By Grand Rapids Anonymous
monday, march 24, 2025 at 11:47:00 p.m. edt
Portion of zh article indicates that Waltz was the guilty party
"(zh) the 'journalist' (Goldberg) goes on to identify that it was Waltz who initially added him to the group, and that as the conversation unfolded, he was shocked and alarmed that all involved seemingly didn't notice his name was listed in the group. we should note that all of this is also very bizarre because Goldberg is so obviously and rabidly anti-Trump."
GRA: I KNEW Waltz was ID'ed first. So why the target change to Hegseth?
Another story to wash my hands of.
--GRA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
jerry pdx
The left is using this as proof of Trump "warmongering", after all weren't they making secret "war plans"? Sounds kind of ominous when you put it that way. Of course, they are ignoring that the same thing was going on under Biden, Obama and Clinton, but then they said nothing. The US has been using their military to help secure saudi arabia's borders and prop up the saudi royal family since the 70's. There is the supposed agreement signed in 1974 that the US would assist the saudi's militarily in exchange for them parking their oil money with the Western banks, ensuring the stability and hegemony of the petrodollar. I say supposed because I found this article that claims the agreement never existed:
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/fake-news-saudi-petrodollar-deal-with-u-s-ended-this-month/
So what is the fake news? This story or the one about the agreement? Who the heck knows for sure but the US has been pouring a lot of money into assisting the saudi's with military support and the saudi's continue to use the dollar as their primary currency. I think that tells us more about whether or not the agreement exists than some random story online.
In any case, Trump is not just out of the blue suddenly making "war plans" against the Houthi, he's doing exactly what every other President has been doing: Trying to maintain stability in a region strategically important to the US.
Here is a story that claims the saudi's are ending their 50 yr. agreement with the US:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saudi-arabia-ends-50-year-petrodollar-agreement-usa-new-era-nrobf
But we're still there helping the saudi's keep their borders secure so is this article true? This is why the internet can be so frustrating, anybody can post anything at any time saying whatever they want. But there is truth along with the disinformation and lies, it's a matter of sifting through and evaluating the information for ourselves.
IS WALTZ A(CANCEROUS)MOLE?WHAT DO YOU DO TO SUCH A MOLE?
GRA:You cut them out. This question and answer is based on reports such as below.
(ZH)Sean Davis of The Federalist highlights another significant issue: 'they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking'...
“Hegseth should’ve known.” What nonsense. If you can’t trust the president’s top national security adviser to initiate a conversation without secretly including dishonest and corrupt hoax-peddling journos, that is a problem that begins and ends with the national security adviser.
Signal only shows names now, not numbers. And each user determines how his own name shows up, which means if you are invited into a chat after others have been added—and one of those people is not accurately showing their name—you would have no way of knowing a previously added person was a mole.
Similarly, if a trusted friend or colleague called you to speak with you but secretly had another person on the line, or met with you in person while his phone or other device was recording or relaying the conversation to another party, you wouldn’t blame the person who was being spied on. That would be insane. You would obviously place the entirety of the blame on the individual whose incompetence or corruption or malice was the sole cause of the breach of trust and security.
Trump may still trust Waltz, but I guarantee you very few others who have to work with Waltz trust him right now, and for good reason. Even in direct personal conversations in SCIFs or the White House, I guarantee top officials will be far less open with their views given that they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking. And that is a huge liability for Trump, and the country.
N.S. nailed this immediately.
--GRA
Post a Comment