Jake Tapper

Rank 7 of 47
|
Score 156
12/6/2025, 2:43:38 PM
X
In reply to:
Jake Tapper 馃
@jaketapper
路
3h
"...Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. ... 3/
Jake Tapper 馃
@jaketapper
路
3h
"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 馃
@jaketapper
路
3h
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 馃嚭馃嚫鉁堬笍馃弽锔忊瓙锔忦煄栵笍
@RepDonBacon
路
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 addresses concerns about operational security and the potential risks posed by the Secretary's actions. It critiques the handling of sensitive information, suggesting it could have endangered U.S. missions and personnel.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement highlights potential harm to U.S. pilots, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm, but it does so by critiquing another's actions, which could be seen as indirectly harmful.聽[-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy by focusing on actions rather than personal attacks, but it does involve public critique of a specific individual's professional conduct.
  3. 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 focusing on the implications of the actions rather than personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue.聽[+1]