I don't have a bone in this debate, but I think it would be better to phrase your comment differently. As a quick one-liner, it seems to intentionally talk past the intent of the person you're replying to.

Clearly (to me anyway) the implication of the other comment is that the CIA does not simply protect democracy and freedom. Nothing wrong with arguing that it does, but surely you can muster a more thoughtful defense. I think of HN as a place for attempts at high-value content and comments.

This comment actually lowers the quality of the discussion, regardless who's "right" in this specific debate. Just my two cents!

This reminds me of “Do you support the troops or not?” types of questions.

It reduces a vast and complex problem that’s rife with subjective matters to: are you with us or against us?

Not only that but it frames it in such a way that seemingly objectively great things are being proposed to be evil.

This kind of rhetorical question will probably never yield a useful direct response.

This is an example of doublespeak / doublethink. The CIA has done some nasty shit, not so much for "Democracy and Freedom" as a whole, but for the United States' own goals and purposes, at the cost of others - at the cost of other countries' democracy, at the cost of other people's freedoms.

Reading through descriptions of the CIA interfering in foreign elections and supporting insurrections against democratically elected governments makes it difficult to agree that the CIA protects democracy and freedom - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

How was orchestrating a coup that threw Chile into dictatorship against the democratically-elected and ever-popular Salvador Allende protecting democracy or freedom?

Ah Yes, CIA the protector of Democracy and Freedom... And organising Coups and destabilizing nations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...