👊🇺🇲🔥leaks

Author: WyIted
signal
leak

Posts

Total: 127
#91
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
It should appear sloppy tbh. The only thing that gives me pause is that Walz was the one to do it.
So there’s potential value in appearing sloppy. It looks sloppy. Ergo it was planned as sloppy. Forgetting about the fact that looking sloppy has created a shitstorm of a response, I just don’t love that there’s an inherent benefit of the doubt here. If your point is that sloppiness can be part of the plan, sure. If your point is that we should assume sloppiness was part of the plan rather than just poor planning on their part, then you’ve lost me.
#92
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Maybe there is nothing for them to learn.
If that’s the case, then it should be easy for them to prove that they did everything right. We’ll see what happens.
#93
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,407
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@whiteflame

Maybe there is nothing for them to learn.
If that’s the case, then it should be easy for them to prove that they did everything right. We’ll see what happens.
Within the context of "even if all of them are planned." they have no intention of proving anything to you or anyone else.
#94
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Within the context of "even if all of them are planned." they have no intention of proving anything to you or anyone else.
Alright, so you don’t think they should have to prove they had a plan here and executed on it. Got it.
#95
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,407
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@whiteflame
Well everybody called me crazy when I said government secrets are unjustified risks.

If there are going to be government secrets it goes without saying that they are not obligated to explain to the public why they keep some things secret vs others.

Otherwise it just turns into a guessing game. "Is the secret in regards to something green?"

You either trust them or you don't. I don't, but the solution is not to wait till they leak something and then say "how dare you reveal a secret that I didn't know about till now but which you decided to keep secret in the first place, EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

It would be to legally prohibit the government from keeping secrets.
Topic's author
#96
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,647
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
If the leak looks intentional than it's no different than a statement. Plus there is plausible deniability that it was an honest mistake given its just a single person that was "accidentally added"

Mistakes are going to occur sloppy or not.
#97
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Mistakes are going to occur sloppy or not.


Satirical hyperbole is always entertaining.
#98
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,407
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Babylon Bee is the one guaranteed smile every day.
Topic's author
#99
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,647
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
There was a time when the left has funny satire like the onion was funny at one point. What the fuck happened? 


#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
When it became a religion. That's when satire became blasphemy, and hyperbole became dogma.
#101
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
I don’t really have anything else to add here in response. At this point, we’re talking about markedly different approaches to the problem of what could be either an intentional or unintentional leak.

It seems like ADOL wants to discuss an entirely different approach that doesn’t hold them to account for which it is, but rather tackles the problem by removing it entirely. Fair enough, but not something I want to discuss further. In the meantime, the alternative of not holding them to account at all seems problematic.

Not much to say with WyIted at this point. If it was  an honest mistake, they’re sure taking their time copping to it and there should still be some degree of accountability. If it’s purposeful, then that should be verifiable to some degree and we can move on.
Topic's author
#102
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,647
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Not much to say with WyIted at this point. If it was  an honest mistake, they’re sure taking their time copping to it and there should still be some degree of accountability. If it’s purposeful, then that should be verifiable to some degree and we can move on.
I don't disagree although I would say if the mistake is intentional we will never know and should never know. We don't want national intelligence of how we choose what to leak to be exposed.
#103
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
I don't disagree although I would say if the mistake is intentional we will never know and should never know. We don't want national intelligence of how we choose what to leak to be exposed.
Someone should know, even if it’s not the American public as a whole. There should be a means to determine whether or not this was a mistake and a means to hold the people who committed said mistake accountable if so.
#104
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
Someone should know, even if it’s not the American public as a whole.
Judging from Tulsi's facial expressions during the Congressional hearing, it's likely someone knows.
#105
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Judging from Tulsi's facial expressions during the Congressional hearing, it's likely someone knows.
Certainly looks like it.
#106
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,910
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@whiteflame
Maybe there is nothing for them to learn.
If that’s the case, then it should be easy for them to prove that they did everything right. We’ll see what happens
If nothing in the signal chat was classified. They should release the text to the public.
#107
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
If nothing in the signal chat was classified. They should release the text to the public.
Agreed.

