1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative.

2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian)

3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax.

4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists'

5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw...

6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work.

7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article.

8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking.

9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it.

10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.