Do you have anything more specific than a category page, or did you intend to link to a general pile of vague references that generally surmise

Their investigations have generally noted that there is no clear evidence CIA itself had ever directly engaged in drug trafficking, although there may have been instances of the organization being indirectly complicit in the activities of others.

Or from one of the journalist pieces the spurred more investigation:

In most cases, the CIA's role involved various forms of complicity, tolerance or studied ignorance about the trade, not any direct culpability in the actual trafficking ... [t]he CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection. In sum, the CIA's role in the Southeast Asian heroin trade involved indirect complicity rather than direct culpability.

Which is a whole hell of a lot of "exactly what I said".

The cutesy correction of someone else's words isn't persuasive, and is nonsense when you don't even change the meaning.

You see money as the source of an entrenched power structure. I see money as the side effect. It's an efficient way to exert power

They don't need cocaine to surpress the poor in America.