Did You Notice What Vanished From The Atlantic's Narrative About the Hegseth Signal Story?

Solid reporting is hard to come by on both sides these days. In fact, stories from legacy sources are, to me, about as suspect as what I hear on YouTube shorts.

Now, I am only believing the hooker reviews on ECCIE and, of course, the AMP ads on CL.

That explains a lot.

Lay it down and watch maga crawfishin Originally Posted by winn dixie

Even former pilots have said that Hegseth committed a security breach with the attack plans he put into Signal group chat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...c/82702567007/

Even former pilots have said that Hegseth committed a security breach with the attack plans he put into Signal group chat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...c/82702567007/ Originally Posted by adav8s28

signal is a red herring. there was no hack. your experts show lack of context. this article is a nothingburger. there was no vital intel shared and everyone supposed to be in the chat list was authorized to see it. it was nothing more than a proposed timeline without dates or locations. useless even if The Atlantic gave it to the Rebels.



Waltz is falling on the sword over it. if Trump has to throw him under the bus to make this nonsense go away he will and Hegseth isn't going anywhere. he didn't handle the invite logistics. Trump will double down on Hegseth as he should.



nothingburger



the mission was a complete success


end of story by next week

signal is a red herring. there was no hack. your experts show lack of context. this article is .....
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Senator Mark Kelly was a combat pilot. How about this for context?

1.It is in the intelligence guide, attack plans should be classified as top secret.

2. Military operations that are not considered classified should not be discussed on a nonsecure messaging app.

3. Hegseth is not ready for Prime Time and is going to get our pilots injured.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...formation.html

signal is a red herring... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

More like a distraction, misdirection, look there not here, smoke coming out of the mirror, from the legality of President Auto-Pen signing stuff under specious auspices.

Senator Mark Kelly was a combat pilot. How about this for context?

1.It is in the intelligence guide, attack plans should be classified as top secret.

2. Military operations that are not considered classified should not be discussed on a nonsecure messaging app.

3. Hegseth is not ready for Prime Time and is going to get our pilots injured.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...formation.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

lol you keep harping on signal. claiming it isn't secure is false. it was secure enough for the Biden admin to encourage its use.

signal isn't the issue. it wasn't hacked. Waltz made the mistake of inviting someone who shouldn't have been invited.

the intel presented was worthless without more details. no dates. no location.


nothingburger

signal is a red herring. there was no hack. your experts show lack of context. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Signal is a red herring. People and the media keep mentioning it by name but that’s not really the issue.

Phones can and do get compromised all the time. They don’t keep history as required by the law.

There is a reason that SCIF rooms are used when discussing military operations.

Communicating about operational matters before they occur on an unsecured device possibly in an insecure area with a person without the correct clearance level is the actual issue.

I fail to see how this fact can possibly be refuted or simply dismissed by anyone with a reasonable understanding of operational security.

Signal is a red herring. People and the media keep mentioning it by name but that’s not really the issue.

Phones can and do get compromised all the time. They don’t keep history as required by the law.

There is a reason that SCIF rooms are used when discussing military operations.

Communicating about operational matters before they occur on an unsecured device possibly in an insecure area with a person without the correct clearance level is the actual issue.

I fail to see how this fact can possibly be refuted or simply dismissed by anyone with a reasonable understanding of operational security. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

this is the only part you got right

"with a person without the correct clearance level is the actual issue."

in that editor for The Atlantic's case no clearance.

the issue is how did the reporter get invited and by whom.


what he saw was useless anyway.

Communicating about operational matters before they occur on an unsecured device possibly in an insecure area with a person without the correct clearance level is the actual issue.

I fail to see how this fact can possibly be refuted or simply dismissed by anyone with a reasonable understanding of operational security. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

this is the only part you got right

"with a person without the correct clearance level is the actual issue."

in that editor for The Atlantic's case no clearance.

the issue is how did the reporter get invited and by whom.


what he saw was useless anyway. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

My point still stands. If communications about current and future military operations, classified or not, were discussed in a valid scif, or mobile scif, or at the scif's at their own homes then you would never had a reporter invited into the discussion in the first place.


It's bad operational security period.

My point still stands. If communications about current and future military operations, classified or not, were discussed in a valid scif, or mobile scif, or at the scif's at their own homes then you would never had a reporter invited into the discussion in the first place.


It's bad operational security period. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are 100% correct