In response

"At 8:16:44 AM, Karlo said... I would include that the CIA put Saddam into power (This is well documented by a number of historians), that they supported Iraq's first invasion of a sovereign country (Iran), and that the CIA's actions have usually led to an increase in the drug trade (as in Panama after Noriega and in Afghanistan now). More recently, the CIA supported Chalabi, a person who had been convicted of major bank fraud in Jordan, as a possible leader in Iraq and finally settled on someone who formerly worked for the CIA and has been connected with a number of summary executions. My conclusion would be that CIA has not made the world or the U.S. safer."


Karlo, about Chalabi check out this you. If you read through it you might find a pattern.

"Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as abulwark of anti-communism"
"Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. "
"saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument.""

Different time, different enemy. America cut a lot of corners trying to protect itself from communism (which has killed more people than any other form of government in the world), and we are still reaping the rewards for our efforts. Just look at Iran.

""It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed.""

We put/allowed a lot of goons into power to head off communism, and now that we beat [correction: them] we are working on taking out the smaller goons, though those goons know have nukes. If the UN would do it's job of providing security and democracy, we would not have to do their job for them.

cube