> three agencies assessed with high confidence the attribution of the campaign to Russia. The medium confidence assertion was about whether Russia intended to actually get President Trump elected, of which evidence is not clear or strong
That document was intended to be persuasive, not comprehensive. It blurred together a lot of different things, attributed them all to the same plot by Putin, and used paragraph after paragraph of filler material to "support" the various claims.
Of all the claims making up the "argument" in the document, none of the ones that could possibly be verified by data were verified by data. We were told such data exists, but not shown any evidence of it.
I was deeply embarrassed that our government would release such an amateurish document, and even more embarrassed that the document would be cited as evidence by people who should know better.
You're changing the goalposts. My response was correcting a factual error in the parent poster's statement.
This report isn't meant to provide evidence. It's a summary of a report submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by a Republican) that has been scrubbed of secret information, release of which would cut off or kill sources. The fact you think it's amateurish reflects your unfamiliarity with what these documents mean (Which is just fine! We can't all be experts on these things).
If you do not trust the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Intelligence Community chiefs, that is just fine also. This document is a report: nothing more, nothing less. Critical thinking and questioning authority is good.
The report contained a lot of information in it that suggested it was thrown together by a person unfamiliar with ITSec who was copying and pasting filler material until the report was long enough (had enough pages) to seem substantial, much like the folders full of blank sheets of paper Trump used as a prop for one of his speeches.
> reflects your unfamiliarity with what these documents mean
That's exactly the point. They mean nothing because they assert nothing factual, simply an opinion whose reasoning is left up to the imagination of the reader under the pretense of secrecy.
> Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by a Republican)
Fearmongering about Russia has crossed party lines, and is concentrated in some of the more powerful members of congress who are on that committee...
Watch a few minutes of Marco Rubio's questioning of Tillerson about Russia, it's as if he's asking a religious litmus test question, not asking about a rational thought process. I found it deeply embarrassing to watch.
> If you do not trust the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Intelligence Community chiefs
Trust should not be part of the equation when we are talking about going to war. It should be abundantly obvious that war is necessary, and we should not have to take anyone's word for anything.
If the report had been upfront about its lack of evidence-based analysis, then it would have been less than a page long. The fact is, intelligence agencies do not worry about all of their analysis being evidence-based, they use heuristics and other models of understanding behavior to formulate their assessment. I'm not arguing that this method is not appropriate to that specific domain.
However, the report was presented as containing the actual evidence that convinced members of the committee that there was Russian involvement.
Most of us are old enough to remember how not long ago an administration presented flawed evidence about Iraq and how that cost the US trillions of dollars and left nearly a million people dead. It was one of the biggest human atrocities in the modern world, and it happened because too many of us trusted the heuristic and hand-waving approach that intelligence agencies use.
That approach is fine when there is a need to make a last-minute decision and no better methods exist, but they should not be used for promoting/propagandizing wars that have not yet started.
If it were not for the rabid partisanship (not just democrat/republican, there are a lot of vehement anti-Russia partisans in both parties) the report would have been laughed at by the press and no president or intelligence committee would dare release such garbage. Unfortunately, like during the buildup to the Iraq war, such discretion and scrutiny is missing from the equation.
That document was intended to be persuasive, not comprehensive. It blurred together a lot of different things, attributed them all to the same plot by Putin, and used paragraph after paragraph of filler material to "support" the various claims.
Of all the claims making up the "argument" in the document, none of the ones that could possibly be verified by data were verified by data. We were told such data exists, but not shown any evidence of it.
I was deeply embarrassed that our government would release such an amateurish document, and even more embarrassed that the document would be cited as evidence by people who should know better.