And the CIA have even vindicated themselves on the whole Fidel Castro thing by finally taking him down through the classic "wait until he dies" approach. So their track record right now is actually looking pretty good.Quote from hyalapterouslemur »wrt: the comparison to Iraqi WMD, that wasn't the CIA saying Iraq had WMD. That was the White House themselves. They'd actually gotten the info from an Iranian agent, Ahmed Chalabi. They trusted the Iranians more than the CIA, just as Trump trusts the Russians more than the CIA.
Also, in all seriousness, with respect to what happened after the White House asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, there is essentially zero chance of us "regime-changing" Russia. And there wouldn't be even if we had a Russia hawk in office instead of a quasi-Manchurian candidate (Muscovite candidate?). Russia, after all, definitely has weapons of mass destruction, of the "obliterate New York City from halfway around the world" sort, and it has them precisely to discourage this sort of thing. So given that a war is a virtual impossibility, I'm not sure what Mockingbird is asking about exactly when he raises the question of an "Iraq WMD situation".