_________________________________
iow, believe SW instead of an actual de-classified document written by the men who were there. I think not.
IOW you take at face value a document written by men who had a motive in promoting themselves. Do you take everything with "CIA" on it as gospel truth? Please...
The CIA report was challenged by other men and women who were there.
Some of the claims made in it, almost the whole part written by Roosevelt, is disproven. If you want I can delve into the details.
Lastly, if even Eisenhower mistrusted the report, why do you trust it blindly?
Wilber's "CIA report" was not only scrutinized by Eisenhower and challenged by the account of Ardeshir Zahedi (along with Roosevelt's even more adventurous work of fiction: "Countercoup" )and Ashraf Pahlavi, but is also at odds with the accounts of the British agents involved (Cavendish, Verrier and Woodhouse from the MI6).
There is no way to get around it... the CIA agents involved wanted to milk the successful coup to the maximum extent and after the fait accompli exaggerated it's own limited contribution, downplaying and grossly distorting both the part of the British and Iranians involved. Much of what Wilber wrote in his "secret report" was what the CIA planned or wanted to do, but not what it actually did.
Ironically enough, while the CIA was internally and after 1979 (Roosevelts book) painting the Shah as a weak puppet, the Shah in his Memoirs (1979) respectfully called Kermit Roosevelt a good friend and neither denies, nor exaggerates his actual role.
wtc911, I enjoy discussing with you the facts and accounts of the events... I am giving counter-accounts by those involved to a report you unwarrantedly take 100% at face value, without even questioning it's context or purpose.
However you seem to be more interested in snarky phrases as in post #22.