hinese or the Russians or the Iranians would have lost their access.

I think that if they had access to that tool and they were listening to our government conversations at the highest level, I'm pretty sure they would have said, well, we're going to let the Houthis take the hit. It would have been smarter, certainly for China and Russia, no doubt about it, to let the Houthis take the hit, even if they thought they'd like to screw the United States. They wouldn't lose their own access to something that important. Now what about Iran? I would go so far as to say that even Iran would let the Houthis take a hit before they would give up a source that important. Now who else told you that? Nobody, right?

So yeah, once you see how weak the analysis was of this whole situation, it's shocking.

The next thing is that Democrats have conflated what could have happened with what did happen. Now that's what Ratcliffe said. He said the exact same thing, right? So in my post I point out that the Democrats, they love the imaginary stuff. Well, it could have been bad. Do you know what else could have been bad? Everything that those people did that day. Everything. How many conversations did all the people who were in that chat—how many conversations did they have on other topics with other people that could have been compromised but weren't? Probably not, but could have been. If you're worrying about things that could go wrong, that's pretty much everything, and it's pretty much all the time. That is not a valid concern. If somebody takes a risk-reward decision—I need to keep people informed, that's my job, it's life or death, it's a