action80]

Approval ratings depend greatly on who you ask and polls are trivially easy to skew.

Yeah, I am sure CNN relies heavily on their conservative/libertarian viewership for polling data.
To quote your good buddy and lifelong pal, AATW:

That’s how stupid you sound.

[AATW]

thisisfine.jpg

You just keep telling yourself that, fella.
Better that than admitting you just voted a bunch of incompetents in to run your country 

[Action80]

AATW is quite the expert concerning incompetence, Tom.

I think we gotta give 'em the point on this one.

LMMFAO!!!

OMB!!!

[AATW]

AATW is quite the expert concerning incompetence, Tom.

I don't think you need to be an expert in anything to know that if you're going to set up a Signal group to talk about a live military operation then you probably shouldn't accidentally invite a journalist in there. I honestly don't think it matters if they were talking about the weather (which they were at one point, come to think of it), surely people at that level should be pretty careful in who they're saying things to. This incident shows a complete lack of competence and seriousness at the very top level of US government. Do you disagree?

[markjo]

It's only problematic to the desperate anti-trump leftists and liberal media hype meisters. The average people see through this.

i like to think that I'm not that far from "average people" as well as a military veteran and I find this level of incompetence at the very top of the military command to be very problematic.  And so should anyone who thinks that keeping sensitive information out of the hands of people not authorized to have it is a good idea.

Part of the job of the Secretary of Defense is to tell us sensitive information though. He is a communicator of sensitive information. How many times have we heard over the years things like "We are sending another x thousand troops to the frontline". Maybe you could not communicate things like this when you were in the military, but the Secretary of Defense can.

It’s one thing to say that we’re deploying troops to an area.  It’s quite another to say that the planes are taking off right now and bombs should be dropping in 2 hours.   I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference.

We are talking about the nuance of what he can and can't say publicly or on unclassified networks, which goes beyond the well known rules for a soldier. You guys are applying the wrong rules to the wrong person. The SecDef has extra responsibility and classification powers for his special role. Whether he is giving out sensitive information to the public, or to VIPs, he has additional freedom and responsibility of disclosure. The partial operational activities he provided were not necessarily "obviously classified" or improper to communicate to anyone.

Tom, rule number one of operational security is that you don’t talk about ongoing operations on an unsecure platform with people who are not authorized to have that information.  Rule number two of operational security is, when in doubt, see rule number one.  Trump and his staff can’t seem to grasp that concept either.

[Tom Bishop]

I honestly don't think it matters if they were talking about the weather (which they were at one point, come to think of it), surely people at that level should be pretty careful in who they're saying things to. This incident shows a complete lack of competence and seriousness at the very top level of US government.

It's wild you think a journalist’s inclusion matters when the chat was unclassified and had zero actionable intel. No actionable secrets were divulged. The journalist might as well have been included in your weekly catch-up with your therapist. No real substance, and no bombshells.

It’s one thing to say that we’re deploying troops to an area.  It’s quite another to say that the planes are taking off right now and bombs should be dropping in 2 hours.   I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference.

Both an announcement that you are deploying troops to an area and that you are sending out planes to an unspecified target have some amount of hypothetical risk. However, the Secretary isn't a random officer spilling secrets. They have access to classified intel and a team of advisors on the response capabilities of the enemy, and they are trusted to judge what to share and when. If they do say something like, "Planes are taking off now" in an unclassified medium, it's not an accident. It is because they've decided the benefit of disclosure to the audience outweighs the risk. Like with the example of announcing that troops are being deployed to an area, the Defense Secretary judged that the enemy had little capability to know what was being targeted and how to counter it.

Tom, rule number one of operational security is that you don’t talk about ongoing operations on an unsecure platform with people who are not authorized to have that information.

The rules for classification puts the decision to classify in the hands of the person with the classification powers, who in this case is the Secretary of Defense. There isn't a "no one talks about anything, even if you are second in command of the military" rule. I have already posted the rules for you here:

I already know the rules, and they aren't difficult to look up. See the bolded in the following from the Department of Defense Handbook for Writing Security Classification Guidance:

https://sgp.fas.org/library/quist2/app_c.html

The Department of Defense (DoD) provides guidance in classifying military operations information. The following information is taken from DoD's Department of Defense Handbook for Writing Security Classification Guidance. 5

While there are no hard and fast rules for classification of military operations information, and while each Military Service and command may require a unique approach to operations security (OPSEC), there are basic concepts which can be applied. What must be protected are operational concepts and their applications, and the capabilities, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses of the plan. The element of surprise is essential to military effectiveness in both tactical and strategic operations, and requires the continuous concealment of capabilities and intentions. OPSEC is the principal means of achieving that concealment.*, 6
* Operations security is the "process of denying adversaries information about friendly capabilities and intentions by identifying, controlling, and protecting indicators associated with planning and conducting military operations and other activities" [U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Handbook for Writing Security Classification Guidance, DoD 5200.1-H, U.S. 5-3(d), March 1986].

