Yet more (but not unexpected) amateur hour from Trump and his nothing but the best team!

[yankees60]

Doesn’t anyone think that Jeffrey Goldberg “spilling the beans”, perhaps to get a big story for the Trump haters, is a national security issue, possibly helping the enemy? I do agree that Waltz inadvertently (?) adding him to the chat was a huge error.

CLASSIC blaming the messenger and not the perpetrators!

You should watch The Five today. I think they stole my prophecy!

If that is the group who are on Fox News tell me why I should watch when Fox paid a fine of $800 million as part of admitting that they were an entertainment show and not a serious news show.

You never struck me as someone who'd spend his time on such frivolous entertainment.

Yes. But I still don't see how it fits with you expending time on entertainment masquerading as news / information.

Some might call it a form of Satanic Deception.
Did you notice my laughter emoji?

[Mountaineer]

Doesn’t anyone think that Jeffrey Goldberg “spilling the beans”, perhaps to get a big story for the Trump haters, is a national security issue, possibly helping the enemy? I do agree that Waltz inadvertently (?) adding him to the chat was a huge error.

CLASSIC blaming the messenger and not the perpetrators!

You should watch The Five today. I think they stole my prophecy!

If that is the group who are on Fox News tell me why I should watch when Fox paid a fine of $800 million as part of admitting that they were an entertainment show and not a serious news show.

You never struck me as someone who'd spend his time on such frivolous entertainment.

Yes. But I still don't see how it fits with you expending time on entertainment masquerading as news / information.

Some might call it a form of Satanic Deception.
Did you notice my laughter emoji?

Your comments imbedded in my comment leads to confusion on who said what.

[yankees60]

Doesn’t anyone think that Jeffrey Goldberg “spilling the beans”, perhaps to get a big story for the Trump haters, is a national security issue, possibly helping the enemy? I do agree that Waltz inadvertently (?) adding him to the chat was a huge error.

CLASSIC blaming the messenger and not the perpetrators!

You should watch The Five today. I think they stole my prophecy!

If that is the group who are on Fox News tell me why I should watch when Fox paid a fine of $800 million as part of admitting that they were an entertainment show and not a serious news show.

You never struck me as someone who'd spend his time on such frivolous entertainment.

Yes. But I still don't see how it fits with you expending time on entertainment masquerading as news / information.

Some might call it a form of Satanic Deception.
Did you notice my laughter emoji?

Your comments imbedded in my comment leads to confusion on who said what.

Sorry. One of my cats jumped on the keyboard. Thought I'd fixed it but evidently not.

[yankees60]

Which DEI do you prefer?

The old one?

Or, the new one?

Disorder
Entitlement
Impunity

[dualstow]

Which DEI do you prefer?

The old one?

Or, the new one?

Well, eliminating DEI is supposed to be about picking the right person for the job, regardless of background, race, etc.

Choosing a cabinet from people one sees on TV seems like a surefire way to not pick the right person for the job. Even though the main error was committed by a staffer working for Michael Waltz, I don’t think Hegseth is the right person for US Secretary of Defense.

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying that, am I

[Mountaineer]

Which DEI do you prefer?

The old one?

Or, the new one?

Disorder
Entitlement
Impunity

I might go for:

Diplomatic
Empathetic
Inspirational

Based upon my principles of:
Involve people in decisions that impact them, and, never cause someone to lose face in public.

[dualstow]

Doesn’t anyone think that Jeffrey Goldberg “spilling the beans”, perhaps to get a big story for the Trump haters, is a national security issue, possibly helping the enemy? I do agree that Waltz inadvertently (?) adding him to the chat was a huge error.

I missed this before. I think he was performing a public service in the same way that white hat hackers exposing computer systems’ vulnerabilities are providing a beneficial service.

It’s not like he got on the horn to Yemen and warned them to look out.

Hopefully, the administration will be more careful now. I’m kind of glad this whole thing happened.

