Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen apologized today for a Time Magazine article in which he said he loved Fidel Castro.
“I am sure I’m against (the way) he thinks, the way he treats people and way he treats his country for a long time,” Guillen said. “I’m against that 100 percent. I’m not crazy or stupid or ignorant to say I love somebody. He not just hurt Cuban people he hurt a lot of people counting Venezuelans.
“Whoever got hurt or misunderstood or (took it) the way he wants to take it, I will apologize. I will apologize if I hurt somebodies feelings. I am against everything, 100 percent, why this man has been treating people for the last 60 years.”
Guillen, who is from Venezuela, is quoted in the article as saying: “I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that (expletive) is still here.”
Guillen clarified today that he said he respects him as a man but not because of his politics.
“I said I respect this man because. … I respect (President) Obama, I respect (Venezuelan president Hugo) Chavez because I always respect people,” he said. “Meanwhile I disagree 100 percent what he is doing to the country.”
Repoz
Posted: April 07, 2012 at 08:50 PM |
158 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
miami
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
He met the pope just some weeks ago. I don't think they would let the pope have a chat with Fidel's embalmed corpse, but maybe Raul is a real prankster.
Nothing. People are dumb.
Somehow I totally missed that. Did the Pope tell him how ###### he was? Might have been an interesting conversation to have captured, on Popetube.
Not that (any of us) have access to that, but someone might have eventually leaked it.
Fidel is a long time tyrant, a murderer and prison warden for millions of people. There are no rights that anybody here hold dear that he hasn't trampled. Professing love for him is sick and twisted.
He also stole a trillion dollar bill.
Nobody professed love for him.
Nobody professed love for him.
This. Ozzie basically said "you gotta respect a guy who the US has tried to kill hundreds of times and who's still kicking. That's one mean hombre." There's nothing to that sentiment that's loving the guy's shitastic rule.
Way to have a ludicrously black and white mindset, champ. Wait, is that showing love to you?
And probably other folks, also with no first-hand (or second-) experience, saying "YO WHY YOU MAD BRO" is also a little annoying.
On the other hand, this is what Ozzie Guillen is. Ozzie Guillen not saying questionably offensive things would not be Ozzie Guillen. And all things considered, I'm happy to have Ozzie Guillen in baseball, randomly sounding off about topics he should obviously avoid.
I don't like Castro, I think he's done as poorly for the benighted people of Cuba as Batista and for longer, and I understand how someone who had to flee from their home to escape his regime and/or are separated from family could be frustrated/irritated by Ozzie's words. But I think it's a big step to go from what Ozzie said to imputing support, much less affection.
I mean, I can say with a sense of amazement that Turkmenbashi created one hell of a cult of personality without implicitly supporting his horrific regime.
On the other hand, this is what Ozzie Guillen is. Ozzie Guillen not saying questionably offensive things would not be Ozzie Guillen. And all things considered, I'm happy to have Ozzie Guillen in baseball, randomly sounding off about topics he should obviously avoid.
Amen to all that. Anyone who's reading some sort of left-wing implication in Ozzie's initial comment is just looking to be offended. His longstanding and often-expressed animosity towards Hugo Chavez, which earned him a "patriot" label from Bill O'Reilly, should be enough to abuse anyone of such an insane notion, even without Guillen's followup explanation.
Yes and no. I know MANY Cubans who left the island legally. One got married to a Canadian. She kept her Cuban citizenship and goes back every year. Another one got to Canada on a program for immigrants. She goes back to Cuba on a regular basis. Another one left Cuba on a tourist visa to come visit Canada. He was able to obtain a visa to leave the island because I had formally invited him in Canada. He went back after. And so on.
Leaving the island legally is in no way easy. But it's possible if you know people abroad and have a little money. Obviously, it's still hard enough that many people risk their lives crossing on rafts...
I also travel to Cuba quite frequently and I have lived in a small Cuban town for months back 10 years ago. What I gather from these experience is that:
1) Cuba IS a dictatorship;
2) People are somewhat repressed but still talk quite a lot, I find;
3) People cannot do whatever they want but still manage to do most of what they want;
4) Food is the main concern for everybody because it's tough to get. People don't starve, but some go hungry now and then;
5) They love their baseball;
6) I'm glad to be Canadian and to be able to leave the island whenever I want when I'm there;
7) If I had to choose between living in Cuba or Haiti, I'd still chose Cuba in a heartbeat.
