You seem to be looking at it objectively, and you make good points. I'll try to add my comments, which may be a bit less fine grained than yours. The below ma

You seem to be looking at it objectively, and you make good points. I'll try to add my comments, which may be a bit less fine grained than yours. The below may be a bit rambly, apologies for that. That said, I do think that there is very much more to this story than the view perpetrated by the CIA and the large news organizations at the time. I believe that the CIA found themselves under attack and used every means (as any bureaucracy typically does) to defend themselves. In this case, I believe their tool was good old fashioned American Media. This is an organization whose very mission includes manipulating media for their own (supposedly American) ends. The CIA as evidenced by the above article surely put these journalists on to any mistakes Webb had made (and he did make some mistakes, but that does not make an entire central thesis incorrect) and then allowed for the media to do their job. But let's not pretend that the journalists from the NY Times and Washington Post didn't have skin in the game, as with all political reporting, you play a game between making your sources happy and printing the "truth". If these reporters did not at least somewhat placate their CIA sources, they could be in real danger of losing access. Losing access to officials in Washington DC to a reporter of such news organizations is tantamount to death (of their career of course). So we're not dealing with the perfect unbiased journalism, and when you add further personality issues in the mix, things get even more complex in terms of deciding where the truth actually lies. So when other journalists were turned on to the story and attacked, they weren't just attacking the story, they were attacking the individual. And when journalists smell blood in the water, they truly are piranhas (I would submit the latest Trump debacle for example). So yes, some journalists attacked Webb, but even so, this does not make him wrong. In the Leen article, yet again from the Washington Post, the attack isn't on the story, this story is all about Webb. My favorite argument from the piece (to paraphrase) "There were rumors of CIA involved in the drug trade, but me and other reporters couldn't find evidence of this." Well that's a great argument, I guess since you couldn't find evidence, it must not exist? There are others issues with that article, again, paraphasing: "According to Webb, the CIA was only bringing in 100 kilos/week, that's not enough to supply the entire US cocaine market." Shit, the CIA is only bringing in 100 Kilos/week, that must mean Webb is wrong?... If Leen reads Webb's article to mean that the CIA is the only supplier of Crack Cocaine into the US, that's on his reading comprehension, not the authors. Leen's article leaves a lot to be desired as a modern look at Webb's articles. And as you mentioned, the CIA and the rest of the Military of the 1980's truly had their hands dirty, especially as it concerned South America. Despite the "Drug War" starting in this period, the destruction of Communism was still the prime and central goal of the US administration. That makes me think that there is more than a small probability that the CIA was at least in some ways part of the cocaine problem. It may have been rouge agents, it may have been institutional corruption, but do I believe that the CIA through action or knowing inaction allowed the crack epidemic to grow unchecked? Absolutely. More than a few times we've shown we will turn our backs for the "greater mission." (My favorite version of this story includes opium in Afghanistan, here is just one episode of hundreds/thousands?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html and also: http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/recent_scenes_from_afghanistan.html http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/recent_scenes_f... Image Number 8. ) Do I think we'll hear more about this story in another 50 to 75 years when all the principles are dead and more data comes to light? Yes. Personally, I think it'll vindicate Webb, but of course, as usual, a little late. My arguments may have been a bit circumstantial. But I choose to look at it from a holistic perspective, looking at the political culture of the time, in order to best understand the specifics and how they fit in to this very weird aspect of American history. But if it does come out in 50 years that I'm wrong, you can come back and remind me. :)