White House says it's 'case closed' on the Signal group chat review

True. They have since Obama shot down less than what, one drone a year? This is no air defense and your own evidence confirms it. At best it serves as a rare annoyance but is strategically defenseless. You are simply wrong.

>there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False

True. They have not once strategically gained a victory on the US nor do they have means to do so.

>Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care

True. They invite journalists and use poorly vetted signal channels.

>nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms

True, even with leaks the best they can do is extraordinarily rarely shoot down non piloted drones.

>None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal.

I did not claim that it was....

My thesis is the Houthis are the next easy way to unload massive defense funds with little strategic risk. Their lack of air defenses and no need for opsec informs the cabinet's laxadasical treatment.

—

“So that we’re clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe said. “One of the first things that I was briefed on very early, senator, by the CIA Records Management folks was the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the previous administration to the [former President Joe] Biden administration.”