I don’t know what is a big or a small stretch. I just know it is just not true. If you studied the history of the second World War, or the history of the CIA, or the history of the Cold War then that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. It makes as much sense as describing how many Gatling guns Hannibal mounted per elephant.
I guess in a certain post-truth sense it is a smaller stretch of the truth to say that the CIA published it, than to say that the KGB did it. And in turn attributing it to the KGB would be a smaller stretch of the truth, than attributing it to the elves of Middle Earth. But what is common between all those three is that they haven’t authored this document, because it was the OSS who did it. (As the document itself conveniently, and very prominently states.)
I think you overstate. It's an ellision ("written by OSS, the predecessor of the CIA" to "CIA"). They're as common as weeds and as old as the hills. It's all well to point out that it's factually inaccurate, but it's directionally correct and gives people who aren't familiar with OSS the right impression. You don't have to like it to recognize it isn't a "post truth" phenomenon or anything comparable to Hannibal crossing the alps with Gatling guns, or even that the document was authored by the KGB.