[dualstow]

P.S. Note that

After the leak, Der Speigel searched the Internet using a commercial information provider, a commercial people search engine, and leaked databases, which revealed Waltz's personal mobile number, personal email address and its passwords, and Waltz's personal profiles for Microsoft Teams, LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Signal.[78

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Waltz

[Xan]

Doesn’t anyone think that Jeffrey Goldberg “spilling the beans”, perhaps to get a big story for the Trump haters, is a national security issue, possibly helping the enemy? I do agree that Waltz inadvertently (?) adding him to the chat was a huge error.

I missed this before. I think he was performing a public service in the same way that white hat hackers exposing computer systems’ vulnerabilities are providing a beneficial service.

It’s not like he got on the horn to Yemen and warned them to look out.

Hopefully, the administration will be more careful now. I’m kind of glad this whole thing happened.

Right, he did it after the operation was all over. And was reluctant to release the complete text until he needed to in order to disprove things that were being said about it.

[ochotona]

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying that, am I

You're going to El Salvador.

[glennds]

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

[yankees60]

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

You are right on that one! I'll see if I can get him to come back here!

[yankees60]

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

You are right on that one! I'll see if I can get him to come back here!

Message sent! We'll see if it brings him back as I share your wish.

[dualstow]

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying that, am I

You're going to El Salvador.

( )

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

Bernie is famous for saying “I don’t give a damn about your emails.” And I agree to some extent.
I did say it was going a step further than Hilary’s gaffe, so I’m not sure how that’s making it equivalent.
But, you said just comparing the two situations. They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?

[glennds]

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying that, am I

You're going to El Salvador.

( )

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

Bernie is famous for saying “I don’t give a damn about your emails.” And I agree to some extent.
I did say it was going a step further than Hilary’s gaffe, so I’m not sure how that’s making it equivalent.
But, you said just comparing the two situations. They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?

True, and two incidents can involve violence yet be materially (even radically) different in degree of severity, degree of harm.

[glennds]

Imagine the dilemma for Jeffrey Goldberg when deliberating what to do after he received these texts.
As others have pointed out, he can be commended for his timing and certain aspects of his handling of it. But going public with it at all took enormous courage.

But I can't imagine being so personally in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration. He's probably put himself at some level of retribution risk. One I wouldn't want to be in. I hope he doesn't get Khashoggi'd.

[ochotona]

(post moved)

[yankees60]

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying that, am I

You're going to El Salvador.

( )

Nah, those are of course straw definitions.

I think one man’s context is another man’s whataboutism. Maybe there’s a spectrum. In my opinion, it’s context provided in order to illuminate hyprocrisy. If you thought Clinton’s emails were no big deal (like Bernie Sanders), but are outraged by Waltz’ mistake, you just might be a hypocrite (“you” means one, not you personally).

Not sure what Bernie's logic was, but in comparing the two situations I'd say false equivalency fits better than whataboutism.

I miss Kgb, would love to hear a former military insider's perspective.

Bernie is famous for saying “I don’t give a damn about your emails.” And I agree to some extent.
I did say it was going a step further than Hilary’s gaffe, so I’m not sure how that’s making it equivalent.
But, you said just comparing the two situations. They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?

"They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?"

No. What they both have in common is the question about using certain devices / software / app for government communications. Also, why is Colon Powell never brought in as a third example.

What is only confined to one is the outside dissemination of information.

The ever present concern with what they have in common is that an outsider could possibly break in and get at this information.

In this case an incompetent set of 18 all blithely sat by while the information was handed to a third party!

[yankees60]

Imagine the dilemma for Jeffrey Goldberg when deliberating what to do after he received these texts.
As others have pointed out, he can be commended for his timing and certain aspects of his handling of it. But going public with it at all took enormous courage.

But I can't imagine being so personally in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration. He's probably put himself at some level of retribution risk. One I wouldn't want to be in. I hope he doesn't get Khashoggi'd.

I am certainly sure that whatever trepidations he may have felt for doing what he did was far outweighed by the personal gains for him and that of his magazine.

