• GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Didn’t Trump basically go on social media and say I’M GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN 2 WEEKS! And then trucks were seen leaving the nuclear sites?

    Anyone know the timeline?

  • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    For anyone else who was confused by the screenshot:

    Cat turd said there were no leaks and Democrats didn’t know.

    Then, as soon as trump said it was the Democrats fault somehow, cat turd did a 180 and says the Democrats are traitors.

    • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Nah, he was always blaming the Dems. The first tweet says there wasn’t a leak because the Dems didn’t know- implying that if they had known, then it would have leaked.

      The second one is him confirming what he already thought based on Trump’s accusation.

  • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s like reading an AI’s first post. Catturd types like there is an important point to amplify with wisdom, but all the words have 0 impact. Probably has something to do with the commentary being over an orange manchild throwing feces around to see what sticks… again.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’d call him a repeater if I were to name him something, much like Dim Tool and Candace Owens. Their only job is to appeal to different people with a different image but with the same message.

  • 0ndead@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I was trying to figure out if Catturd had changed sides, then I remembered I don’t give a fuck.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      58 minutes ago

      I don’t know the schmuck and I’m going to keep it that way. Sounds not to relevant either way.

      I mean what’s in a name?

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Apparently the screenshot is to be read as Catturd proudly proclaiming that democrats weren’t even briefed, so they could not have leaked anything.
      But when Trump said a few days later that democrats leaked information, Catturd still immediately accepted that as truth.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Same here. He had some in-group fighting and drama going on a while back that threw me off. I was only hoping the other side wouldn’t coopt this asshole when clicking through.

  • altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    13 hours ago

    leaked (about failure)

    perfect flight

    These two can’t be true at the same time. But who cares?

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Why would an opposing party be briefed on an ongoing military operation?

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Bipartisan committees are there for this but they weren’t briefed, secdef wasn’t even briefed.

      Let me ask you something, why wouldn’t they?

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I get why they would be briefed after the operation, but before and during seems like an unneeded security concern

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s been protocol for something like 80 years or something like that ever since those two big wars. It’s because we have interests everywhere that not everyone is aware of so networking is necessary so we can be prepared for consequences before they happen because reacting afterwards unprepared is generally much more costly.

          • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Then there’s that whole pesky legal thing where the president is not allowed to start wars without Congressional approval…

    • ddplf@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Seems natural that they should. After all, they may be the ones that would have to clean up the mess in the future.

      And also because this operation may lead to incoming war, which cannot be legally declared without congress aproval, even if they don’t have the majority.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    My bet is on tulsi, but the administration is so pervasively infiltrated by Russian assets and hegseths drunk texts that it could be any number