What exactly is this article trying to say? This is what I got from it:
There was a denial of service attack before the outage. The outage was not caused by a denial of service attack. We want to know why the denial of service attack which didn’t cause the outage wasn’t prevented from causing the outage it didn’t cause. The outage was caused by hardware failure and insufficient capacity to handle the “anomalous traffic”. By “anomalous” I mean completely innocent. The attacks which didn’t cause the outage should have been repelled. Someone might get fired for buying IBM. There will likely be more attacks like the one that didn’t cause the outage but bigger. The treasurer approved the sale of agricultural land to foreign owners without telling voters. That probably didn’t cause the outage either.