Alarming Signals

 

I don't know how long Pete Hegseth is planning on sticking around at Defense but maybe he shouldn't make it long?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15 in a private Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer, according to four people with knowledge of the chat.

Some of those people said that the information Mr. Hegseth shared on the Signal chat included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthis in Yemen — essentially the same attack plans that he shared on a separate Signal chat the same day that mistakenly included the editor of The Atlantic.

Mr. Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, a former Fox News producer, is not a Defense Department employee, but she has traveled with him overseas and drawn criticism for accompanying her husband to sensitive meetings with foreign leaders.

Really. It's like there is some kind of huge problem in the Trump Administration where people have no sense whatsoever regarding how business should even be conducted. Starting right at the top, of course.

Why Yes, It Does Look Like a Lot of Crimes

 

Now that we have the messages, please go compare what it's in it to the CENTCOM classification guide provisions below. This all very clearly classified at at least the SECRET level.

There was quite a bit of perjury yesterday. https://t.co/ohpct4dDRV pic.twitter.com/HAAB6RtIlV

— Secrets and Laws (@secretsandlaws) March 26, 2025

Jeffrey Goldberg followed up on yesterday's bombshell with more receipts, and well, yes, The chat itself is sketchy, Mike Waltz added Goldberg to the chat himself, the information Pete Hegseth shared with the group is what you might call "born classified" secret or top secret-level intelligence because it includes what weapons and what times, and yes, they were probably avoiding presidential record-keeping by having the chat set to disappear after a week and yes, cabinet member lied under oath about what happened, and while we are at it, a whole apartment building seems to have been leveled to get to one guy, which feel very war-crime-y. 

White House officials want to play semantic games but this is just what we're looking at--what they actually said, what statues and policy actually say. And who the journalist was or his political affiliation does not change those bare facts. 

How About That OPSEC?

 

Look at that Murderer's Row in the above picture. You've got NSA Mike Waltz, who added The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, you've got very pompous VP JD Vance, SECDEF Pete Hegseth. who let us know America USED to be foolish (whatever we look like now, he will probably have to face in the morning after he's slept it off a bit), Secretary of State Lil Marco (Alleged Adult) Rubio, DNI Tulsi We Don't Compromise Classified Intel Gabbard, and Steve Witlesskopf--who was using his cell phone to join in from Moscow where Putin was making him wait. 

Everyone on that chat should have known better than to be on that Signal chat. If they preferred Signal for some reason, it's hard not to think it was to avoid FOIA. So, they chose being potentially open to access by GRU (known to try to exploit apps like Signal by following people of interest) over institutional transparency. 

Stopping Pirates and Terrorists is Actually Good

 

There's something very opaque to me about the politics of places like Yemen, where there has been a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Iranian-backed group Ansar Allah (Houthis), and I'm by no means an expert, but when a group has been attacking international trade at sea--private ships flying under the flags of multiple nations! and also taking shots at US military targets, it makes sense for the US to respond so they knock that shit off. We aren't really being given a choice. 

Doing nothing means they keep doing that. To use a homey little analogy, if I was a business owner and my store was getting robbed and my employees were physically threatened, yes, I would want protection, and violence against the perpetrators would be a part of that defense. 

This isn't just about what's going on in Israel--although Ansar Allah is similar and has the same kind of ethos it seems as Hezbollah.  First--they have been a problem. They are not "freedom fighters" and there's a difference between being in control of Yemen and being a government. The Houthis own a share of the blame for rampant famine in that country. 

A Virulent "Hoax"

Trump calls coronavirus criticism Democrats' 'new hoax' and links it to immigration https://t.co/Q2JfVQtklA

— The Guardian (@guardian) February 29, 2020

"Hoax" seems to be Trump's magic word for dismissing any news he doesn't particularly care for. The story about Russian assistance to his 2016 campaign? He calls it a hoax--but it certainly isn't. The impeachment over his abuse of office in holding military aid over Ukraine's head to extort an investigation into Hunter Biden? He calls it a hoax, but the details of the extortion plot are quite clear when you eliminate his apologists' obfuscations. And now that the stock market, what Trump believes to be a key indicator of his strong economy (it isn't) is being affected by the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, and cases here in the US are documented with some accounting of Trump Administration cock-ups, Trump and his pitiable lickspittles like Mulvaney and Pompeo are comfortable suggesting that this, too, verifiable as many details may be--is a hoax. The virus only exists to fuck with Trump's re-election plans. Pay it no mind.