That is it.
It's interesting, I consider "affection" a few notches down below "support". I think this does show a level of affection from Ozzie, perhaps literally and - more importantly to those annoyed - offhandedly. I think your understanding about how people could be frustrated/irritated with Ozzie's statements is what applies rather easily.
I have recently found striking evidence which leaves me in serious doubt that I am in my universe and/or dimensional plane. I strongly suspect that some as of yet unknown phenomenon has caused me to shift from my universe and/or dimensional plane into this one - i.e. into yours. I know that this likely sounds unbelievable to you, but I have been unable to come up with a better explanation of the evidence.
Please take me to the scientists of your universe and/or dimensional plane so that this matter can be investigated.
Thank you.
wait--did someone already say that?
These guys are butchers, they killed and imprisoned thousands and thousands of people.
I guess I missed the part of the article where Ozzie gave the quote while wearing a Fidel-style uniform. Maybe he gave it from the quad while doing a J, though.
So ... they're contenders for the Republican nomination in 2016?
(just to piss off Larry Mahnken)
Oh come on, Hanley isn't that bad at third base.
Did ANYBODY actually read the ####### article in TIME ####### MAGAZINE? I love how on this site--all the ####### time--people will profess to know something about which they know nothing. To wit:
The actual article in Time Magazine starts with those words. We don't need to parse out how "praise" is close enough to love. He said it. He's a moron. Can we move on?
/chagrined
For Ozzie to say this is a massive publicity gaffe that will alienate all of the Cuban-Americans in Miami.
He will never have their support after this.
That's overstating it by quite a bit. Among the most ardent anti-Castroites, if they are already lukewarm about baseball, they are probably lost forever. Ardent baseball fans who don't really have strong feelings about Castro--and there are probably a good many of these--they know he's horrible, but they like their baseball and so they'll overlook it. I'd guess that many, many people are outraged for a week or two and then come back as it blows over. Lasting effect? Almost nothing.
While molesting young boys.
No, wait -- that was your crowd. Sorry about the confusion.
This goes without saying (which means that people will say it all the time). I don't dispute that Ozzie might possibly have a case of verbal diarrhea and doesn't actually "love" Castro. He doesn't strike me as a particularly reflective person, so I'm not sure he's given much thought at all to Castro. Besides that, he seems to gravitate toward controversial things, so if everyone else in Miami is against Castro, the obvious position for him to take is to be (however mildly) for Castro.
My point is that people on this thread claimed he didn't say that he "loved" Castro. He unequivocally did in an article that apparently no one read (they read either the article in the Palm Beach Post that summarizes the article in Time, or they read the blurb above). We don't need to parse his other statements to figure out whether or not they mean "love" nor do we need to look to them to figure out how much of "love" he has for Castro.
What the statement demonstrates, pretty unequivocally, is that Ozzie shoots from the hip and doesn't think twice about doing so. Let him talk long enough (say, 5 minutes) and he'll say something stupid and offensive. Shock and outrage are not the proper responses to someone like this. Ignoring him is. Let's move on.
[Edited for clarity.]
Kind of hard to do that when it's behind a paywall.
My point is that people on this thread claimed he didn't say that he "loved" Castro. He unequivocally did in an article that apparently no one read (they read either the article in the Palm Beach Post that summarizes the article in Time, or they read the blurb above). We don't need to parse his other statements to figure out whether or not they mean "love" nor do we need to look to them to figure out how much of "love" he has for Castro.
But if you're going to conflate what Guillen said in those TIME excerpts with any sort of love for Fidel Castro's political rule, then you're completely misreading him. He explained what he meant in the followup quote, and that explanation is completely consistent with what he's said many times about Hugo Chavez, Castro's protege in Venezuela.
And if you're not conflating the two sentiments, then why even comment about it in the first place?
What the statement demonstrates, pretty unequivocally, is that Ozzie shoots from the hip and doesn't think twice about doing so. Let him talk long enough (say, 5 minutes) and he'll say something stupid and offensive. Shock and outrage are not the proper responses to someone like this. Ignoring him is.
You can say that about 99% of the non-sports related comments made by 99% of our professional athletes, from Ozzie Guillen to Tim Tebow to Curt Schilling, unless you're just taking them for their entertainment value.
