Karoline Leavitt delusionally denies “war plan” leaks against Yemen
Just like other Trump officials, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is denying the leak of “war plans” to the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic.
Leavitt downplayed the security incident on her X account. “The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans.’ This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” Leavitt said in her post. This statement is merely opinion. The White House already confirmed that Trump officials accidentally added The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the group chat.
Needless to say, social media users weren’t buying Leavitt’s attempt at preserving the Trump administration’s credibility. One X user wrote, “Why are you downplaying this? Would you have downplayed it if this was the Biden administration?”
Piers Morgan, who is often more conservative with his views, agreed with the sentiment. He spoke out on X, saying “If you don’t consider this to be classified info about imminent war plans, it may be that you’re too partisan to recognize the truth when it slaps you around your tribal chops.” He added that if it happened under Biden, Republicans “would have rightly gone berserk.”
Hillary Clinton nodded along with Morgan. “Never thought I’d be retweeting Piers Morgan, but he’s right,” she wrote on X. The facts have undeniably united both ends of the political spectrum. Without question, the Trump officials involved were negligent, and consequently, their denial makes them appear weak.
If the security breach happened under Biden instead, perhaps Trump’s cabinet would be emphasizing that mistake. There’s no doubt that if the same event happened under any other administration, citizens and other officials have the right to be angered. Despite preaching about accountability, it seems that the Trump administration wants to be spared from the criticism they’re rightfully receiving at the moment.
What were the leaked messages, if not “war plans?”
Perhaps Leavitt is caught up in technicality and refuses to acknowledge the chats as “war plans.” Should softer language, such as “air strikes,” “targeted attacks,” or “special operations” against Yemeni Houthi rebels, be more politically correct for this administration? The Atlantic also released parts of the chat, which is now being widely shared online. The information chatted about by Pete Hegseth involved the timing of the strikes, the type of weapons used, and the targets.
Politico reported a senior administration official’s frustration on the issue. The official, who was granted anonymity, claimed that “People are mad that Waltz didn’t just admit a mistake and move on.” Instead, it seems that Trump officials involved in the scandal intend to confuse and misdirect from their security fumble.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
