• 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!

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

The brain-dead, senile moron was Biden, and your opinion means nothing to me, all I have ever seen you do is criticize everything the US does. Go kick rocks.
I posted facts, not opinion. I criticise the cretin you stupidly elected, and his stunts are about to impact you, bigly, right where it hurts; in your pocket.
 
Musk is too flamboyant and inflammable.
Mark Kelly is not a traitor.
Leftists might be citizens with confused or limited brain cells.
But it makes no sense to call them evil.
Are politically depressed and leaderless Leftists evil?
"Confused or limited brain cells"? Liberals didn't elect Trump; Trump's beloved "poorly educated" did, and are now looking forward to a global trade war, soaring prices, recession and escalating inflation. Don't forget, tariffs work both ways; 20% on imports means you'll be paying 20% more for those imports. US-made alternatives? Good luck finding any.




 
That test was not an OOB. :rolleyes:



Again, that text was not an order of battle. It made no statement of details of who, where from or to where.

If anything, the announcement by the Pentagon of the three carrier groups moving into the middle east two weeks earlier was closer to an OOB that what existed in that text.

And OOB is a detailed list of the command structure and units involved in a military engagement. The Pentagon announcing the movement of three carrier groups to the middle east to deal with the Houthi Threat is still not an OOB, but it is closer to an OOB than that text. That text is in no way an OOB.

Another problem with your argument is that the level of OOB release like the Pentagon has done happens all the time, and it is done mainly to strike the fear of God or Allah in the enemy, because there is pretty much no military on the planet that can do anything with a US OOB, all that the OOB could possibly impart on the enemy is a rough estimate of how truly ****ed they are.

In modern warfare, "three US carrier groups" equates to "absolutely ****ed".



Pete Hegseth as Sec Def has delegated classification authority from the President. He has the power to declassify within his department. The president can rescind that, or declare that the Sec Def exceeded his authority, but he didn't do that.

This was a spillage of sensitive, but not highly classified information. It wasn't intentional and it had no actionable material that could have been used by America's enemies, except to tell them how much time they had to get right with Allah, unless you are ready to classify Jeffrey Goldberg as an enemy of the United States, and it didn't impact the mission.

But again, the Houthi best by date was stamped the moment that the Pentagon made that "three US carrier groups" announcement.



It wasn't an OOB, and there are times where releasing war plans, even to the enemy, is a sound and winning strategy.

A good case in point: Operation Garbo in WWII

In the hours before the D-Day landing Allied Intelligence released the Normandy landing details through a spy, codenamed Garbo, to the German high command.

They did this knowing that the information would not adversely impact the Normandy landing immediately and giving the Germans this information would solidify the German high command's trust in Garbo. Having gained their trust, Garbo then, for the next week, started feeding the Germans false alerts that a bigger, main invasion force was heading to Calais, which had the effect of freezing 3 Panzer divisions and 30,000 German troops in Calais, saving the Normandy landing.

So see? Your last statement was grossly over simplified, and your understanding of what constitutes an OOB is absurdly wrong.
There was a steady drip-feed of misinformation (Operation Fortitude),
fed to Nazi Germany prior to D-Day which went on for months; the assumption that Calais, being the closest French port to the British mainland, would host the invasion was accepted by the Nazi leadership way before D-Day.
 
And it's still minor.



That is absolutely known.



The information wasn't classified no matter how many times you say it was.



If someone wants transparency they should start by not losing their mind and calling for heads for ginned up and overblown offenses and holding their own accountable for offenses that actually result in tragedy. Just a thought.

When Benghazi and the Afghanistan **** ups can be swept under the rug, the Democrats were already at rock bottom.
How do you know it wasn't classified; because the incompetent idiots leaking it told you it wasn't? Of course they'll say anything to cover their useless arses.
 
How do you know it wasn't classified; because the incompetent idiots leaking it told you it wasn't? Of course they'll say anything to cover their useless arses.

People who work or worked in highly classified DOD jobs know. We are, were trained on it annually. The text wasn't a war plan, it wasn't an attack plan, and it wasn't an OOB.

The text could be considered sensitive, but not classified.

Also, the SecDef has delegated classification authority for information within the DOD, and the only position that can overrule his decision on classified material would be the POTUS. So even if he release classified information it would fall on the POTUS to determine that the SecDef overstepped his authority in releasing it, and the POTUS didn't.
 
