How Rolling Stone on Wednesday reported, have gossiped some officers from the Trump administration behind the hand. And the now notorious national security gap in a signal group chat with something from the HBO polite satire Veep compared.
These officials are wrong. This ongoing mini series of the second era by Donald Trump Is not Armando Iannuccis American series Veep. But more and more Iannuccis series is similar The Thick of It. In the British politician and their profane spin doctor against the background of scandals on television and frenzied media are constantly obsessed with words, duplicate and linguistic subtleties. To save your last dignity.
An uncomfortably similar dynamic is currently playing in the White House under Trump. Where you try to react to the devastating unveiling that a group of the President’s highest officials – including Defense Minister Pete Hegseththe national security advisor Mike Waltz and Vice President JD Vance-about an unsecured signal group chat that they did not know about Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who revealed the story, in constraint, about highly sensitive bomb plans. (Waltz apparently added Goldberg to the group chat.)
Absurd game of semantics
The only possibility of the government was to transform one of the stupidest national security fiasco of the recent past into an absurd game of semantics. Trump officials and her allies now argue that Trump’s national security officers in the Signal chat had not discussed any “war plans”. The Atlantic reported on Tuesday above after the medium on Wednesday Copies of which had published what it described as “the detailed attack plans that Trump’s consultant shared in chat”.
The signal messages show how Hegseth gives a detailed overview of the planned bombing of the government in Yemen before they started. At one point he even wrote: “Then the first bombs are definitely dropped.”
“The Atlantic admitted: that was not a ‘war plans'”, wrote The Press spokeswoman of the White House, Karoline Leavitt, on Wednesday on X. After Goldberg published new details from the group chat. “This whole story was another dizziness written by a Trump hater who is known for his sensational twisting.”
The Atlantic However, did not make any concessions when Hegseth’s screenshots published. In which he spoke about the upcoming bombing of the Huthis in Yemen.
“Nobody sends war plans via SMS”
The rest of the government has the same argument. “Nobody sends war plans via SMS”, said An excited Hegseth on Wednesday to reporters. “You even changed the title in ‘attack plans’. Because you know that it is not a ‘war plans’,” he added. “There were no war plans there,” emphasized Foreign Minister Marco Rubio later on Wednesday. “It was a kind of description of what we could inform our partners all over the world. If the time has come.”
The Ministry of Defense claimedthat The Atlantic “The whole thing with the ‘war plans’ quickly withdrawn”. And noted that the heading of the history published on Wednesday describes “attack plans”. The Pentagon described the publication A few hours later as a “machine to generate false reports”.
Regardless of the distinction between “warplates” and “attack plans”, Hegseth and others discussed highly sensitive information about an upcoming military attack in an unsecured chat. And had no idea that a journalist mitlas. They refuse to admit misconduct. Or recognize the naked reality of the situation. Instead, they try to dismiss the responsibility of themselves. By playing puns that everyone who has seen what was talked about in the chat should perceive.
“You may find it silly. But that’s how we do it today”
Some of the most confident members of Team Trump’s leadership are ready to admit that the debate about the difference between plans for a “war” and a top -class military “attack” is not a real debate. “You may find it silly. But that’s how we do it today,” says a tight ally of Trump, who was in contact with the employees of the White House about this aspect of the crisis communication strategy.
A government official who wants to remain anonymous to openly discuss this, as he puts it, “shitty chaos”, I simply say: “It doesn’t matter whether you want to call it a ‘war plan or a’ attack plan ‘. Include. “
“Add the mistake and continue”
Some allies of Trump express their frustration publicly. “The attempt to rewrite this signal debacle with words only makes it worse”, wrote the Right-wing commentator Tomi Lahn on X. “It was bad. And frankly, I have my nose full of the water-wennisms from my own side. What is good for the goose is also good for the goose. Add the mistake and continue.”
The desire of the Trump administration to play word games fits the more comprehensive MAGA efforts to make words meaningless. So that Trump and his party can get away with everything. Trump and his allies have often used the term “war” to achieve their goals. Currently calls itself The government on the “war powers” of the President. To argue that she can deport Venezuelan migrants into a brutal prison in El Salvador without a proper procedure. Although the United States is not literally with Venezuela or the gangs there.
“Sensational anti-trump reporter”
It also fits the greater efforts to convince the Americans to doubt what is right in front of their eyes. “Trust the Minister of Defense. Who was nominated for this role. Who was elected to this role by the United States Senate. And who served in the struggle, who served our nation in uniform,” said Leavitt during a press conference on Wednesday. “Or do you trust Jeffrey Goldberg, who is a registered democrat and a sensational anti-trump reporter?”
The answer is obvious when you consider that you don’t have to take Goldberg at the word. He published a group chat whose authenticity was confirmed by Trump’s own national security council. The real question is whether the Americans trust Hegseth. A scandalum Former moderator of Fox News. Of which several republican senators believed that it was not suitable for the pentagon to guide, or your own eyes.