But, first, going back to the John Kass article “HOW THE NEW YORK TIMES IS KILLING AMERICA“, which I mentioned the other day
Far from its carefully nurtured Hollywood image as the fearless speaker of “truth to power,” the old gray lady is the newspaper of the Deep State and the American Kemalists who control and feed the Deep State.
But now, following abuses of journalism that have finally reached critical mass in the public consciousness, the New York Times has yet again become the object of ridicule by recently publishing a pathetic defense of its COVID coverage, misleading readers even as it bleats “We Were Badly Misled.”
This is the same NY Times which, among others, started worrying more about Islamic jihadids in the wake of 9/11, who blew off Benghazi and provided cover for Clinton and Obama, who blew off Obama ignoring the Arab Spring and called ISIS the “JV Team”, provided cover for Obama when Russia took over Crimea, covering for Hillary over her blatantly illegal use of private email (when they weren’t ignoring it), blew off the aforementioned COVID, refusing to do any investigation and branding any who opposed as Wrongthingers, and provided cover for Biden’s Afghanistan misadventure, among others
The Signal thing was minor, but, 4 articles and a topline linkathon
Signal Leak Exposed When Bombs Would Fall in Yemen. But Defeating Houthis Won’t Be Easy.
The bombshell publication of a group chat involving Trump administration officials discussing U.S. battle plans revealed in unusually stark fashion what the Trump administration hopes to achieve with airstrikes this month against the Houthi militia in Yemen.
The attacks, some of the chat’s participants said, were meant to deter the Houthis from attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea and reopen shipping lanes to the Suez Canal.
“Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes,” said a participant identified as Michael Waltz, President Trump’s national security adviser.
But the high-level hopes expressed in the Signal chat, which became public after The Atlantic’s editor in chief was inadvertently added to it, could collide with reality.
“Could”? Who is the Times rooting for?
Middle East experts said the Iran-backed Houthis won’t be easily beaten. Few wars have been won with air power alone, and some military experts say it will be no different with the Houthis. The biggest shipping companies also have little appetite for returning to the Red Sea. They have found a workaround that, while inconvenient and costly, allows them to avoid those lanes and deliver goods on time.
James R. Holmes, the J.C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said that even during the U.S. war to remove Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, when air power was at its apex, a land invasion was necessary — and defeating the Houthis might require an occupation.
“You have to control turf to win,” Mr. Holmes said. “Aircraft cannot occupy territory, however valuable a supporting capability they are for armies and Marines.”
Wild how the NY Times didn’t care about Biden launching air raids during his time in office, eh?
The Houthis may even use the U.S. military strikes, analysts say, to bolster their position in Yemen and farther afield as other Iranian proxies, like the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, have suffered heavy losses at the hands of Israel.
Did the NY Times say the same thing while Biden was president? Here it almost looks like the Times is rooting for the Houthis and other jihadis because Orange Man is in office.
The latest U.S. strikes are a “direct answer to the Houthi prayers to have a war with the U.S.,” said Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House, a research institute based in London. He said the group “wants to drag the U.S. into a larger regional escalation.”
So, the NY Times wants Trump to not attack? Where was this during the Biden admin? Anyhow, how many days will the NY Times beat the drum over this minor Signal thing?
Looks like?
That’s an understatement.
This is easy. Just arrest the reporter for accessing a secured communication and send him to Getmo. End of discussion.
David,
So far, there is no reason to believe that the Atlantic’s editor has broken any laws (this time). Being anti-American isn’t illegal. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans believe only criminals should be locked up. At worst, it seems there is another little “Vindman” hiding in the Trump administration undermining national policy in exchange for treats to be named later.
“Hegseth kicking himself for not just getting 13 soldiers killed and giving 80 billion in weapons to terrorists.”
BB
They have no other stories…
https://www.foxnews.com/media/va-secretary-doug-collins-throws-lawsuit-cnns-face-contentious-interview-signal-chat-leak
Bwaha! Take That Bitch!
MAGA47 Mofos!
This bullshit of using the INTERNET to have top secret conferences is beyond ludicrous.
The stupidity of doing this is mind-boggling insanity taken to an infinite degree. The fact that a trump hater was somehow in this conference tells me that ONE of these people allowed him to join the conference. So somewhere among these people is a traitorous MF that should be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten like a man.
This is not news. This is not reporting on the administration breaking the law. This is downright treasonous activity by a reporter who knew he had no business being in this meeting. Yet, he sat in anyway, recorded the meeting, and then printed it in his magazine.
BAN Signal from the entire government. Then, watch as Signal sues this reporter for the destruction of their reputation.
Doom,
There is nothing wrong with Signal. A lot of the DoD uses it for a lot of very trivial stuff like contacting travel services for a flight or contacting HR to see if your award got turned in on time. Even though the encryption is very good, it should never be used for any sort of classified discussions because we already KNOW that the Russians have the encryption key. The problem is Group chat and not monitoring who is on it before you open your trap. Nothing that happened in this case was demonstrating an inherent weakness of Signal or the way it is used. If anything, the Trump team learned a valuable lesson on seeing who is in the room and being reminded that most of the federal government WANTS them to fail. As you pointed out, Someone invited the reporter to join.
The actual case being brought over this is a good one. The Federal records act (the one that Hillary was intentionally avoiding with her private server) and FOIA depend on government owned and managed communications so that proper records and archives of government proceedings can be recorded. I cannot tell if that is being done on Signal. I suspect it is possible, but not automatic.