• 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

Allan said:
They weren't being transparent. They ****ed up.

If they were being transparent as you claim they would have briefed Fox News.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Metric Mouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

its more favored by the current administration, not necessarily "more transparent".
 
MTAtech said:
They used Signal because they are lazy, incompetent, or don’t know or care about established protocols for secure communications (or all of those.)

Consequently, when what those protocols are supposed to do aren’t used, a failure occurs and someone takes the blame. However, that person knows nothing will happen because nobody will charge them and if they miraculously got charged, the Fascist In Chief would pardon them. So, there is no incentive to following established protocols.

But why were they sharing highly sensitive information over a private messaging app rather than using secure channels? The most likely explanation is that they wanted to evade accountability: texts between government officials are supposed to remain part of the record, while Signal texts can be and in this case were set to disappear. As Phillips O’Brien notes, war planning aside, what the group chat reveals is top officials’ contempt for and hostility toward Europe; some of them opposed an operation against the Houthis because clearing the shipping lanes might help our (erstwhile?) allies.

So the disaster reflected both stupidity and bad intentions. And the same is true of other ongoing disasters, including the shockingly rapid collapse of the Social Security Administration.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ncguy said:
military ops shouldn't be transparent.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mycroft said:
You are ignoring something very important that Waltz said...that the contact in the Signal app had one person's name and, instead of their number, it had that reporter's number. 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.

I would hate to be that person.
Click to expand...
Who would add someone to this kind of chat if they don't know who the number belongs to?
 
ncguy said:
its more favored by the current administration, not necessarily "more transparent".
Click to expand...
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?
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL. Taking responsibility apparently means blaming some anonymous person they haven't found.
 
Metric Mouse said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
Metric Mouse said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
ncguy said:
not being incompetent would make me happy(ier).
military ops shouldn't be transparent.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ElChupacabra said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mycroft said:
The Signal app isn't the problem. It is certified by all the government security agencies as being secure.

The problem is that someone manipulated the app and inserted false contact information into it.

I would hate to be that person. They are about to be in a world of hurt.
Click to expand...
But you just said:
Paradoxical said:
It’s over with. No harm. No foul. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Is it a big deal or not?
 
ncguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .

ncguy said:
of course they should be more transparent, and more transparent to all media, but that's not how they roll.
Click to expand...
well, this is one step they took to be more transparent. I'm sure some people will be happy.
 
ncguy said:
well, sure, records should be kept, for possible future reference.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
Walz admitted adding the reporter.
 
exoplanet said:
LOL. Taking responsibility apparently means blaming some anonymous person they haven't found.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom