Being a communist is not an impediment to getting Agnecy sponsorship. In fact it can be a weight in one’s favor.
For the Agency to put a hardcore Marxist on contract doesn’t mean anything other than the Agency is going to use such people for their intelligence gathering purposes. The Agency leads on these would-be infiltrators into believing they don’t see these recruits for what they really are, so such recruits continue to network with their Marxist buddies and in doing so they provide information about the network, who is who, how funded etc.
In Obama’s case, he was anti-war, pro-nuke freeze, and a Marxist egalitarian. CIA could get him entered into Columbia, then watch who he associates with.
Again, this is no big news as it happens routinely.
From my experiences, Obama looks like he was sponsored and I don’t think it is a big deal. Such people ordinarily never get beyond a grant or contract. I was routinely offered Agency grants when I was working on my doctorate. When final reports and briefings are made, the Agency closes the door and the records are destroyed. The only evidence Manning could have is anecdotal from witnesses.
Manning has a huge following in NYC. His following and the people in the community are not going to think “the right is crazy”, they are going to remember that Obama was someone that obtained that which he did not earn, and that maybe he got himself a recruitment contract with government spooks. It’s just going to make people more suspicious of Obama and that is going to be of benefit to the elections this Fall.
So, in post #48 your argument is that the AGENCY didn’t know Obama as pro-Soviet.
Then, in post # 60, you swerve the argument over to “being a communist is not an impediment to getting AGENCY sponsorship,” with the premise that in fact the AGENCY does know Obama as pro-Soviet.
This shows you don’t really stick to any particular line of reasoning, you simply argue whatever seems to fit the particular context of the moment.