In another thread, TainanCowboy wrote:Ducked -
Thanks for clarifying the 'adult students' part - I did not see that.
As to:In this context, for example, a CIA field agent comes a very poor second to a used-car salesman, objective truth expectation-wise.
The main contributor, who was personally involved in the Che issue, is a man named 'Felix Rodriguez.' His writing on the Che affair are well documented. Verification of its credibility have been long established.
As to:I don't feel any particular compulsion to defend Che, but I can't tell them "THE truth" because I don't know it.
Well, the truth is out there. One can chose to make use of it or not.
Perhaps it is, but I doubt its always identifiable as such.
To take one small example, I quote from a declassified NSA document, here
"Despite their apparent status as Bolivian officers, [ ] said they never were given orders by higher-ranking Bolivian officers (One exception to this rule was the order which Colnel [ ] issued to [ ] on the day of Guevara's excecution, if [ ] story is to be believed."
This appears to be a reference to the senior CIA advisor giving/transmitting the execution order to the shooter, and that "if" suggests some reservations, quite proper for an intelligence analyst.
If one pokes around a bit (and I've only had time to do a very little reading so far) there are inevitably discrepancies in the various accounts.
History is written by the victors, especially if the vanquished are all...er....rather dead.