Of course, if it was a "hoax", that wouldn't entirely explain why, consideration of the coronavirus enters into postponing a summit with Asian leaders. That much is real. But I guess, the hoax part is supposed to be the bit where a whistleblower was removed for pointing out that infectious disease protocols were not observed when dozens of Health and Human Services workers met with Wuhan evacuees, who were not tested, and these personnel afterwards just....went about their business. We aren't supposed to note that the Administration hobbled our pandemic readiness, or that crisis management after the fact is a poor substitute for preparedness when a crisis does hit.

Wagging, Like a Dog!

It is still a little amazing to me that Saudi Arabia, whose defense spending is pretty enormous, managed to have half their petroleum capacity imperiled by a drone strike (which was temporary damage) from either the Houthis or Iran (or on behalf of the Houthis by Iran, or the Houthis with Iran's help--whatever)--because shouldn't they have more hardened defenses around an obvious target like that, given the length of time they have been engaging on war with Yemen? (Or was reporting on this incident a little magnified?)

I don't know. I have a hard time understanding why Saudi Arabia is waging genocide in Yemen and why the US has continued being complicit with that, I only know that Trump used a veto to keep sending weapons to Saudi Arabia-- and the reaction of Donald Trump, on a day when the talk was all about whether he tried to extort a foreign leader into investigating a potential political rival, was to announce that the US was now going to send US military personnel.

Because the oil was hurt, you guys. Thoughts and prayers for the oil.

I'm just saying that the timing is interesting, is all. I'm not suggesting that this president would try to transform the news cycle from a scandal about some violation of campaign finance and abuse of power and the high crime of bribery (which would not be new, in this presidency, am I right?) by trying on the gravitas of being a "war president", because that isn't what Trump is doing, exactly.  I will suggest that Trump is pulled by his need to appeal to his base, which means appearing strong, even if that means strong and wrong, just as much as it means changing the subject. And then there is his unique take on US military power as a protection racket.  Trump has long seen it a waste of US resources that the American military is world cop--and would prefer to see it be more profitably used as "hired muscle"--by preferred customers willing to pay cash.

I think this Iran/Saudi Arabia thing was in play whether or not the whistleblower story became news or not, but the timing of the deployment isn't lost on me. This also scuttles the possibility of Iran nuclear talks, verifying as certain the knowledge that we'd be better off if Trump just stayed with the damn Obama deal. And Trump has demonstrated he can't help but plunge us deeper into every level of the suck--whether in Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

I don't like it. Trump is a man of few tricks (misdirection and frauds--like birtherism and his voter fraud claims), but the press sometimes gives him belly rubs for them. Like a dog! So weird for a man who uses "Like a dog!" in the way he does.

(No insult intended to actual dogs, who deserve better.)

Scenes from a Presidential Trip Abroad

Of all the things I was prepared to grimace about regarding President Trump's foreign travels, the idea of him giving a speech vaguely described as being "about Islam" in Saudi Arabia struck me as being obviously the most fraught with peril. The Muslim ban thing--not likely to be the greatest advance word-of-mouth recommendation regarding his opinions on things Islamic, you know? But the speech wasn't really terrible--given where many are setting the bar for such things on Trump's behalf, anyway. I'm not of the Muslim faith, so the eye-rolling parts might not stand out so much to me--I think that hitting on Iran's support of terror might be a little bit slanted to his SA audience (they just re-elected a moderate and ahem! SA also has their history with terror--and current events!)

But the part about "not lecturing" to the Islamic world also comes at the risk of admitting to the US turning its back to human rights issues in the Muslim world. I don't see that as a useful step for the US to be making, and it erodes the idea we've long-projected of American exceptionalism. The US has had its failings, but I don't think that means uselessness in the attempt to face what is, alongside of terrorism, a form of evil. It is this concern that casts a pall over the arms deal that has been signed--how are these weapons being used, and isn't Trump's Administration not, in signing this deal, also signing off on how they will be used?

I don't know what to make of the $100 million donation being made to Ivanka Trump's nascent women's empowerment fund that will be set up through World Bank and should not be, as I understand it, managed by Ms. Trump herself. (I basically think there's lots of room for crony capitalism in Trump's orbit.) Whether this is exactly like Trump's campaign criticisms regarding the Clinton Foundation strikes me as almost in the vicinity of the question of whether President Trump appeared to be curtseying like a lady--really? This is where we go? (Yeah--of course it is!)

