(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.