Jake Tapper

Rank 7 of 47
|
Score 156
12/6/2025, 2:43:39 PM
X
In reply to:
Jake Tapper 馃
@jaketapper
路
3h
"Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary鈥檚 actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots." 4/
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 critiques the interpretation of an Inspector General report regarding the Secretary of Defense's actions. It suggests that claiming the report as 'total exoneration' is misleading, emphasizing the potential risks to operational security and U.S. pilots. The tone is accusatory, aiming to clarify the implications of the report.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to prevent harm by highlighting potential risks to operational security, aligning with the principle of doing no harm.聽[+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy but could be seen as harsh in its language, potentially bordering on disrespectful, though it does not engage in hate speech.聽[-1]
  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 criticism of those interpreting the report as exoneration, but it could be seen as a personal attack by labeling them as 'lying.'聽[-1]