[glennds]

Imagine the dilemma for Jeffrey Goldberg when deliberating what to do after he received these texts.
As others have pointed out, he can be commended for his timing and certain aspects of his handling of it. But going public with it at all took enormous courage.

But I can't imagine being so personally in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration. He's probably put himself at some level of retribution risk. One I wouldn't want to be in. I hope he doesn't get Khashoggi'd.

I am certainly sure that whatever trepidations he may have felt for doing what he did was far outweighed by the personal gains for him and that of his magazine.

Jamal Khashoggi probably thought the same thing.
Vinny, read up on the number of journalists who have died in mysterious deaths in Russia since Putin came to power in 2000.

[dualstow]

They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?

No. What they both have in common is the question about using certain devices / software / app for government communications. Also, why is Colon Powell never brought in as a third example.

What’s the difference?
I should have said nongovernmental channels of communication for internal (governmental) messages.
But what’s the difference?

[yankees60]

They both involve irresponsibly using nongovernmental communications, no?

No. What they both have in common is the question about using certain devices / software / app for government communications. Also, why is Colon Powell never brought in as a third example.

What’s the difference?
I should have said nongovernmental channels of communication for internal (governmental) messages.
But what’s the difference?

No difference between Powell, Hillary, and this group of 18+1.

What the difference was is that Powell & Hillary never (to our knowledge) included anyone who was not supposed to be included.

This incompetent group of 18 did.

[yankees60]

Imagine the dilemma for Jeffrey Goldberg when deliberating what to do after he received these texts.
As others have pointed out, he can be commended for his timing and certain aspects of his handling of it. But going public with it at all took enormous courage.

But I can't imagine being so personally in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration. He's probably put himself at some level of retribution risk. One I wouldn't want to be in. I hope he doesn't get Khashoggi'd.

I am certainly sure that whatever trepidations he may have felt for doing what he did was far outweighed by the personal gains for him and that of his magazine.

Jamal Khashoggi probably thought the same thing.
Vinny, read up on the number of journalists who have died in mysterious deaths in Russia since Putin came to power in 2000.

In spite of Trump's desires ... I think we are far, far, far, far, far from becoming a Russia-like country.

[yankees60]

Imagine the dilemma for Jeffrey Goldberg when deliberating what to do after he received these texts.
As others have pointed out, he can be commended for his timing and certain aspects of his handling of it. But going public with it at all took enormous courage.

But I can't imagine being so personally in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration. He's probably put himself at some level of retribution risk. One I wouldn't want to be in. I hope he doesn't get Khashoggi'd.

I am certainly sure that whatever trepidations he may have felt for doing what he did was far outweighed by the personal gains for him and that of his magazine.

Jamal Khashoggi probably thought the same thing.
Vinny, read up on the number of journalists who have died in mysterious deaths in Russia since Putin came to power in 2000.

In spite of Trump's desires ... I think we are far, far, far, far, far from becoming a Russia-like country.

[Kbg]

Vinny requested I make a guest appearance to comment on this topic. If anyone wants to think I'm putting a political spin on this knock yourself out. I could care less. I will give you my personal take based on my former professional career which I won't get into here, but let's just say my opinion is "informed."

Mind blowing carelessness, an extreme lack of professionalism and zero legitimate excuses. I guarantee you if I would have done this...I'm heading to the nearest federal courthouse to be arraigned and charged. If convicted, several years in prison. End of story.

Pick your poison: Democrat (Hillary's server, Biden's garage stash of classified) or Republican (Trump's these are my documents at Mar-lago because I said so and now these clowns). It's pretty clear to me...one set of rules for the little people and another set (or none) for those in power. The hypocrisy of both parties in this area is simply astounding.

I rarely if ever say anything positive about any news organization...but given what happened, criminal negligence (metaphorical not literal) if they wouldn't have published. This is actually what reporters are supposed to do. And in my opinion, from a former life meets the press perspective, the Atlantic did the correct thing. They held the release of the story until after lives and operations were no longer at risk.

