Signal Chat and War Plans. And Stuff.

WASHINGTON's top security staff's surreal “group chat” goof, or whatever that “accidental” shenanigan is called, is of course a national American frolic. A sure feed to the partisanship caterwaul or hate Trump showtime. Certainly, an SNL material.

 

       Beyond this though, whether Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic journalist in the center of the Signal chat drama, was mistakenly included in the chat room or not, it proves that the internet is not a safe place, especially for this kind of internal top-level government "chat." Anyhow, hackers can easily breach an online site if they want to, regardless if the trespass is a juvenile nerd mischief or a really massive terror intent. 

       Whatever the case, the Houthis in Yemen now know what's up in the U.S. camp. Of course they're not dumb. They got their own "chats," too, to discuss this. But then, was the booboo actually a trap? Journalists are not supposed to be in the “room” so who let Mr Goldberg in? And why? Did Jeffrey infiltrate the security soiree? Is that legal? I don't know.

       Anyways, whatever Defense chief Pete Hegseth, security advisor Mike Waltz etc chatted per “bombing Yemen” is rendered senseless when smokes of social media chatter subside. It was a chat or a plan that wasn't carried out. (As though a “war plan” isn't a fact of superpower leadership playbook and such acts weren't carried out in actuality in the past…) 

WASHINGTON regroups. In Mr Trump's first term, his military took out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iran/Quds chief Qasem Soleimani leading to the Doha Accords that eventually ended the 20-year Afghanistan war (never mind the stupid drama thriller in July 20, 2021 or during Joe Biden's time). 

       Meanwhile, as we know it, the Israel/Hamas ceasefire is shaky and fighting resumes. The Hezbollah is a bit quiet but the Houthis are not easy to obliterate. They have resumed shudders in the Red Sea. Etcetera. So I am not amused by the Signal brouhaha. I am not partisan but I favor the end of wars or relatively dovish U.S. plans to help ease hostilities in the region over escalating them.    

       For the meantime, I expect President Trump to yell "You are fired!" However, I can't help but ask, why would this fiasco be a laughing matter to many or a fodder for jest? Because when war escalates, we stay comfy as ever in America? Of course… So let the shaming continue? 🏛🗽🏛

[Visual: USA Today.]

Old Journalism. Blogging. Social Media.

Response to a Friend's Facebook post.

SOMEONE here on my Facebook Page (older or my age) disagreed with my thoughts on current politics by insulting my “journalist-self” or, according to him, my inability to consider facts hence my opinion or insight about what's going on. He was reacting to my "My Thought..." per the day’s news, quoted the first line from a mostly liberal media source. His words, as the usual case, were rude and smothered with juvenile snides and punctuated by that annoying laughing emoji. 

       I wrote back saying this is my social media self, my opinion, my "blog," my random take on a current news report. Not me years ago after I covered an event or interviewed someone. When I wrote as a journalist or reporter, I was "detached" from my subject and myself. I write about what I saw and heard more than how I felt about the event that I covered. (My youth's editor Joe Burgos' to me: "Write news, not poetry.") 

       Then, I often wrote about how I feel about the news that I filed via poetry, songs or I painted. My feelings or emotions about what I saw or experienced went through my literary work. The artist in me beyond or apart from the journalist me. Then came social media and blogging. I extensively post as I blog extensively. That persona is like the guy who responds in a poetry workshop in GAT or political “talakayan” at Grand Inihaw over beers after a day's work at the beat albeit not rude or insulting. 

       When I blog, I don't just "decide for myself." Blogging or journaling isn't like jotting outbursts in a diary, which is private or all for yourself. Although I am currently writing a sort of memoir (I meant to leave to my kids and family when the day is "done.") That is like a diary, not a blog or Facebook post. Etc etcetera. Anyhow, we didn't expect the internet to "replace" traditional journalism. So comparison is a bit difficult. Just two different animals, I guess. 📰✍️💻

Ukraine. And Trump Stuff.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

THE New Left howls, “I stand with Ukraine.” Me, I stand with Ukraine and I stand with Russia. I stand higher for No War so no more military aid to whatever country, amidst war or peacetime. And I stand with the (current) U.S. position in brokering peace in whatever way but not via more fighting or arms aid. End the war now and then we can talk more about trade and economics next. 

