In the context of an Agency contract, it doesn’t matter if he was for or against the Soviets.
The Agency employs many rabble rousers, students sporting T-Shirts of “Che!” and so on. It does this for its purposes.
The Agency also employs many little old ladies with blue hair as well as small-framed janitors with speech impediments.
The Agency makes it their business to employ people from all walks of life so that no one will suspect who is an agent.
Many college professors are agents.
Many international shippers are employees of the Agency.
And so on.
The point is your argument doesn’t cut it, and that’s a fact.
Now as to Manning, his argument may not cut it as well. But we are going to hear his evidence.
But you know what? Even if Manning’s evidence doesn’t cut it, we need to back him because the socialists in the media are going to attempt to smear him, disparage him and we need to show the media the middle-finger salute, and tell them don’t even bother trying to divide us.
And such people knowingly cooperate with the CIA to undermine the people and agenda they’re dedicated to?
It does if it is to be believable that Obama would have knowingly acted against the Soviet Union as Manning apparently claims.
"Obama, as an undercover agent, was the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban’s success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
http://robertscourt.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-cia-agent.html