Since I'm here and typing...some related editorial.

The new NatSec team is "interesting." I do think the team is weak/not our best and brightest in the area and simply hope we do not have a major crisis. I don't think they will do well, but I would sincerely pray hard for them as it is critical they do the right thing(s). Firing General Brown...bush league. Everyone I know who has worked for him has said he was an excellent leader and way smart.

I actually don't mind a good attempt at shaking some things up. I wouldn't argue that quite a bit of the world has enjoyed a relatively benign environment thanks to the US taxpayer and military. As a result, many countries haven't taken their own security very seriously and have been able to freeload off the security we've provided. The benefit to being willing to do that, is that we've essentially called the "shots" since the end of WW2. We should expect that about 5 years from now that is not going to be the case and we better get used to it. I could be wrong, but if other countries leaders are doing what they should be doing...it's going to happen. IDK how it will work out...maybe it will be a good thing. It could go really bad though.

Panama canal...yeah, probably a good idea to not have a Chinese company running the canal. Panama pivoted pretty quickly as I think they just want the thing to continue to make money for them. I don't think we should unilaterally abrogate a treaty we agreed to and take the place over.

Canada and Greenland...honestly I don't get it. After we got past our imperial phase (westward expansion/Native American conquering, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico etc.) we've pretty much been known as the good guys. Saying Canada should be the 51st state and that we are going to takeover Greenland puts us squarely in the bad country category. Like seriously...why antagonize Canadians? Are we really going to invade the place?

Ukraine...Russia is not our friend and will not be our friend as long as a former KGB agent runs the place. If you think they are our friends (or even want to work with us), you my good friend are an idiot and don't understand Russia at all. Full stop, no punches will be pulled. Reasonable people can have different views on how much we should support the Ukrainians in their fight. As someone who has spent a fair amount of his life in and around war zones...I believe you are either in or out. I think the Biden crew basically had it right, but after we realized Ukraine was going to survive we should have been more aggressive at arming them up with the weapons they needed. A life support slow drip is not a good military plan. Personally, I think it is in the US' interest to arm the Ukrainians if they are willing to fight. I don't think we should send US troops to do the fighting.

China is the one country there is cross party consensus on which is a good thing. Since Xi took over, the whole thing has gone south. And I do agree the rise of China is basically what eviscerated the US blue collar working class...but US companies were the actual hatchet wielders. Clearly, our whole strategy to China did not think the LONG game...but we are known for that as a country. A warning word though...this is the one country where we need to be very, very careful. If you get into really large serious wars (which this one could turn into quickly), the winners tend to be those who simply have more young people who can be killed as soldiers, who can out think and, most importantly, out produce war materials vs. the other side. China is now what the US was in the first half of the last century when it comes to manufacturing prowess. They really are world class...and that does not bode well for us. And then there's 3x the number of people we have.

I know China fairly well...they are united beyond the CCP in having a goal to retake their "rightful" place again in the world...as a major power. I think they've done that already. I think we need to do what is right for our country but we need to do it smartly and manage the relationship well.

And a final get off the stage comment...I have not been terribly impressed by the US foreign policy establishment either and don't believe we've had an outstanding team since the Reagan and Bush I years. Those folks were very, very good. My impression of the current crew is they think that because they think something it is going to be that way...they're going to find out (are finding out) there are more actors in theater than them and they have a different script they are pursuing. I'm not sure how many days the Trump admin has been in place...but guess what, the war in Ukraine wasn't over in a day and I think we are about to find out (again) why most countries walked away from tariffs after the Great Depression. I am up for legit tariff equalization though...but let's not kid ourselves, we the consumers are going to foot a chunk of that bill.

I will end on ethics...if we really did act on some of the stuff tossed out by the Trump admin, we are no longer an example country to anyone and we certainly would no longer espouse the values internationally that we have for over a half of a century. You can't think you're the good guys if in fact you aren't anymore. I'm personally not good with that. Is anyone?