No.
Do I need to trace every single quote I read to the source? Sometimes, I trust that the article I'm reading is quoting someone accurately...
Awwww, you had to go there on Easter?
And yet there's an argument.
Here's the link to Counterpunch.
Yes, a little known fact about Ozzie is that Alexander Cockburn was his boyhood pastor at the First Liberationist Church of Caracas.
The man isn't even Cuban. Who gives a ####? What's worse? Castro's rule or the fact that 60 years of our embargo against Cuba has done nothing but harm Cubans. We have had relations with dictators since the founding of our nation...propped up a few of them too. Is the Miami Cuban vote still that strong of a political force? I'd have figured the newer generation wouldn't care as much.
Ask Al Gore.
DB
EDITED to provide links for reference
That Elian Gonzalez fiasco, which certainly was a key factor in Gore's defeat, was a rare case of the Democrats being punished for something they did wrong rather than for something they did right. You can't blame the GOP steam calliope for that one; it was a wholly self-inflicted wound.
My student feels that the best thing that could ever happen is for Castro to stick around just long enough that his (the student's) grandfather's generation passes away. His father's generation is vaguely interested in returning home, but not overly so, and my student has zero interest...and neither he nor his father want to have to deal with his grandfather wasting time and money in courts or (worse) on property about which his descendants don't truly care.
I also gather that this sentiment is not particularly rare in the Cuban-American community. If so, Ozzie's comments may pique a few folks, but won't be likely to make too many enemies.
Wait, this kid and his father are rooting for a communist dictator to outlive their father/grandfather? That's, um, interesting.
"Sorry, Dad, we know it's been your lifelong dream to return to your homeland, but it would be much more convenient if you could just die."
But there's one very large difference: the Vietnamese-American community has no effective veto on U.S. policy towards Vietnam. And as for Vietnam itself: yes, that's still the Communist Party running things. Only these days I'm not sure what their ideology is beyond the obvious, "We're the guys in charge." And dominant impulse of their foreign policy seems to be, "We want to do business with you." And the U.S. does have normal relations with Vietnam and does business.
One can think of several reasons why the Vietnamese has no effective policy veto. One is electoral: they might swing an Orange County congressional race, but they aren't going to move the needle on the California electoral vote.
As for Cambodian-Americans: political activism within that group seems to be mostly inward-directed, local, and concerned with the well being of their own community.
It was really only with the Vietnamese community that you had the strident public denunciations of Ho Chi Minh and his successors, the occasional crackpot conspiracy to raise an army to go back to Vietnam, and so on - the same sorts of things that you see with the Cubans.
Maybe not stand up for him, but I think the American embargo on Cuba has been far worse for that country's citizens than anything else.
Worse than Castro?
For all the talk and propaganda, the embargo mostly exists in name only. Despite "the blockade," Cuban-Americans pump over a billion dollars into the Cuban economy every year, they travel to and from the island at will, and the U.S. is the No. 1 or No. 2 food source for Cuba. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the world has been trading with Cuba all along, and yet the Cuban people aren't much freer or wealthier because of it.
Cuba's problems rest solely and squarely with the Castro regime.
I dunno. The whole developing country thing is really tricky for Latin American countries. Chile is probably better off for having had Allende. Haiti was much worse off than Cuba for having Duvalier. There isn't really a LA country that you can point to that developed with democracy and had it turn out great.
Most Latin American countries have really poor infrastructure, really poor population density and really poor prospects for investors. It's really hard to turn those factors into a prosperous, thriving country.
Mexico is probably the closest? Or maybe Costa Rica? State Dept. has per cap GDP at 11.5K for Costa Rica and 13.9K for Mexico. I would probably rather live in Costa Rica, though. Latin America seems to have some of the same challenges that oil countries do, except it's drugs, and the money gets concentrated in the hands of a few kingpins rather than a 'benevolent tyrant' like in Saudi Arabia.
It'd be easier to say that Castro has definitely dramatically hurt Cubans if we had a good example of something as a comparable for what Cuba could have been.
(This is not a defense of Castro)
Yeah. I think Jose Figueres Ferrer is the most underrated LA statesman of the 20th century. Demilitarization, nationalization, strong democratic institutions -> a relatively safe, stable nation in a chaotic part of the world, sitting there with its rainforests and pretty beaches ready to suck up all those first-world tourist dollars.