#108
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,407
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@whiteflame
I don't disagree although I would say if the mistake is intentional we will never know and should never know. We don't want national intelligence of how we choose what to leak to be exposed.
Someone should know, even if it’s not the American public as a whole.
Anyone who knows couldn't tell you that the leak was intentional one way or another.

Either way the public face of it looks the same: "whoopsies, we'll do better next time"


There should be a means to determine whether or not this was a mistake and a means to hold the people who committed said mistake accountable if so.
If those means were available to the public then they would be available to the enemy as well.
#109
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,766
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Either way the public face of it looks the same: "whoopsies, we'll do better next time"
Honestly, would be nice if we at least got that as the consistent message coming from this administration.
#110
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,910
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Anyone who knows couldn't tell you that the leak was intentional one way or another.

Either way the public face of it looks the same: "whoopsies, we'll do better next time"
Maybe it was leaked so the enemy would hold their fire seeing how sloppy the military has become.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Goldberg seems to be exaggerating about what was actually in the texts regarding classified info. As someone completely opposed to Trump, there is no sane reason why he wouldn't hand over incriminating evidence to the ranking congressional Democrats in order to run with the "worse than Hillary" narrative for the next 3 years, practically making him a folk hero. If Goldberg is clearly lying about the contents, what else could he be lying about? Could he be lying or omitting critical information about how he got the info in the first place?

I am thinking highly probable.
#112
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,323
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Goldberg seems to be exaggerating about what was actually in the texts regarding classified info. As someone completely opposed to Trump, there is no sane reason why he wouldn't hand over incriminating evidence to the ranking congressional Democrats in order to run with the "worse than Hillary" narrative for the next 3 years, practically making him a folk hero. If Goldberg is clearly lying about the contents, what else could he be lying about? Could he be lying or omitting critical information about how he got the info in the first place?

I am thinking highly probable.
Is it possible that your news channel, whackjobconspiracytheories.com, did not cover the fact that Goldberg published the text chain yesterday? 

Since the administration was swearing it was not classified and attacking Goldberg (SOP) as a liar and saying he was perpetrating a scam, he took that as permission to publish it, it is absolutely classified information, this was an astounding display of gross incompetence and demonstrated a reckless disregard for military personnel and security.  

Just shows, if you select department heads based on loyalty rather than competence, you end up with a Cabinet Clown Show that makes the Three Stooges look serious.


#113
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,323
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@whiteflame
Either way the public face of it looks the same: "whoopsies, we'll do better next time"
Honestly, would be nice if we at least got that as the consistent message coming from this administration.
That's the biggest problem here, if they never admit to their "whoopsies", then you never get to "we'll do better next time", it's that kind of arrogance that guarantees ongoing incompetence.
#114
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't know what he published, but he clearly did not hand whatever info you think he had to the ranking Democrats in congress. I watched a lot of the hearings, and the ranking Democrats didn't have that info.

If you want to defend him saying somehow a rabid Trump hater decided to help Trump out by critically not supplying the opposition with evidence during a congressional hearing because he all of a sudden had a "come to Maga" moment, feel free. It's far more likely he exaggerated a lot and milked it for all he had.

I saw this:

And apparently, the Atlantic was also exaggerating by claiming a text about the real time updates of an unspecified terrorist's house being flattened was confidential information... ok bro. Be outraged.

But it's clear that either Goldberg didn't share that with Congress because he knew it's actually good propaganda for Maga to have left wing  outlets publicly say that they killed some missile launching terrorists, or Congressional Democrats  pretended they didn't have that information during the hearings and faked ignorance by asking what the texts were. Either way, enjoy that delicious burger.
#115
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,323
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Not much to say with WyIted at this point. If it was  an honest mistake, they’re sure taking their time copping to it and there should still be some degree of accountability. If it’s purposeful, then that should be verifiable to some degree and we can move on.
I don't disagree although I would say if the mistake is intentional we will never know and should never know. We don't want national intelligence of how we choose what to leak to be exposed.
You want to boil down gross incompetence to being "a leak", and it could be intentional because there might be secret strategic value to making our Secretary of Defense and senior presidential staff look like incompetent buffoons?  All you are showing is that the buffoonery is contagious, and now it's spreading through MAGA.
Topic's author
#116
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,647
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
How would a simple error make people look like buffoons? 

