Your knee-jerk standard when something is posted that you disagree with and that challenges some decree you have made is to mock the origin as worthless and to mock the poster as a misguided dupe for linking to it. In this case you responded with a clear ad hominem that did not even connect to the issue.  

Just go through it paragraph by paragraph and note that it could have been propaganda written by the Russian foreign service itself, ...

I have read the statement and I do not see anywhere that they are shilling for Russia. If you find such a statement you could point it out. If something is correct should it go unsaid just because it goes against a more comfortable view of the world which posits all blame somewhere that can make us feel good about whatever we do, including killing innocents by the score?? I don't think so. 

including the gratuitous ever-present warning in Paragraph 1 about how we might start WWIII/nuclear war, ...

If you believe that there is no danger of a major war starting or the one[s] we are in escalating catastrophically, you could say so. If you think that there is such a danger but it is all do to the actions of others and that we are on an intelligent course to avoid such an outcome you could make that point too in opposition to the piece which clearly states the groups opposition to our course of action because they believe it might lead us into a disastrous war which could otherwise be avoided. .

I would think that noting that these people are batshit crazy and have been so for some time would not be seen as an "ad hominem"

Your attack on a few members of the group is by definition ad hominem. Name a group anywhere of say ten or more that has an agenda or policy that they come together to work for that doesn’t include someone who fits your standard of batshit crazy in some area of their belief system. That does not automatically disprove anything they say on any other subject. History is chock full of people who left their mark on certain subjects in good ways but who demonstrated batshit crazy beliefs in other areas. We both agree that some silly bullshit gets expressed, even here at Dag, I say even by you sometimes, even if you show good sense some other times. This is a case where I think you are the bullshitter more interested in being the final arbitrator of any issue, even when your retort is just passing wind, than in giving an opposing view any consideration. You can pretend that your shit don’t stink but then you have to come up with some bullshit explanation when someone holds their nose and opens a window.

I mean, what's the point - they've been wrong 67 times, but 68 might be the charm?

Bullshit.

You talk ironically of deceptive morons: Putin says maybe a cache of sarin or other nerve agent was being stored in what they had identified as a cache of weapons and so it was bombed. and some of the weapons turned out to be nerve agents.  It is even suggested as a possible explanation that the gas was planted and deliberately blown up by the terrorists.  Both ideas are immediately laughed out of court as bullshit so that our military reaction will not be questioned but rather cheered on. Those possibilities are not proven and they certainly might not be the correct explanation, but there is no one involved that is above such an action and plenty who are involved who are capable of such and are in a position to do so and who would benefit greatly [have benefited greatly?] from carrying it out. 

  Are there any explanations parallel with those of the usual suspects that are flip-flopped when the onus is on us?  When a building in Mosul is bombed by the US killing many civilians US spokesmen suggest that the many civilians who became bug splat were herded into the building and then the terrorists took actions from the building to invite its bombing. Dirty bastards. Easy to believe about those guys whether any proof is supplied or not especially when the idea gets a lot of favorable press. They are terrorists and they are our enemy in that zip code even though they are our proxies down the road a ways. It is also suggested that the terrorists might have leveled the building themselves after the attack to create amplify an horrific incident that makes the US look bad. Sounds possible, and is easy and comfortable to believe, especially since that gives somewhat of a reason to not criticize or regret or even give much thought to our action that killed so many innocents.  I’m sure the US military is investigating the incident though and will give us a full and fair accounting eventually that will clear it all up.

  I don’t recall you accusing the US of putting out bullshit to cover their asses after killing civilians in Mosul when they put out almost the same explanations or excuses, whatever the case, to explain away tragic deaths which they are unquestionably involved in. Note, I am not accusing the US of deliberately killing civilians in that case. Shit happens. Every side, every time, tries to put any blame they can on the other side. Some morons will believe everything their side says every time despite a history that proves it is often bullshit while believing the worst about the other side every time even if the established facts are few and extremely weak in supporting the charge which goes against common sense.

And then you have the nerve to use an ad hominem dismissing the Daily Beast guy as biased and unbalanced.

You should try to clear your mind and then critically read your own writing.

In you first comment here you reference yourself in the second paragraph. Then, towards the end you say, “Critique it with something concrete, [something you have yet to do in this case] not just all the slapdash guilty-by-association with this or that group. (oh yes, Consortium backs up its piece by quoting itself - color me unimpressed).” Color me quite impressed but not favorably. Ironic touch noted indeed. What is your ad hominem response other than casting guilt by association with ideas by a couple members of the group on other subjects that are not relevant to the group’s position on the subject which the group is addressing?

And then you have the nerve to use an ad hominem dismissing the Daily Beast guy as biased and unbalanced. Touche, ironic touch noted.

Touche? No, just more bullshit.  I did not at all dismiss the Daily Beast guy. I said he might be correct in his article and did so with no implied snark or sarcasm but I also gave a link that examines his history on Syria reporting and makes a strong argument that he is biased in his views which leads to a bias in his reporting. You are all about digging into a persons history for the purpose of evaluating their positions, aren't you? Unless it might weaken their argument for something you support.