But I have to give extra points to whoever set up the "hands on the glowing globe" photo, which is almost like movie shorthand for "we're just joining forces for world domination like villains do!" Of course, it's not a Giant Globe.  (We've seen how these can go wrong.) But it glows!

The Presidential Speech

I don't actually have a lot to say about President Trump's address to the joint session of Congress, and went to bed without bothering to watch any tv news commentary about it because, frankly, I was knackered. But I awoke to find that pundits seem to have watched a different speech from the one I had. They seem to have largely judged it a very "presidential" speech. Which I think begs the question: Whose definition of "presidential"?

The word "presidential" is used like everyone is assuming the same meaning. But I'm not sure we all do have the same definition in mind when using the term. I think the connotation we've been assuming is "competent, professional, statesmanlike, credible". I think the best I can do to define the term, currently, is "of or about the current duly sworn-in occupant of the White House, who also resides at Trump Towers and Mar-A-Lago." Did President Trump give a speech--well, then, it was presidential!

He started at the top of the speech reacting to the crying need to address multiple acts of domestic terror against the Jewish community and the shooting in Kansas City. This is appropriate, if a high-profile and specific way to do so, on a day when he just earlier appeared to be implying that certain acts were hoaxes to make his administration look bad. I don't think this messaging alone should grant his office a pass when a response was delayed until it could be made in a particular display, when it seems like he discounts the real fears of minority communities, and when he (whether consciously or unconsciously) apes the opinions of a (former) Klansman.

He also gave space to honor the sacrifice of U.S. Navy Special Operator Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens by pointing out his widow, Carryn Owens. I have nothing but sympathy for her fresh grief and the obvious depth of her sorrow. But I turned the sound down through that spectacle, because I felt like he was using her as a prop. (I am not alone--earlier that day Trump seemed to blame the Generals, anyone but himself for signing off on the raid. Despite White House claims that it was wildly successful, except for the dead civilians, mostly children, the dead Navy SEAL, and not actually gathering actionable intelligence--I'm not sure what the WH definition of "successful" is. But I can't applaud Trump using a man's widow as a human shield to deflect against criticism.)

Also, Trump lied, because he does that. A lot. Many of his claims, countered even when he was on the campaign stump, have been oft-repeated by Trump, and he can't help himself. His policies are and will be based on false claims. I don't think this is helpful.

None of this was to my taste, not raised my estimation of him one iota, and I don't get what those who found this speech to be especially compelling were looking for--if it was honestly, competence, and not being a huge manipulative con, sorry, that wasn't what he provided. At best, it was a reasonable act. But listen closer, put it in context--he did not "become presidential". He is President. But he's still Trump.

The Leaks are Real. The News is Fake

The press conference President Trump had Thursday might has been blogged about by yours truly as a "Trump Did Not Have A Great Day" post, but I'm not sure that's exactly how I would describe what transpired. I think a pretty good analysis of the entire presser with transcript was done by NPR, and I encourage looking at what I think is a pretty even-handed review. The presser itself took place while I was at work, so my impressions of what was said largely came through checking my Twitter feed at work whilst at lunch--and you would be quite reasonable to assume my Twitter follows lean left, and the conservatives and Republicans that I do follow lean "never Trump". My impression was that the nearly 1.5 hour event was kind of a damn mess.

I guess I still consider it a damn mess, but I recognize that for people who are pro-Trump, this is not a problem. Did he say things that weren't entirely factually true--sure, but they were "truthy" in the sense of fitting in with his worldview and specific hyperbolic style. Was he basically pissing and moaning about bad press coverage? You bet--but many people are critical of and even distrust mainstream media journalism. Also, I think because what Trump does and says is so highly different from what conventional politicians do or say, a person used to covering more traditional figures is liable to read his eccentricities as more erratic or disordered or imply that he's collapsing or self-destructing or that this one news thing is going to just disable his presidency--

It doesn't work like that, though. I think in both the liberal and conservative camps, we've gotten a little bit inured to clickbait-y titles that suggest that some figure was "destroyed" or "slayed" or "totally owned" by some event. But this never the actual case. Show me a chalk outline around a greasy spot where that individual once stood and I would call that "destroyed". "Made to look uncomfortable or even a bit emotionally aroused" is not actually "destroyed". In other words, from a liberal perspective, I am inherently distrustful of people who want to positively state that this early in a presidency, any number of off-the-wall utterances taking place can mark the end of a presidency. Especially for someone whose entire candidacy, nomination, and general election tactics were predicated on--what would I even call it? "Off-the-wall-ism"?