Military operations information is defined for the purpose of this Handbook as information pertaining to a strategic or tactical military action, including training, movement of troops and equipment, supplies, and other information vital to the success of any battle or campaign. 7

Successful battle operations depend largely upon our ability to assess correctly the capability and intention of enemy forces at each stage of the battle and to communicate an effective battle doctrine throughout our forces. [To this might be added "and to keep the enemy from knowing, in advance, our capabilities and intentions during the battle."] Classifiable information would include:

a. The number, type, location, and strengths of opposing units.
b. The capabilities and vulnerabilities of weapons in enemy hands, and how he normally applies the weapon.
c. The morale and physical condition of the enemy force.8

Information related to operational plans (whether executed or not, presented in whole or in part) that if disclosed could be expected to cause damage to the United States, must be protected.8

In considering classification guidance for operations, there may be good reason to classify more information about the operation in the beginning than will be necessary later. Certain elements of information such as troop movements may no longer require protection after a certain date or event. When this point is reached, downgrading or even declassification should be considered.8

A classification guide should clearly identify the elements of information pertaining to the operational plan for which classification guidance is required. Classification shall continue only so long as unauthorized disclosure would result in damage to the national security, which may be an indefinite period of time in the case of unexecuted long range plans.9

Example items to be considered for classification include the following:10
- overall operational plans;
- system operational deployment or employment;
- initial operational capability date;
- planned location of operational units;
- equipage dates, readiness dates, and operational employment dates;
- total personnel requirements for total operational force;
- coordinates of selected operational sites;
- specific operational performance data that relate to the effectiveness of the control of forces and data on specific vulnerabilities and weaknesses;
- existing operational security and communications security procedures, projections, and techniques; and
- target characteristics.

From the bolded above we learn:

1. There are no hard rules for classification. It is essentially an opinionated matter, presumably for someone with classification powers

2. The only must there is that it must not be "expected" to cause harm to the United States. The word expected makes this another opinionated matter. The SecDef stated that the he did not expect the limited information he provided to cause harm.

3. There are various items we can "consider" for classification, meaning that not all elements are automatically classified

Those are the rules. They are not difficult to find. This is going to be a nothingburger for the Secretary of Defense. I don't know why you guys are pretending that the rules are only available in the heads of the likes of honk or garygreen for random accusations against high ranking officials, because they are clearly available for us.

[markjo]

It’s one thing to say that we’re deploying troops to an area.  It’s quite another to say that the planes are taking off right now and bombs should be dropping in 2 hours.   I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference.

Both an announcement that you are deploying troops to an area and that you are sending out planes to an unspecified target have some amount of hypothetical risk.

No, they don't.  The houthies know that they are targets.  If they get 2 hours notice that jets are coming their way, they they have time to prepare a welcome.

However, the Secretary isn't a random officer spilling secrets. They have access to classified intel and a team of advisors on the response capabilities of the enemy, and they are trusted to judge what to share and when. If they do say something like, "Planes are taking off now" in an unclassified medium, it's not an accident. It is because they've decided the benefit of disclosure to the audience outweighs the risk.

Tom, did you miss the part where they didn't realize that an unauthorized journalist was included in the chat?  They weren't declassifying information for public release.  They were discussing an ongoing military air strike against an enemy that has air defenses on personal devices that may or may not have been hacked by our adversaries.  Top government and military personnel have secure government issued devices for a reason.

Maybe this will explain the situation more clearly:

[Tom Bishop]

No, they don't.  The houthies know that they are targets.  If they get 2 hours notice that jets are coming their way, they they have time to prepare a welcome.

They've already tried. They don't have the technology.



Notice the immense amount of information given about US aircraft in this video. Capabilities which the panicky princesses of this controversy would say is too much, breaking their "you can't say anything!" rules. But the US is so much more advanced compared to most of its adversaries that this information is ineffective.

Tom, did you miss the part where they didn't realize that an unauthorized journalist was included in the chat?  They weren't declassifying information for public release.  They were discussing an ongoing military air strike against an enemy that has air defenses on personal devices that may or may not have been hacked by our adversaries.  Top government and military personnel have secure government issued devices for a reason.