PS Interesting fact about JFF I just read: He was married twice, both times to US Americans, one woman from Alabama and one from New York City.
That's interesting because I have a very different perception. My father and his generation (all between 65-80 years old) fled in the early-60s and sound like your student's grandfather. However, my generation (ages 40-50) is very hopeful of going back and reclaiming what we believe to be "ours" (by "ours" I mean our families, it is heartbreaking to me what my grandparents lost). This is true of my family and of pretty much every Cuban family I have ever interacted with.
To give you some sense of this my father and my aunt spent a good portion of Easter dinner discussing how they would design the rebuilt house they would put on my great-uncle's farm. Deep down I think they realize that that is the sort of dreaming one does when playing the lottery but at the same time if I can go back and build that house someday it would be incredibly meaningful to me as a way to preserve the legacy of my father and my grandparents.
(This is not a defense of Castro)
First, of course we know you're not defending Castro. Just to get that out of the way.
The problem with talking about Cuba is that we know two things. The first is that none of us would ever want to live in such a wholly regimented society where the state intrudes into nearly every nook and cranny of our lives. Castro got into power with a Jose Marti pose, but within two years he was admitting that he'd always been a Communist.
But the second thing we know is that the Batista regime embodied some of the worst features of capitalism, and that any economic model that envisions a highly stratified society based on casinos, tourism and a few cash crops (sugar, tobacco) isn't going to go anywhere in the absence of a de facto police state.
In a post-Castro era, it'll be easy to sell Cubans on democracy and the dismantling of those CDR goon squads. It won't be so easy to sell them a Club For Growth agenda imported by Cuban Americans and their American political allies. Cuba is not Miami.
Wrong from a political point of view, perhaps, but substantively wrong, no way. Elián belonged with his father. A pretty open and shut case to me.
It seems I know nothing of Cuba's economic history. So we had landowners who were dispossessed by the Castro regime. How did those families get the land and who were they? Were they the descendants of Spaniard colonialists? Did the families get the land from grants from the king? A land claim system (40 acres and a mule equivalent)?
Wrong from a political point of view, perhaps, but substantively wrong, no way. Elián belonged with his father. A pretty open and shut case to me.
Just as it seems pretty open and shut to me not to send a kid back to a dictatorship when he's got plenty of family and community here to support him. Janet Reno exhibited the soul of a bureaucrat during that confrontation, and both her party and our country have been stuck with the consequences ever since.
His father may very well have prefered him staying in Miami, but of course, he could never express that under Castro, or he'd end up in prison (like a bunch of the people who met with the Pope last week).
These unions give the vast vast majority of their campaign dollars to Dem candidates and pressure groups. So, as usual, gef has his graying, balding head straight up his self-righteous as$. Clearly, gef also has a huge soft spot for Castro, he just lacks the guts to directly admit it. So he vomits-up his tired, bigoted canards.
It was politically incorrect.
In college I had a prof who said the main long term problem for Latin America was and is the socio-political culture they inherited from Spain.
Essentially you had an extremely feudal political/economic structure imposed and maintained by force and which festered away for a couple of centuries...
One of my HS classmates was from a Cuban exile family. His mother (a friend of my mother) was fond of talking about how she used to have property and servants... My classmate as far as I could tell had close to zero interest in Cuba, and would roll his eyes when his mother talked as any white* middle class teenager living in the suburbs would.
*Sure he had an Hispanic name, and his mother had an accent, but he was white and sounded like every other white Long Islander of his generation.
Alpha Centaurians eat people!
Public school teachers sexually molest minor children at a rate many times that of Catholic clergy. And their unions defend them, tooth and nail, right down the line.
Any sources for these claims?
Nobody he knew nor anyone who was particularly close. It seems to me depriving a kid of his dad (and a dad of his kid) is particularly cruel. About the only thing that would cause me to take a child away from his parents is if they were abusive, and I don't equate living in Cuba to child abuse. North Korea is about the only country on Earth that I would put even in the same neighborhood.
Growing up in a dictatorship where basic necessities are often withheld is also particularly cruel. I'm not saying he shouldn't have gone back, as you say depriving a kid of his dad is also cruel, but I think anyone on either side of that issue who claims it's an open and shut case is not thinking the whole issue through.