       Ukraine's minerals are not a one-shipment deal so whatever deal President Trump offered, sign it. Let FDIs enter Ukraine for recovery and rebuilding. Not just from the U.S. and the European Union, but also from China and BRICS nations. 

       Most importantly, hold a national election in Ukraine, alongside a probe of how the foreign aid to Kyiv, since February 2022, was spent. Before 2022, more than 3 million Ukrainians worked in Russia. Both peoples are kin or couples and friends. My neighbors are Ukrainian/Russian wife and husband. Yet in America, we chose to take a stand to divide them over taking a stand to end this war. 

       We are not really affected by this war the way the Ukrainians and Russians are so we treat this as a dramatic Left vs Right caterwaul while comfortably seated in front of our gadgets, sipping wine or drowned in beer. Mostly, the New Left’s stand is due to their hatred for Mr Trump who chose to shake hands with Russia rather than goad Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Yet Donald uses that friendship, perceived or real, to end this war. 

       Volodymyr Zelensky's fate as President depends on this war. He suspended the election because the war is still happening, hence he expects to get more aid? Logical. Probably if Kamala Harris won last November, he will get more? But America has already given a lot of taxpayer money to Kyiv. Money that the U.S. can, for example, allocate for FEMA or health services. 

       Mr Zelensky has no leverage to negotiate apart from his country's "rare earth" etcetera. Whoever is POTUS, the quid pro quo for USAID or military aid is natural resources or priority country in trade deals. That's always been the case, historically. Aid is not dole-out or gift. (I am a Filipino who protested USAID when I was in the Philippines.)  

       At least, President Trump's deal is not the "arms for oil" that was the deal in the Middle East for many years. That region is already rich and now high on economic development so they now reject "arms for oil." Volodymyr still insists on arms for rare earth etcetera. He is dreaming. But I am scared for him. Hint: His military might make a move. You know, that is also historical and we know whose hand would push it. 🇺🇸☮️🇺🇦

Ukraine. And Trump Stuff.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

THE New Left howls, “I stand with Ukraine.” Me, I stand with Ukraine and I stand with Russia. I stand higher for No War so no more military aid to whatever country, amidst war or peacetime. And I stand with the (current) U.S. position in brokering peace in whatever way but not via more fighting or arms aid. End the war now and then we can talk more about trade and economics next. 

       Ukraine's minerals are not a one-shipment deal so whatever deal President Trump offered, sign it. Let FDIs enter Ukraine for recovery and rebuilding. Not just from the U.S. and the European Union, but also from China and BRICS nations. 

       Most importantly, hold a national election in Ukraine, alongside a probe of how the foreign aid to Kyiv, since February 2022, was spent. Before 2022, more than 3 million Ukrainians worked in Russia. Both peoples are kin or couples and friends. My neighbors are Ukrainian/Russian wife and husband. Yet in America, we chose to take a stand to divide them over taking a stand to end this war. 

       We are not really affected by this war the way the Ukrainians and Russians are so we treat this as a dramatic Left vs Right caterwaul while comfortably seated in front of our gadgets, sipping wine or drowned in beer. Mostly, the New Left’s stand is due to their hatred for Mr Trump who chose to shake hands with Russia rather than goad Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Yet Donald uses that friendship, perceived or real, to end this war. 

       Volodymyr Zelensky's fate as President depends on this war. He suspended the election because the war is still happening, hence he expects to get more aid? Logical. Probably if Kamala Harris won last November, he will get more? But America has already given a lot of taxpayer money to Kyiv. Money that the U.S. can, for example, allocate for FEMA or health services. 

       Mr Zelensky has no leverage to negotiate apart from his country's "rare earth" etcetera. Whoever is POTUS, the quid pro quo for USAID or military aid is natural resources or priority country in trade deals. That's always been the case, historically. Aid is not dole-out or gift. (I am a Filipino who protested USAID when I was in the Philippines.)  

       At least, President Trump's deal is not the "arms for oil" that was the deal in the Middle East for many years. That region is already rich and now high on economic development so they now reject "arms for oil." Volodymyr still insists on arms for rare earth etcetera. He is dreaming. But I am scared for him. Hint: His military might make a move. You know, that is also historical and we know whose hand would push it. 🇺🇸☮️🇺🇦