He was talking to a group of 18 people in that chat room. Any one of them could have been blackmailed, hacked, or a spy. If he had something candid and sensitive to say about specific classified plan or technology, it would likely have been communicated to someone specific, not blasted out to the community. This is further evidence that it was meant to act as normal unclassified operational information.

[AATW]

It's wild you think a journalist’s inclusion matters

Everyone thinks that it matters.
Waltz has said he takes full responsibility and has admitted it was embarrassing. There's an investigation going on in to how it happened.
If if doesn't matter then what is he taking responsibility for? Why is it embarrassing? Why does it need investigating?

The only person who doesn't think it matters is you - and you're clearly just trolling. There's is no world, no matter what shape it is, in which you think the accidental inclusion of a journalist into a group chat about a live military operation is fine. Whether what the journalist saw was classified or harmful to the operation isn't actually that relevant. It's the lack of seriousness and basic competence that he got invited in there and no-one noticed. That's the issue you are desperately trying to avoid and pretend you think is fine.
It isn't fine. You know it isn't fine.

The journalist might as well have been included in your weekly catch-up with your therapist.

I'm British, mate. We don't have therapists, we talk to our friends. You should try it.

[DuncanDoenitz]

No, they don't.  The houthies know that they are targets.  If they get 2 hours notice that jets are coming their way, they they have time to prepare a welcome.

They've already tried. They don't have the technology.

This is part of your problem Tom, you just can't help thinking like an American.  They have technology, but they don't need technology. 

Try and put yourself in the Terrorist's sandals.  You visit your girlfriend "at the usual time" of 15.00.  Iranian Republican Guards email/phone/send-a messenger on a scooter to you.  They have intercepted a message: "Planes are airborne, he's at his girlfriend's house". 

What do you do?  Launch some SAMs? 

Or maybe just put on her burkha, get in your Mercedes and drive like Bin Laden. 

[Lord Dave]

No, they don't.  The houthies know that they are targets.  If they get 2 hours notice that jets are coming their way, they they have time to prepare a welcome.

They've already tried. They don't have the technology.

This is part of your problem Tom, you just can't help thinking like an American.  They have technology, but they don't need technology. 

Try and put yourself in the Terrorist's sandals.  You visit your girlfriend "at the usual time" of 15.00.  Iranian Republican Guards email/phone/send-a messenger on a scooter to you.  They have intercepted a message: "Planes are airborne, he's at his girlfriend's house". 

What do you do?  Launch some SAMs? 

Or maybe just put on her burkha, get in your Mercedes and drive like Bin Laden.

Bonus points if you can get your local population to think America just blew up an occupied apartment building for no reason, killing 53 men, women, and children.  And they didn't even hit their target.

[Lord Dave]

Apparently RFK Jr doesn't want to prevent AIDS.
https://apnews.com/article/health-human-services-layoffs-restructuring-rfk-jr-ec4d7731695e4204970c7eab953b2289

A friend of mine works with the NIH as part of their job.  Whole departments are now gone.  INCLUDING the HIV/AIDS prevention department.

[Tom Bishop]

Everyone thinks that it matters.

"Everyone", in general, are also ignorant of exact DoD classification rules and guidelines. So "everyone" can expected to be blatantly wrong in their assumptions. This means that when you cite "everyone", you are citing an ignorant source.

As far as I can tell from the numerous published articles I have seen on this, in all of this I am the only person who bothered to actually look up and publicly cite the DoD classification guidelines. Everyone else is assuming stuff, including those few smarties who casually reference or partially reference the guidance as if we should trust them. And, surprise, what I found and cited matches with what the CIA Director had to say about it. Based on this, I have no problem stating that the CIA Director and I are far smarter than "everyone" on this topic.

Waltz has said he takes full responsibility and has admitted it was embarrassing.

Actually in the fuller statement he expands that he's embarrassed that he was associated with a vile journalist scum of the earth who twists the truth for a story, who was somehow included in the chat.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/25/us-news/national-security-adviser-mike-waltz-takes-full-responsibility-for-embarrassing-signal-leak/

“Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there?” Waltz began.

“So, of course I didn’t see this loser in the group,” he continued, referring to Goldberg, who is viewed by many as an antagonist of Trump. “It looked like someone else.

“Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened by some other technical means is something we’re trying to figure out.”