How many of those teachers are Catholic too?
of course not.
It could be true, might not be either. Any occupation that involves regular contact with children will attract pedophiles, which is why such organizations have to be on guard for that. The RC church's problem was not only were they not on guard, but when incidents were brought to the attention of those in charge the typical response of the higher ups was reflexive denial.
Public (and private) schools are going to be a mixed bag, you are going to have districts where incidents are hushed up, and districts where the rule is call the police ask questions later. I think that on average the "rate" is going to be lower than the RC church*, because the "bad" districts are likely only going to match the Church's rate.
* Far worse than the RC Church are going to be the more insular sects (and religion)- if you have a religious group THAT DOES NOT GO TO OUTSIDERS FOR HELP PERIOD- a pedophile in a position of authority will have essentially free reign.
As is usually the case, very few people "think the whole issue through." They just line up on the side of their preferred political tribe. The "Elian should have stayed" crowd consists of about 99% of people who believe it was wrong to send him back because Bill Clinton did it. Most of the people who are certain he was better off sent to "live with his father" are certain that is the best case because Bill Clinton did it.
Take the case, flip the details, set it up where the government is taking away the kid of some militia type nutter out in the Idaho countryside or something and make it happen with a R admin and watch the two debating sides flip faster than Alyssa Milano at a baseball-players-only all nighter.
Growing up in a dictatorship where basic necessities are often withheld is also particularly cruel. I'm not saying he shouldn't have gone back, as you say depriving a kid of his dad is also cruel, but I think anyone on either side of that issue who claims it's an open and shut case is not thinking the whole issue through.
Well, the other point is that Elian's dad had no autonomous say in the matter, in that like all other Cubans, he had no real alternative to publicly backing his government's position. After having lived his entire life under the Communist regime, it's certainly possible that the dad was a sincere supporter of Castro and merely wanted his son back. But without any realistic possibility of being able to accompany his son to Miami, his decision was rigged in advance.
Speak for yourself, Sam. Kids like that deserve protective custody, no matter which administration is in power. At least in Elian's case the father was an innocent bystander.
There have been numerous studies published suggesting that 5-10% of students are sexually abused in school by teachers and staff. Just Google it.
I haven't seen a good comparison of the rate of such crimes among teachers, to compare to the 1.5% of Catholic Priests who have been accused of abuse (numerous studies). I've seen estimates of 5%, but haven't seen the studies.
You know what normally overrides any sort of high minded political theory?
Wanting your kids back.
Actually I assumed this would be your position, Andy.
You know what normally overrides any sort of high minded political theory?
Wanting your kids back.
And you know what would've made it a real choice instead of a Hobson's choice? Both sides (Clinton and Castro) agreeing to let the father choose where to live with his child, without any retribution to the remaining relatives if the dad's choice had been to take Elian to Miami.
---------------------------------------------------
Speak for yourself, Sam. Kids like that deserve protective custody, no matter which administration is in power.
Actually I assumed this would be your position, Andy.
AFAIC raising a child in a cultish environment is an easily definable form of child abuse. As a practical matter there usually isn't anything that can be done about it, but let's not gloss over the reality.
Wanting your kids back.
Given the valid competing interests (father vs. sending a kid to live in a dictatorship), the solution I would have proposed if I were US President is this:
1) Both Elian (plus his Miami relatives) and his father (plus his current wife and any children) are flown to a neutral location (Bahamas?) that has flights to both Miami and Havana.
2) The father is allowed to consult in private with the son, the Miami relatives and a US immigration lawyer (bearing the appropriate papers) in any combination he sees fit, free from any Cuban or US oversight, for as long as they want.
3) Gonzalez Sr. and his whole family are free to board a plane for either Miami or Havana at the father's discretion.
If Castro refused a free choice for the father, I'd have kept the kid.
Edit: half a coke to Andy
Sure. And pretty much everything, at the most basic level, is a cultish environment. So now we're all ######. Hooray for the Ministry of Love!
Then how come my conscious is so clean?
Well, when a state (and the entire election) turns on fewer than a thousand votes, there are scores of decisions that Mighta Shudda Cudda, etc. But two decisions that were totally within the control of people who either would have been or should have been horrified at the prospect of a Bush victory were made by Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Ralph Nader. We can forever be grateful to Janet Reno's bureaucratic outlook and Ralph Nader's narcissistic vanity for giving us George Bush and everything that's accompanied him and his legacy. Perhaps a suitable punishment would be to subject Nader and Reno to live with each other for the rest of their lives, while reporting their activities each day to Justices Roberts and Alito.
