| The US IC and DHS clearly have strategic reasons for wanting to crack down on Russia, as evidenced by the strong level of centrist support for doing so. Crowdstrike decided to make a series of announcements expressing confidence that there had been Russian state sponsored attacks on the DNC server, and did not offer any evidence of it. When the US IC released its report, the report referred to the Crowdstrike findings, but also excluded evidence. The report appears to have been copied and pasted from previous releases, and contained virtually no useful information. Yes, you can trust the US IC that the attack was a state actor quality, Russian sponsored triumph, but these are the same experts who helped sell the Iraq war. We learned very importantly during the Iraq war that we should simply not trust their claims without hard evidence. They are now trying to sell a war against Iran, and will ilkely use many of the same techniques and tactics to do so. I despise Donald Trump at least as much as anyone, but I think the Russia narrative was mostly unsubstantiated and largely overblown. Why? Not due to a conspiracy, but for the same simple reason that anything Iran does at present will be framed as highly aggressive and a reason for war -- the centrist view wants it. It's important not to involve Trump in the reasoning about any of this. Trump liking or encouraging something, or disliking it, etc., has no impact on whether or not it is true. Trump is a clown who should be ignored. Crowdstrike most likely enjoyed getting a lot of PR for "finding" the Russian attack. But I have yet to see evidence that the attack was actually Russian state actors and was not either someone else spoofing them or a sloppy third tier amateur funded by some pro-Russian oligarch (or similar). To those promoting the "get tough on Russia" narrative, it doesn't matter, Russia is Russia and it is threatening. But I think we should all take a step back and realize that most parties involved in this have some skin in the game and are apt to use the factual uncertainty to make claims that support their agenda. I'd argue that even the specific attribution of the attack as Russian, and the implication that the server was only attacked by one government/group is agenda-driven, IMHO. |