Analysis of Democrats’ reaction to Signalgate and the Iran nuclear strike.
Jeffrey Goldberg wasn’t on the Signal chat this time; hell, there wasn’t even a Signal chat between Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and top defense officials that we know of leading up to the Iran nuclear strike on Saturday night. The operational security surrounding the meticulously planned and flawlessly orchestrated strikes on Iran was on such close hold that they were over and our bombers out of Iranian airspace before the mullahs knew about it. It was over before the media knew about it. It was front-page news before most congressional Democrats found out about it.
And they’re really steamed over it.
It was just a few short months ago, March, that Democrats gleefully sounded off about Goldberg, The Atlantic editor’s, accidental (?) inclusion in the Signal chat in the lead up to the U.S. attack on Iran’s Yemeni proxy, the Houthis. When Goldberg wrote a story claiming to have operational details of the planned attack on the Houthis, Democrats donned their sackcloth and ashes and somberly informed whoever had a microphone that Donald Trump would have to quit over what they cleverly dubbed «Signalgate.»
These were the same people purposely kept in the dark about Operation Midnight Hammer— because they can’t keep a secret —and last March were threatening to commit harakiri in the well of the senate. Chuck Schumer thundered that Signalgate «.is appalling. Worst of all, it confirms our darkest assumptions about the mishandling of sensitive military operations.» This is a guy who, for four years, hadn’t known who the president was.
Senate Democrats wrote a strongly worded letter to President Trump about Signalgate, complaining of “extreme alarm about the astonishingly poor judgment shown by your Cabinet and national security advisors» and urging him to investigate as «diligence demands.
