Random Posts

MAGA’s new semantic defense of leaked Yemen Signal convo strains credulity

razzakgr March 27, 2025

Supporters of President Donald Trump have concocted a new excuse to downplay the administration's embarrassing leak of sensitive military plans by arguing over the difference between an "attack" and "war."

The latest excuse comes after Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, revealed on Monday that he'd been inadvertently added to a group chat on Signal where Trump's top advisors outlined plans for striking Yemen's Houthi rebels.

The initial response from Trump's team was disjointed, with the White House admitting that the messages were legitimate while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insinuated that such an exposure never took place.

Other excuses from conservatives suggested that the leak was done on purpose by Trump as part of a masterful gambit, despite the White House's admission to the contrary. And after numerous high-level officials such as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggested that all of the messages were unclassified, Goldberg shot back on Wednesday by releasing the entire chat log.

Yet even with the damning texts available for all to see, many Trump fans and officials still couldn't bring themselves to admit that the president's advisors had made a monumental mistake. Instead, the latest excuse revolves around how Goldberg initially referred to the chats as "war" plans before framing them as "attack" plans in his follow-up article.

"The Atlantic beclowns itself as they concede—by releasing this—that no 'war planning' was going on as they had falsely alleged," said White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung. "Sounds like some terrorists had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day."

In the texts, the times of the strike, as well as the types of aircraft, drones, and missiles used were revealed.

But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also used the talking point.

"The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT 'war plans,'" she wrote on X. "This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin."

Even National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, the official reportedly responsible for accidentally adding Goldberg to the chat group, latched onto the new defense.

"No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS," he said. "Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests."

The "rapid response account" on X for the Department of Defense jumped in, too.

"They backpedaled the whole 'war plans' thing really really fast...." the account wrote.

The excuse is being embraced by MAGA influencers, who are now accusing the entire story of being "fake news."

"This is the best Democrats have from the Signal chat to try to attack the Trump admin," wrote Paul Szypula. "It’s a nothing burger. It lists no names, locations, or times. That’s why The Atlantic changed their narrative from 'war plans' to 'attack plans.' Yet another hoax by the Dems."

Regardless of wording, national security experts, agree that the information shared in the group chat was undoubtedly of a classified nature.

Internet culture is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here. You’ll get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post MAGA’s new semantic defense of leaked Yemen Signal convo strains credulity appeared first on The Daily Dot.



from Tech https://ift.tt/C1ApN8m
Tags

Post a Comment

0 Comments