I haven't seen a good comparison of the rate of such crimes among teachers, to compare to the 1.5% of Catholic Priests who have been accused of abuse (numerous studies). I've seen estimates of 5%, but haven't seen the studies.
I did Google it and didn't find anything; all of the data suffered from the problem you identify or others. For example, the most famous study (Shakeshaft) asked students whether they've been sexually harassed, exposed to pornography, or molested (that's where the 10% number comes from).
4-10% of public school students may be victims of sexual harassment or abuse (based on the numbers I saw in my Google search), but most students have dozens of teachers during the course of their K-12 careers, so I find it hard to draw a conclusion from that data about the percentage of teachers who molest students.
Meanwhile, if 1.5% of priests have been accused of abuse, that's very different data -- it requires an accusation to have been made, rather than a survey response. There's plenty of reason to believe the former would be underreported relative to the latter. Furthermore, one of the main complaints is that the Church left abusers in positions of authority where they continued to abuse many children over many years -- allowing each abuser to do more damage.
I'm not trying to argue that priest are worse than public schoolteachers -- but I don't see any evidence that they are better. If anything, the recent abuse cases in sports have shown us that there are problems in any organization where adults are put into positions of absolute authority over children.
nah, Gore ran a stupid campaign. Blame him more than Nader or Reno.
It's probably not under-reported now. If you looked at that data 20 years ago, you probably would have found a rate of 0.3%, and it would have been grossly under-reported. But, with all the revelations, and publicity, and lawsuits, of the last decade, I'd imagine we've gotten a very good airing of the culprits. Not that every abused person came forward, but that most every abuser has been accused, given they likely abused multiple kids.
Also, you have to note that a bunch of the accused priests have been proven to be innocent.
1) Both Elian (plus his Miami relatives) and his father (plus his current wife and any children) are flown to a neutral location (Bahamas?) that has flights to both Miami and Havana.
2) The father is allowed to consult in private with the son, the Miami relatives and a US immigration lawyer (bearing the appropriate papers) in any combination he sees fit, free from any Cuban or US oversight, for as long as they want.
3) Gonzalez Sr. and his whole family are free to board a plane for either Miami or Havana at the father's discretion.
If Castro refused a free choice for the father, I'd have kept the kid.
From a human standpoint, that's about as good a solution as could have been had, though of course we all know that Castro would've vetoed it at every step. But while the root of the problem lies in the nature of the Castro regime, our "wet feet, dry feet" policy of forced repatriation of political refugees caught at sea also contributed to the outcome. There were good historic and practical reasons for the establishment of that policy, but in many cases like Elian's that policy winds up forcing a cruel resolution to individuals.
Well, the US gov't could have forced that ideal solution, or, the kid stays in Miami.
As a father, you want to do what's best for your kid, right? I think it's a real possibility Elian's dad, if given a free choice, would have thought he'd be better off in Miami.
Because a US immigration lawyer isn't part of "US oversight" or anything. Why would Castro have *ever* even considered this option?
If I don't live up to my own stereotype, who will?
(I've gotta say, snapper comes off as quite even-tempered in the fact of such snipings, which to my regret I seem unable to restrain myself from engaging in every so often. Good man -- snapper, that is. Me, probably not.)
nah, Gore ran a stupid campaign. Blame him more than Nader or Reno.
Well, sure, but in Gore's case the only solution would have been a full frontal lobotomy, whereas in Nader's and Reno's cases a simple intervention might have sufficed.
Is this the new approved talking point on this?
AFAIK, he's not on Primer. Danny, you've missed your calling!
I said Gonzalez has every right to tell the lawyer to take a hike. He would need an explanation about what would happen to his family in the US, and you wouldn't trust a US gov't official. He could have a Cuban lawyer too, except he'd be a gov't stooge.
Castro wouldn't, because he's a Communist dictator. He won't give his people freedom on anything much he can avoid.
But the US doesn't have to play his game. You offer a fair solution, and if he refuses, he just reveals who he is.
Sad but undoubtedly true. Any genuine happy ending to this case awaits a post-Castro moment.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main