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
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/che15_2.htm
"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.








One can only take so much re-education.