Jake Tapper

Rank 7 of 47

Score 156

"...Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. ... 3/

12/6/2025, 2:43:38 PM

In reply to:

Jake Tapper 🦅

@jaketapper

"Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that 'there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,' if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries,... 2/

Jake Tapper 🦅

@jaketapper

Rep Bacon is correct. The report is quite clear: "The Secretary sent information identifying the quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes... 1/

Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️

@RepDonBacon

20h

Saying the IG report totally exonerates SECDEF is total baloney. I read the report which shows he released sensitive information on an unclassified phone, a prime target for Russia & China. If that info reached Yemen it could have compromised the mission & put our pilots at risk.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the potential security risks associated with the release of sensitive military information. It critiques the actions of a public official and raises concerns about national security and the safety of military personnel.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement raises concerns about potential harm to military personnel, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It respects privacy by focusing on the actions of a public official rather than personal attacks, aligning with the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the potential consequences of the official's actions, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]