this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1319 points (99.5% liked)

politics

22503 readers
3652 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Atlantic has published unredacted attack plans (non-paywall link) shared in a Signal group chat of senior Trump officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg released the full texts after officials denied sharing war plans or classified information, arguing transparency was necessary amid accusations of dishonesty.

The leaked messages detailed U.S. military strikes targeting Houthis in Yemen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 24 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

... So, the angle they are going with now is that this was a very serious offensive and nefarious act perpetrated against Mike Waltz, the guy who created the group chat.

M Waltz is saying that well hey maybe this piece of shit Goldberg guy (the journalist) hacked his way into the chat? Maybe it was an inside job, or an outside cyberattack, and somebody swapped out Goldberg's phone number with another one of my contacts, so that when I tried to add a legit person who should have been in that group chat, it tricked me and added Goldberg!

... Yeah. These idiots are unfortunately in charge of investigating themselves, and at least Mike Waltz seems to be saying 'no it is utterly impossible that I accidentally added the wrong guy to the chat, I was clearly the victim of some kind of hack!'

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2gxzPEzjU

Yes, Mike Waltz 'takes full responsibility'... by positing an inconsistent mess of possible cyberattacks/manipulation techniques that could have been used against him, absolutely no way he fat fingered a contact add, nope.

[–] YerLam@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Did they leave out some high ranking general with the same name? In their frantic CYA narrative isn't there some key person missing from the chat, and if so why not name them?

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, you nailed it right there, if it was that, then they could just say who had the similar name.

... but that isn',t possible when everyone involved is a sentient piece of ratshit molded into the form of a human, that has absolutely no ability to ever admit any fault or take responsibility for anything, ever.

These people are all completely unqualified, sociopathic opportunists with moral fiber composed of fucking anti matter, they'd instantly explode if they ever attempted to flex those moral muscles and develop any actual principles.

I have, entirely seriously, known multiple meth/fentanyl addicts (in the process of detoxing) with better moral character, sense of responsibility for their actions, honesty, loyalty, and principles they strive to live by.

[–] Clasm@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 days ago

Turns out that the current administration was just a bunch of DUI hires.