TBF, they "investigated" themselves and found no criminal acts — despite admitting in "an internal report issued by the CIA" they were "at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved."

While I'm sure that's technically factual, (ie. via "classifying" anything they don't want to reveal to the voting public), damning evidence showed that the CIA's "Contra drug links included, among other connections, payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, and in some cases "after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies"

So, even though keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency's very existence, we're left with what "facts" they allow to be published.

tl; dr: They're notorious for facilitating crime while technically staying clean of criminality themselves. They may not have cooked it up in their own labs, but they clearly funded and paved the way for those that could, instead.

Ergo, much as a parent is charged in shootings by a minor (finally!)(US), they are wholly complicit at best. 🤢🤕

ACAB, and ofc AFAB, too.

I'm not sure it's forgiving to say that they killed them out of expediency.

We have literal recordings of the motivations behind much of it, or cases where they documented the decision plainly. Poor communities don't have the political pull to get a serious response, so directing traffickers they want to have continued funding there is a way to protect that trafficker.
The war on drugs was structured to target black people and anti-war groups.

Is it really better to say they weren't trying to hurt them, they just didn't view them as people so were entirely unconcerned with what happened to them?

The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed. Recasting it by saying CIA activities in opposition to anything left of Pinochet are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don't think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
They didn't give a shit about poor people. They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them. Hurting poor people was just an expedient means towards that end.
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.

I lumped right wing dictators and guerilla groups under the umbrella of terrorism. If the shoe fits and all that.

Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.