There was a steady drip-feed of misinformation (Operation Fortitude),
fed to Nazi Germany prior to D-Day which went on for months; the assumption that Calais, being the closest French port to the British mainland, would host the invasion was accepted by the Nazi leadership way before D-Day.

It was Garbo who was ultimately the most successful. He was the one who earned Hitler's trust to the point that Rommel's panzers were stalled in Calais on the reports from Garbo.
 
Right, so Waltz is so competent, so security oriented that he didn't invite a journalist onto a supposedly secure chat involving secret war plans. Thanks for putting me straight.
I doubt he personally set up the group chat.
 
People who work or worked in highly classified DOD jobs know. We are, were trained on it annually. The text wasn't a war plan, it wasn't an attack plan, and it wasn't an OOB.

The text could be considered sensitive, but not classified.

Also, the SecDef has delegated classification authority for information within the DOD, and the only position that can overrule his decision on classified material would be the POTUS. So even if he release classified information it would fall on the POTUS to determine that the SecDef overstepped his authority in releasing it, and the POTUS didn't.
Dunno. I was just a grunt, but I would assume that assets, time of departure, and time on target would be classified.
 
People who work or worked in highly classified DOD jobs know. We are, were trained on it annually. The text wasn't a war plan, it wasn't an attack plan, and it wasn't an OOB.

The text could be considered sensitive, but not classified.

Also, the SecDef has delegated classification authority for information within the DOD, and the only position that can overrule his decision on classified material would be the POTUS. So even if he release classified information it would fall on the POTUS to determine that the SecDef overstepped his authority in releasing it, and the POTUS didn't.
It wasn't an attack plan? So discussing what, where and when specified munitions were to be used against specific targets in Yemen wasn't an attack plan? What was it then; a coded lunch invitation?
 
People who work or worked in highly classified DOD jobs know. We are, were trained on it annually. The text wasn't a war plan, it wasn't an attack plan, and it wasn't an OOB.

The text could be considered sensitive, but not classified.

I worked for years in highly classified DOD environments, and know people directly involved in the effort that was being discussed.

I've not asked (because it would put them in a hard spot), but based on having worked similar missions in the past, the information put into the Signal Chat would probably be treated as TS//NF within DOD channels, although we almost certainly probably produced a number of REL tearlines for particular partners.

However:

Also, the SecDef has delegated classification authority for information within the DOD, and the only position that can overrule his decision on classified material would be the POTUS. So even if he release classified information it would fall on the POTUS to determine that the SecDef overstepped his authority in releasing it, and the POTUS didn't.

This is correct. If SECDEF decides he wants to put TS//NF DOD information into Signal... he has the authority to do that, unless overriden by POTUS, and, in fact, SECDEF can decide in the moment to make it no longer TS//NF to do so (he's the OCA).



It was stupid for him to do it. It was wrong of him to do it. But he had the authority to do it.
 
People who work or worked in highly classified DOD jobs know. We are, were trained on it annually.
Stop gaslighting. There is NO QUESTION that the chat contained classified information, and that includes the political discussions. Hegseth clearly copied operational details from the high side to a commercial communication network.

It's also obvious that this was an attempt to avoid federal reporting requirements, since the chat was set to delete after (iirc) 1 week.

And we all know that if it was you who posted that same information to a Signal chat and got caught, you'd be facing prosecution right now. Don't even front.

Also, the SecDef has delegated classification authority for information within the DOD....
What the f***?

This kind of data is classified by default. Hegseth certainly did not go through any process to declassify details of a surprise attack, a few hours before the operation happened. That would be utter madness.

Stop spewing lies. You can deceive yourself, but you are failing to deceive anyone else (except those who want to be lied to). All you're doing is eviscerating any credibility you have left.
 
I posted facts, not opinion. I criticise the cretin you stupidly elected, and his stunts are about to impact you, bigly, right where it hurts; in your pocket.
Doubtful. Like most of the things you post.
 
I worked for years in highly classified DOD environments, and know people directly involved in the effort that was being discussed.

I've not asked (because it would put them in a hard spot), but based on having worked similar missions in the past, the information put into the Signal Chat would probably be treated as TS//NF within DOD channels, although we almost certainly probably produced a number of REL tearlines for particular partners.

However:



This is correct. If SECDEF decides he wants to put TS//NF DOD information into Signal... he has the authority to do that, unless overriden by POTUS, and, in fact, SECDEF can decide in the moment to make it no longer TS//NF to do so (he's the OCA).



