America is 50-50. And neither fifty can understand the other.
Are you watching the news? I know it’s difficult; I can empathize. I watch it all, multiple networks, multiple online sites, lots of fact-checking, and that is difficult… and somewhat depressing.
The latest example? A security breach involving The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who inadvertently participated in a Signal group chat where top Trump administration officials, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were discussing sensitive war plans against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Goldberg originally thought he was being punked, but when bombs started dropping in Yemen at the time detailed in the chat, he knew the conversation was real, and he immediately signed off.
FOX NEWS Host Will Cain reported on the security clearance breach and called the incident “incredibly concerning.” But then, he pivoted to claim that the “bigger takeaway” is that it’s “a transparent insight into the thought process and dialog of our national leaders.”
“What you will see… a very collaborative, open, honest, team-based attempt to come to the right decision,” said Cain. “After years of secrecy and incompetence, if you read the content of these messages, I think you will come away proud that these are the leaders making these decisions in America.”
Really, Will? Proud? Leaders?
Jesse Watters weighed in with a similar hard-news approach, equating the texting call to accidently inviting your spinster aunt to a group chat and ending up sharing “all your raunchy plans for your bachelor party.”
Watters then attempted to discredit the involved journalist as “not a good reporter” and “one of the biggest hoax artists around” who’d “heard some things he probably shouldn’t have” but ultimately it was just “a wee bit of a security breach.”
Hoax artist? That’s a wee bit of hard-hitting journalism, Jesse.
As self-appointed guardians of national security, Republicans have egg on their faces. Grab a napkin, there’s still a wee bit of yolk on your chin; Jesse will get it.
For years, we were reminded of the Hillary Clinton email scandal as history’s single greatest threat to American democracy — I agreed that her actions merited investigation. I wrote about her breaches and advocated that she be held accountable.
But now, in a stunning display of mental gymnastics, one party suddenly can’t seem to remember why mishandling classified information was such a big deal.
If there was an award for hypocrisy, or just flat-out obfuscation, the competition in Washington would be keen. The early leader might be CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who was in the chat but claimed in a Senate hearing this week that he now “doesn’t recall” what was discussed.
Director RATCLIFFE: “I don’t know Jeffrey Goldberg. And I’ve already testified, I don’t know whether or how he was added.”
Senator OSSOFF: “Okay, well, he was a member of the Signal chain, and the discussion included the Vice President’s private opinion on the wisdom of proposed U.S. strikes in Yemen, correct?”
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “I don’t recall.”
SEN. OSSOFF: Quoting Vance: “I think we are making a mistake. I am not sure the President is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There is a strong argument for delaying this a month.”
“You don’t recall?”
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “I don’t.”
SEN. OSSOFF: “You don’t recall seeing that?”
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “As you read that, I don’t.”
SEN. OSSOFF: “It included the private opinions of the Secretary of Defense on the timing of strikes in Yemen, correct?”
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “I don’t recall.”
SEN. OSSOFF: “Director Ratcliffe, surely you prepared for this hearing today. You are part of a group of principals, senior echelons of the U.S. government, and now a widely publicized breach of sensitive information. You don’t recall whether the Vice President opined on the wisdom of the strikes, that’s your testimony today under oath?”
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “In that setting, I don’t recall.”
SEN. OSSOFF: “Here’s what Secretary Hegseth said. ‘Waiting a few weeks or months does not fundamentally change the calculus. Two immediate risks on waiting. One, this leaks and we look indecisive. Two, Israel takes an action first, or Gaza cease fire falls apart, and we don’t get to start this on our own terms.’ Your testimony is, you don’t recall the Secretary of Defense sending that message or reading it?
DIR. RATCLIFFE: “I recall there being an exchange. I don’t recall the specifics as you’re reading it.”
The CIA director was on a call with ten high-level Cabinet members, discussing the deployment of military personnel and weapons for an attack, and he “doesn’t recall?” John, were you working on a Wordle? Pay attention, man; this could be important.
The one bright light in this whole thing might be Jeffrey Goldberg, who seems to have been the most security-conscious person chatting. He left the conversation when he realized he wasn’t supposed to be there. No one else noticed.
We used to all get outraged at stupidity, dishonesty, and corruption in our leaders. Today, half of us get outraged about everything. The determining factor is whose team is stupid, dishonest, or corrupt.
Hillary was wrong and should have paid a higher price (although, she did lose the election). But here we go again. A Republican official engages in a real security lapse that could have cost American lives, and the official response is whoops!
This is about more than just hypocrisy — it’s about electability. Because hypocrisy in American politics seems a small price to pay for reelection. Americans have short memories. If your side gets caught, the team will offer forgiveness, understanding, and convenient lapses of memory.
And if my team gets caught? I don’t recall.
Curt MacRae is a resident of Coldwater, MI, and publishes his opinions regularly.
To be notified by email, when a column is published, or to offer feedback: rantsbymac@gmail.com
Comments