Think about this. If Obama made a simple error would he be a buffoon?

Or are people in government like everyone else and capable of fucking up occasionally?

I know this hurts because you brainis going

If Republicans make a mistake-buffoonery (also they are secret evil geniuses)

If Democrats make a mistake- actually it wasn't a mistake 

It's just a stupid dichotomy. Just be honest and you look more credible. It starts with honesty to yourself. 

The Goldberg a journalist known for partisan lies in reporting was included in a chat chain that suspiciously looks scripted. He publicly states he has this chat. The administration has a choice. Be honest and say he does so the problem stays under the radar or be dishonest and force him to publish to bring their "mistake" to light. What is Occam's razor tell you what is happening if you assume these very successful men are competent and did just get lucky. 


#117
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,468
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
There's plenty of real things to hate about Trump and his cabinet, but this really doesn't seem like much at all. 

At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

This is hardly a "war-plan" or anything confidential. There's literally nothing redactable in that statement.

I get that the left is thirsty for anything, but good lord.... reeks of a psy-op since this can easily be construed as positive propaganda, very possibly manufactured. We may not have actually killed anyone!
#118
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,323
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
How would a simple error make people look like buffoons? 

Think about this. If Obama made a simple error would he be a buffoon?

Or are people in government like everyone else and capable of fucking up occasionally?

I know this hurts because you brainis going

If Republicans make a mistake-buffoonery (also they are secret evil geniuses)

If Democrats make a mistake- actually it wasn't a mistake 

It's just a stupid dichotomy. Just be honest and you look more credible. It starts with honesty to yourself. 

The Goldberg a journalist known for partisan lies in reporting was included in a chat chain that suspiciously looks scripted. He publicly states he has this chat. The administration has a choice. Be honest and say he does so the problem stays under the radar or be dishonest and force him to publish to bring their "mistake" to light. What is Occam's razor tell you what is happening if you assume these very successful men are competent and did just get lucky. 
LOL, when you guys try to defend this administration’s stupidity, it just makes you look stupid too, it’s like MAGA is trapped in a death spiral of increasing stupidity.

This was a demonstration of gross incompetence, plain and simple. Hegseth threw a little “watch party” for his buddies with battle plans and blow by blow updates, and he did it on an unsecured channel, and accidentally included a journalist.  There was not a single uniformed officer in the group, and the information shared is highly confidential and should be only shared on a need-to-know basis, nobody on that group chat “needed to know” that information at that time. 

Nobody on that chat had any advisory our decision-making authority, the chat by itself was a huge security breach, there is no acceptable reason for Hegseth to turn the battle plans into entertainment.  And that’s exactly what it was, entertainment, the group had no real-time role to play in this situation, the only role for them was “audience” invited to enjoy the show.

It wasn’t a simple mistake, it was a massive, over the top, incompetent mistake, and you can belittle it all you want with more buffoonery, but the outcome is the rest of the world has lost a lot of respect for the US Military and know we can't be trusted with shared military secrets, and that’s not a particularly valuable strategic message we should be broadcasting to our allies or our enemies.



Topic's author
#119
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,647
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I tried to help you by pointing out these people clearly are very successful with extremely high Iaws .

You never want to interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake though.
#120
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,323
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The message sent to the US Military was "You can't trust the Secretary of Defense or the Commander in Chief", that's not a particularly valuable strategic message to send either. 

Especially when they already know that if it this administration's incompetence had resulted in US Military lives lost, they would just consider them "suckers" and "Losers" anyway.