It was stupid for him to do it. It was wrong of him to do it. But he had the authority to do it.
Im pretty sure you cant just declassify things by ****ing up and saying it out loud, even if you are the authority.

I mean, if that were true, seems like you would have mentioned that the Secretary of State, being a cabinet level official, has the authority to classify and declassify things too. But I cant remember that argument ever advanced by you or anyone during all the bitching about Hillary Clinton's emails.
 
Im pretty sure you cant just declassify things by ****ing up and saying it out loud, even if you are the authority.
I wonder, if this stuff isn't classified or sensitive, then why didn't Hegseth post this information on his X account? After all, it would be too late for the Houthis to take any action, right?
 
Dunno. I was just a grunt, but I would assume that assets, time of departure, and time on target would be classified.

What Targets? Where? What approach? Which assets where? The Houthi and everyone else could have assumed the assets when the Pentagon announced 3 carrier groups converging on the region. By the time the enemy knows where and with what the bombs are already dropping.
 
Stop gaslighting. There is NO QUESTION that the chat contained classified information, and that includes the political discussions. Hegseth clearly copied operational details from the high side to a commercial communication network.

It didn't contain classified information for two reasons: 1) It didn't contain actionable material and 2) the SecDef, who is a delegated classification authority, said it didn't.

As I have said, only one person can determine that the SecDef was wrong about his classification statement and that is the POTUS who is the only person who could override him... and he didn't.

The ONLY piece of information that Goldberg claimed but didn't provide evidence for that might qualify would be the name of an informant.

And with that I will point you to the actual verified incident in the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle where Biden's moronic administration turned over the names of US informants to the Taliban and then ended up having to bug out a month early, leaving most of them behind to the mercy of the Taliban

Who was fired for that? Answer: Nobody.

Spare me your righteous indignation. In this case the name of the informant wasn't even given to the enemy unless Jeffrey Goldberg did it..
 
I worked for years in highly classified DOD environments, and know people directly involved in the effort that was being discussed.

I've not asked (because it would put them in a hard spot), but based on having worked similar missions in the past, the information put into the Signal Chat would probably be treated as TS//NF within DOD channels, although we almost certainly probably produced a number of REL tearlines for particular partners.

It MIGHT be, but times, which is the only actual detail released that couldn't be derived from the Pentagon release, would be of little use to the enemy unless they had more details. When they announced 3 carrier groups were moving to the region then it's F-18s, Cruise missiles and drones.

As I've pointed out before, that text contained no more information that George W's now famous "Shock & Awe" speech he gave at the start of the war in Iraq. Attack was imminent, and and it was coming to Iraq (which is actually more information than the Houthis would have had, really).

This is correct. If SECDEF decides he wants to put TS//NF DOD information into Signal... he has the authority to do that, unless overriden by POTUS, and, in fact, SECDEF can decide in the moment to make it no longer TS//NF to do so (he's the OCA).

It was stupid for him to do it. It was wrong of him to do it. But he had the authority to do it.

Including Goldberg in the chat was the accident, but Hegseth's statement wouldn't be an accident if he didn't view the minimal details in his text to be worthy of classifying. The texts showed that there was also a high side communication stream regarding the actual details of the mission.
 
Im pretty sure you cant just declassify things by ****ing up and saying it out loud, even if you are the authority.

You can't.

Unless, of course, you are an Original Classification Authority.

In which case, the way you think the information should be handled....

... is allowed.

If Hegseth had wanted to pull Huthi leadership into the chat, he could have done that and been within his authority to do so.


I mean, if that were true, seems like you would have mentioned that the Secretary of State, being a cabinet level official, has the authority to classify and declassify things too. But I cant remember that argument ever advanced by you or anyone during all the bitching about Hillary Clinton's emails.

She did indeed! :) And, if you bother to go back and read my posts, you will see that I do, indeed, point out that (at the time she was SECSTATE) she did indeed have the authority to put State Dept Information onto unsecured platforms. What she didn't have was authority to put CIA, Defense, or other Agency information onto those platforms or the authority to retain that information, or the authority to obstruct justice by refusing to turn it all over and then attempting to destroy both data and devices to prevent investigators from finding the full extent of the exposure.

Similarly, Trump (at the time that he was President) had the authority to put classified information in a bathroom at Mar A Lago, and (like Hillary) his authority over that information disappeared when his job did, and he also did not have the authority to retain that information or obstruct justice to prevent its return.
 
Back
Top Bottom