Pobody's Nerfect!

 

Salazar: Remember, they're just starting in the job… Let's see how they do the next two years. And then we can judge them. But not because of one mistake that they put a reporter. Maybe they made a mistake and they put that. I mean, listen, those who do not have any sins, they… pic.twitter.com/aZrldiTswL

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 25, 2025

I think there's nothing more off-putting for me than the idea that you can actually brush off a national security breach with "But they're new!"   Like, this is an argument for if the waitress gives you a burger with pickles and you definitely said, "Hold the pickles," but it is not an argument for cabinet-level officials who have an insecure chat on their personal phones (because those work phones shouldn't even have Signal on them) and have others on the line who have no business accessing that information.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard literally evaded questions today in a way that implied she was not familiar with classification as a process or policy regarding secure comms. You'd think, wouldn't you, that sort of thing would be part of the basic job requirements, wouldn't you? Cabinet positions aren't entry-level--some competency is required. 

That people who also ought to know better are making this kind of ridiculous excuse is a reflection on their own seriousness--it's none. They have none. 

So, we have the bizarre puzzle of what NSA Mike Waltz means when he seems to be saying that Jeffrey Goldberg managed to be on the call through nefarious means to smear the president (?).  He used elite ninja hacker skillz to make Waltz or an aide dial hi number? The guy is reporting what actually happened--and it doesn't smear the president so much as highlight that he picked these idiots for his cabinet, GOP Senators approved of them, and here we all are! 

It's not great! 

Here's the problem: leadership means ownership. They aren't demonstrating that they do take policy and practices seriously when they refuse to admit wrongdoing. What does that tell the rank and file of the agencies they represent? How does that reflect on their honesty to their own staff? They aren't kids starting a new job--they are professionals, responsible parties! What message does that send to people who might be put in harm's way because their missions weren't secure? 

If the responsibility is too big a burden for them--why did they take it up?  IF these aren't the kinds of questions being asked here, then I feel like these folks have lost the plot.