> There's nothing the CIA does without political motivation.

Even then, political motivation in itself does not make it inaccurate. It’s easy to see why a liberal democracy supposed to defend liberty across the globe would be interested in making facts accessible. Facts and education are the best way to fight obscurantism and totalitarianism. It’s also easy to see why a regime sliding back towards autocracy would have no interest in doing it. If they were competent, they could have continued pretending they cared and actually use it as a propaganda tool. Same with Radio Liberty and the others.

there used to be a higher alignment in the US between political motivations and morality.

You're too naive if you think it's completely true, but too cynical if you think it's completely false.

only as cynical as the CIA :)

What a joke, everyone here is so fucking brainwashed its like talking to a north korean peasant with a radio in their bedroom they can't turn off.

>It’s easy to see why a liberal democracy supposed to defend liberty across the globe would be interested in making facts accessible.

Who is supposed to defend liberty across the globe? Do you think the US has been doing that and should be doing that?

The point of OP was that the facts from the CIA can’t be trusted. That they can lie about the facts.

The Factbook has always been widely regarded as a reliable source of information.

I would hope that most people do understand that the CIA is a heavily biased source to use on information on other countries.. like wtf?

Heavily biased sources can still provide useful facts, if you're careful.

For example, the IDF now accepts Hamas's death toll estimates after decrying them as inflated for years. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2026-01-29/ty-article/.p...

By the Western world aligned with the US?