• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mike Waltz claims ‘full responsibility’ for Signal chat group leaked to journalist

They weren't being transparent. They ****ed up.

If they were being transparent as you claim they would have briefed Fox News.
Is Fox News more reliable than the Atlantic?

What, in your opinion, makes Fox News more transparent than the Atlantic?

I've never heard that take before.
 
Is Fox News more reliable than the Atlantic?

What, in your opinion, makes Fox News more transparent than the Atlantic?

I've never heard that take before.

its more favored by the current administration, not necessarily "more transparent".
 
I'm reading that the Acting Chair of the Joint Chiefs was not a part of the chat and that, in fact, none of the military were included. That or they knew better than to participate.

In the meantime, they're destroying Social Security, interferring with the states rights to run elections, and destroying the alliance that so many sacrificed their lives for during World War II. The damage is everywhere.
 
military ops shouldn't be transparent.
Some people disagree. Some people want more transparency.

There is no level that will make everyone happy, for sure. Trump staff chose to be more transparent, and people who want less transparency will be unhappy.

That's totally fair, and a difference of perspective is totally a thing.
 
Who would add someone to this kind of chat if they don't know who the number belongs to?
 
its more favored by the current administration, not necessarily "more transparent".
Ok, so should the administration only share stuff with news outlets that are "more favorable" to them, or should they also share with news outlets that are "less favorable" to them?

Which would be more transparent?
 
Yes, Waltz is doing the right thing and taking full responsibility for this happening, but he knows HE didn't do that and you can be damned sure he's going to find out who did.
LOL. Taking responsibility apparently means blaming some anonymous person they haven't found.
 
"some people"? no doubt. lol.

name "some people" who want operational details of future military operations released to the public in advance.
well, other than spies, traitors, russians, etc, i'm sure they would love it.
 
Ok, so should the administration only share stuff with news outlets that are "more favorable" to them, or should they also share with news outlets that are "less favorable" to them?

Which would be more transparent?
no, they shouldn't, i never said anything like that.

but clearly if the trump administration was going to be more transparent, they would tend to choose outlets like fox news that they like, not the atlantic which they dont.

of course they should be more transparent, and more transparent to all media, but that's not how they roll.
 
not being incompetent would make me happy(ier).
military ops shouldn't be transparent.
Not openly, no. But there should be a record of communications made so if anything ever has to be investigated there is an archive of communications demonstrating how decisions were made and communicated. Communicating via commercial apps like Signal prevent that kind of transparency because those communications are not archived.
 
well, sure, records should be kept, for possible future reference.
 
This is a clown show. Okay, Walz was the dumbass, but they're all dumbasses for not using secure government channels.
 
But you just said:
It’s over with. No harm. No foul. Get over it.

Is it a big deal or not?
 
no, they shouldn't, i never said anything like that.

but clearly if the trump administration was going to be more transparent, they would tend to choose outlets like fox news that they like, not the atlantic which they dont.
Why? Which is more transparent - sharing stuff with only favorable outlets who will only report what Trump wants, or sharing stuff with outlets that are unfavorable and will share the truth?

Clearly the unfavorable outlets offer more transparency .

of course they should be more transparent, and more transparent to all media, but that's not how they roll.
well, this is one step they took to be more transparent. I'm sure some people will be happy.
 
well, sure, records should be kept, for possible future reference.
Exactly. I was in no way implying this kind of information should be openly shared unless part of an investigation which would carefully vet what is released and how.
 
Nope.

The Trump administration is, right now, engaged in finding out how a contact in the Signal app had one person's name...and Goldberg's number...and finding out who put that manipulated contact in Waltz's computer.
Walz admitted adding the reporter.
 
LOL. Taking responsibility apparently means blaming some anonymous person they haven't found.
Some person they haven't found...yet.
 
The funny thing about this whole situation is that for all of the crackpot conspiracy theories about hacked contacts lists being shopped around desperately by @Mycroft, he misses the most obvious likely explanation: Mike Waltz is a past informant / source for Jeffrey Goldberg.