Waltz described the incident as “embarrassing” — but vowed that the White House would “get to the bottom of it.”

...“I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contact and then gets sucked into this group,” Waltz moaned.

The national security adviser said that he doesn’t believe that Goldberg, whom he described as “vile,” was intentionally added to the group by a rogue White House staffer.

...“But I can tell you for 100% — I don’t know this guy. I know him by his horrible reputation. And he really is the bottom scum of journalists,” he vehemently said of Goldberg.

In the statement, between mentioning that he was embarrassed about this, he mostly speaks disparagingly about the character of the person he invited. He does not say that he is embarrassed that the journalist saw classified information. He is embarrassed that, through him, this professional liar found information to twist.

Yes, it is embarrassing to be associated with a liar, and it is embarrassing that your liar contact abused his privilege of association by twisting the words and situation of your Secretary of Defense. Waltz's name is currently being dragged through the mud within the Trump admin community, and he might not be working for the Trump Whitehouse through the year.

There's an investigation going on in to how it happened.

This was purposely enacted by a republican who sits on the armed services committee. He likely sees this ignorance floating around and knows that further education and an official word from the Inspector General is needed to clear the Defense Secretary's name. This is a good thing for Hegseth.

There's is no world, no matter what shape it is, in which you think the accidental inclusion of a journalist into a group chat about a live military operation is fine.

It's not fine. The main problem is that the journalist involved is a known liar, twisting the situation with radical assumptions about classification and disclosure for his benefit, not that he saw unclassified information.

[Lord Dave]

[AATW]

"Everyone", in general, are also ignorant of exact DoD classification rules and guidelines.

Which continues to be irrelevant.
This was clearly chat which was not meant for the public domain.

Actually in the fuller statement he expands that he's embarrassed that he was associated with a vile journalist

He said "it's embarrassing, yes, we'll get to the bottom of it". The "this" clearly being, if you look at the interview, that Goldberg was included in the group.
He, of course, then goes on to attack Goldberg. Because that's how this administration rolls.

It's not fine.

Oh thank fuck, finally some progress.
So stop flailing around looking at whether this was technically classified information and whether it endangered the mission.
It's not that relevant.
The issue is the lack of seriousness and competence at the highest levels of US government that something like this could happen.

The main problem is that the journalist involved is a known liar

The fact that the person who accidentally got added in to the chat is antagonistic to this administration and that no-one noticed he was in there makes this worse. Although luckily for Waltz, Goldberg may not be a fan of Trump but he has some integrity. You, of course, will dispute that. But let's look at the evidence. Goldberg didn't publish any of the details of the mission until the mission had finished. And he initially planned not to do it at all, he just flagged up that he'd been added in to the chat. He could have kept quiet - who knows, he might have been added in to other chats and seen more things, that would have been a useful source of information for a journalist. But instead he said what had happened so they could fix it. Then when the administration started attacking him and calling him a liar he was like "oh cool, so you'd be OK with me publishing the details?" and they said "er, rather you didn't old chap". After much deliberation he decided to publish given that the mission had been completed and he was being called a liar.

This is the MO of this administration. Everyone antagonistic to them is a liar or a bad person or <insert other pejoratives here>.
It's a trick Trump has pulled for years which has proven depressingly effective - try and disparage and discredit the very people who should be holding him to account, the people who should be scrutinising his words and actions. If Trump can do that then HE becomes the source of truth. He can do anything he likes because the people who should be providing the checks and balances aren't there. I can see why he admires people like Putin. I don't want to go all Godwin's law but holy shit, dude, this is dangerous stuff. It's setting you down a road which I don't think you as a country want to go down.

[Action80]

Do you disagree?

Yes.

Video snipped.

Entertainment lawyers have no credence in the discussion.

[Lord Dave]

Do you disagree?

Yes.

Video snipped.

Entertainment lawyers have no credence in the discussion.

Even when they quote sources?

[Action80]

What sources are they quoting?

If it is the same ones you guys are relying on, then they have just as much credence as you guys do.

[Lord Dave]

What sources are they quoting?

If it is the same ones you guys are relying on, then they have just as much credence as you guys do.

They quote the law.  Like the actual law, with which specific section of the law it is and everything.

[Action80]

What sources are they quoting?

If it is the same ones you guys are relying on, then they have just as much credence as you guys do.

They quote the law.  Like the actual law, with which specific section of the law it is and everything.

Where? Musta missed that. Gotta timestamp?

Yeah, I see. Around 14:45...Correct law, correct reading...Incorrect analysis regarding what was shared.