I mean really you're not deconstructing anything. You are misrepresenting facts, you are taking very complicated stances and reducing them to soundbites

Then show what I've misrepresented. Respond to the actual criticism instead of avoiding it and repeating yourself.

His reasons for disliking the CIA are all about their past actions, and history has shown he is correct in that assertion.

History is correct in the assertion that if an intelligence agency has done something unpopular that it should be dissolved?

That said a comment made in 1974 (which I have said multiple times is important in this dicussion) is frankly progressive and based purely on the international action taken at the time.

We're all aware of the fact that this statement was made several decades ago. If this knee-jerk response is what passes as progressive then there's no question as to why that label still remains a "dirty word".

No comment I have made says I want to remove the CIA... not one. So I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Except for when you argued that:

Our military is enough of a deterrent to most nations,

You might not have implicitly stated it, but you argued that the CIA was unnecessary in a national security sense, which is an odd stance to take unless you want it gone.

Much of Europe for example is furious with US intelligence spying on their systems... and they should be.

They feign anger. All countries spy on each other, America was just unfortunate enough to get caught.

So frankly I would love to see you link some real evidence that coalitions like NATO, UN, and brokered treaties don't do anything because you're simply wrong on that account.

I never said they "don't do anything". My point was they alone are not enough of a deterrent to lone wolf attacks and other domestic threats. You need intelligence agencies to know where those threats come from.

But no I guess I typed "ear" instead of "era" that makes me real dumb I guess.

Did I say it makes you real dumb? Or did I just correct you?