NSA Mike Waltz Takes Responsibility for Leaked Yemen Strike Chat
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has accepted full responsibility for a leaked chat regarding Yemen strike plans, labeling it as embarrassing and promising to investigate the circumstances. He criticized journalist Jeffrey Goldberg for his involvement in the leak, suggesting possible manipulation.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has publicly taken full responsibility for a significant security breach involving an accidental disclosure of sensitive discussions regarding strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen. This incident occurred when a planning chat from the Trump administration was shared with a journalist from The Atlantic. Waltz addressed the issue during an interview on Fox News’s Ingraham Angle, stating, “I take full responsibility. I built the group. It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”
Additionally, Waltz did not shy away from criticizing Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, who disclosed that Waltz had included him in the Signal chat about the military operations. He labeled Goldberg as a “loser” and implied that the journalist might have “deliberately” manipulated someone from the administration to gain access to this sensitive information.
The leak raised serious implications about internal security protocols, as it underscores vulnerabilities in communication practices among high-level officials during critical planning periods. Waltz’s comments reflect both an acknowledgment of the gravity of the mistake and a determination to investigate how such a breach could have been permitted to occur.
In summary, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has taken complete accountability for a serious information leak regarding military operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen. His statements reflect the seriousness of the breach, as well as an intent to investigate potential lapses in protocol. Furthermore, his public criticisms of Jeffrey Goldberg indicate ongoing tensions surrounding media interactions within sensitive government discussions.
Original Source: m.economictimes.com
Post Comment