In what universe does information about exactly what (and where) American warplanes are targeting, the timing of airstrikes, and what weapons will be used in those airstrikes not qualify as "classified information"? That is a jaw-dropping concept, but that is one of the excuses being lamely trotted out for the massive security breach that recently happened. The secretary of Defense just decided on his own, willy-nilly, that such information was somehow perfectly acceptable to talk about on unsecured systems (possibly even including private, non-governmental phones)? That's without even adding in "with a journalist in on the chat" -- but that is indeed the tack some are attempting to take right now. It's all just no big deal, they insist. Nothin' to see here, folks!

Two of the people who participated in the Signal chat appeared before a Senate committee today, and they both tried to float this excuse, incredulously insisting at first that no classified information was shared on the chat. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard even refused to admit that she had even been on the chat. Later in the hearing, Gabbard and C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe "added caveats to their answers, saying that no classified information under U.S. intelligence agencies' purview was discussed." They both said that the question of any other information being classified should be asked of the Defense secretary. This is laughably unbelievable.

Any rational human being would consider: "We're going to bomb this target at this particular time with this particular weapon" to be not just classified national security information, but in fact information classified at the highest level of secrecy. It's tough to even imagine anything which would be more secret, in fact. But nobody on that chat ever said a word about this stark fact.

They're trying to claim -- with a straight face -- that this is all a big to-do about nothing, and that such information wasn't really all that secret anyway. Here's one exchange between a Democratic senator and the C.I.A. chief:

By discussing the timing of a military campaign, they were revealing "the time period during which enemy air defenses could target U.S. aircrews flying in enemy airspace," Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) said.

"I don't know that," Ratcliffe said.

"You do know that," Ossoff countered.

Senator Michael Bennet had another pertinent question for them: "Did you know the president's Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread while you were?" So we've got a top presidential advisor chatting about operational war plans on an unsecure phone in Moscow? And somehow that's supposed to not be a big deal? Senator Ron Wyden called for "resignations, starting with the national security advisor and the secretary of Defense."

Astonishingly, Ossoff directly asked Ratcliffe to agree that the whole thing was "a huge mistake, correct?" -- to which Ratcliffe answered: "No."

This is fantasyland, folks. It wasn't a huge mistake? War plans are somehow not highly-classified national security information? The journalist somehow made it all up or is lying? Seriously? "Nothin' to see here, folks..."? One has to wonder what planet these folks are living on.

To state the obvious: anyone who wasn't a presidential toady would have not only been fired immediately, they likely would have been arrested and charged with violating national security laws by now. But because they are all highly-unqualified sycophants, Republicans are trying to get away with just shrugging the whole thing off. A few have expressed some concern, to their credit, but so far no House or Senate committee has announced it will be opening an investigation into this gross security breach at the highest levels.

This shouldn't even be a partisan issue. The egregious disregard for security and the callousness about putting American servicemembers in danger should be obvious on both sides of the aisle. If the Republican Party hadn't turned into a cult of personality, it would.

Democrats are reacting with visceral anger, as they should:

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, on Tuesday urged President Trump to immediately fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for discussing sensitive details of a pending strike in Yemen in a high-level group Signal chat that included a journalist.

"Pete Hegseth is the most unqualified secretary of defense in American history," Mr. Jeffries wrote in a letter sent to Mr. Trump at the White House, which was obtained by The New York Times. "His continued presence in the top position of leadership at the Pentagon threatens the nation's security and puts our brave men and women in uniform throughout the world in danger."

. . .

Mr. Jeffries, who has previously been highly critical of Mr. Hegseth, told Mr. Trump that he should be "fired immediately."

"The so-called secretary of defense recklessly and casually disclosed highly sensitive war plans -- including the timing of a pending attack, possible strike targets and the weapons to be used -- during an unclassified national security group chat that inexplicably included a reporter," Mr. Jeffries wrote. "His behavior shocks the conscience, risked American lives and likely violated the law."

The loudest calls for heads to roll, though, should come from people who have previously served in uniform -- who know full well what "operational security" is supposed to mean. And who know what breaching that security can mean. Which is why we end today with an excerpt from a column written by David French, who is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

This would be a stunning breach of security. I'm a former Army JAG officer (an Army lawyer). I've helped investigate numerous allegations of classified information spillages, and I've never even heard of anything this egregious -- a secretary of defense intentionally using a civilian messaging app to share sensitive war plans without even apparently noticing a journalist was in the chat.

There is not an officer alive whose career would survive a security breach like that. It would normally result in instant consequences (relief from command, for example) followed by a comprehensive investigation and, potentially, criminal charges.

Federal law makes it a crime when a person -- through gross negligence -- removes information "relating to the national defense" from "its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed."

It's way too soon to say whether Hegseth's incompetence is also criminal, but I raise the possibility to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the reported mistake. A security breach that significant requires a thorough investigation.

. . .

What example has Hegseth set? That he's careless, and when you're careless in the military, people can die. If he had any honor at all, he would resign.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant