I doubt it. Just as I doubt a Republican pres. would go after Russia for DNC hacking. When the president is the head of the political party, expect conflicts of interest. But warring with nuclear-armed foes - when things are already quite tense with them in Syria - seems dangerous and dumb.
The people behind this attribution work aren't political appointees. People forget that the overwhelming majority of the public workforce consists of career public servants. If those public servants happen to work in law enforcement, the military, or intelligence, they're much more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.
So with that having been said, and with I promise more respect than this question will make it sound like I have for your viewpoint: what is it, exactly, that makes your doubts about this attribution being politically motivated more credible than the (extremely common) doubts Trump supporters have that Hurricane Matthew wasn't generated by Obama's wind farms to suppress voter registration?
Your comparison is absurd. Did you somehow miss that whole bit about faulty intelligence causing the Iraq war?
The hack seems politically motivated; no one can say with 100% assurance that it was caused by Russia; the DNC is a private organization, in any event, why should the citizens of the US be drawn into a war with a nuclear armed foe over their poor cyber security?
And neither of your comments had anything to do with my original point. Why is the hack of a private political organization justification for a war footing from our federal government?