That said, as a critic of political communications and policy, I guess there might be any number of blogposts I could spin off of any given exchange or paragraph. I mean, seriously. Even basic things like Trump's fetish for discussing his electoral win is simply peculiar. His 304 electoral vote win was not the most significant since President Reagan. He likes saying it was "306" and seems to want to imply it was a massive landslide. It just wasn't. Or citing Rasmussen's claim that he has 55% approval--which disagrees with Pew and Gallup--but still wouldn't qualify as "through the roof" relative to being in what should be the "honeymoon phase" of his presidency. Which he isn't getting because his White House is not a "finely-tuned machine" (OMG--this was a thing he said!) but more like some good old boys making their way the only way they know how, which might be a little bit more than the law will allow.

He's obsessed with "ratings", but doesn't quite correlate the concept that popularity and effectiveness are not the same thing. And he's not yet achieved effectiveness despite his claims--shit like the botched Yemen raid and his skimpy staffing are on him, not the people reporting on him. He seems dilatory about vetting people or things. His "I can't believe it's not a Muslim ban" was not properly checked out. Leadership should include sharing responsibility for failures and taking a problem-solving approach to challenges--not complaining about them. For a person with business executive experience, he does not seem to be translating any acquired skills to government executive capacity. This is worrisome, because that is the exact flexibility his voters seemed to be counting on.

Bowling Us Over?

There is something so exciting about "alternative facts"--once someone in Trumplandia makes out with one of their regular shocking falsehoods, it becomes a kind of anthropological study to sort out where their bullshit came from and how it's supposed to support their narrative. It's hair-raisingly awful, but if it wasn't liable to lead to tragedy, it would make a sort of neat parlor game. 

Take KellyAnne Conway's recent bid at Terrorism Cluedo. Two Iraqi refugees, in Bowling Green, with a massacre, by way of IEDs. Except of course, when she says "Bowling Green Massacre", she means to say a massacre may have been prevented because the Obama Administration found out that two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green had been associated with IED deployment in Iraq prior to their coming over--which resulted in their apprehension and a strengthening of vetting procedures (which was not either the same thing as this "extreme vetting" mishegas the Trumpers have ordered).

The impression she means to make (if she hasn't somehow innocently conflated several terror/immigration-related concepts, and I believe she is too sharp to have done so) is that refugees are dangerous.  Except in reality, there have been zero attacks from people from the seven countries the EO references. Zero.

But conflation and confusion can be useful when you know your intended audience never fact-checks anything, and is already poisonously biased against the idea that fact-checkers are themselves unbiased. So when Sean Spicer invokes the Marathon Bombing as a reason why the EO exists (not to call it a Muslim or Travel ban, because that apparently gives Sean a sad) the intended audience might not note that Kyrgyzstan is also not part of the seven countries. He mentions Atlanta--which must be referencing the Olympic Bomber, but Eric Rudolph wasn't a Muslim at all, he was one of our homebrew terrorists. And San Bernardino was an American citizen and his Pakistani wife. These attacks are real, but they don't have anything to do with the ban, any more than the Quebec Massacre at a mosque--killing Muslim people, by a white, RW, Quebecois substantiates by any means the EO.

The Proxy War has Heated up in Yemen

I'm not sure how many people will be closely following what's going on in Yemen right now, but it's exactly the sort of tangle that should remind us of why dealing with foreign states, even if the US tries to keep it under the umbrella of "the war on terror" (whether we call it that anymore or not) is fraught with the potential for blowback.

So, imagine we're just doing our war on terror thing, trying to knock out AQAP in Yemen because this a failed state where training is happening--and it's almost like regional powers have an interest in where this is going. We now have some kind of obvious proxy-war looking thing going on, with the Shia militias (Houthi) who have basically taken over the major cities including Sanaa are likely backed by Iran (and as a consequence, any connection we had with the vacated government in Yemen can be considered totally shared with Iran, now). And now the very concerned Sunni Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are striking the area.

I don't think any of this has much to do with US interests. My gut says that this is exactly where the US should call "We're out!" and let them slug it out and snuff any little old extremist groups in the way while they are at it. My head thinks my gut has a point. And I think this general feeling is applicable elsewhere in the region.