I don't know if the accusations in this article are wholey truthful, but they do raise some concerns. Did we allow known terrorist to arrive in our country under the auspice of being freedom fighters? If the other was known to have blown up a passenger aircraft, how could we had given him a US passport? I hope the story is wrong, burt bazaare things are known to happen in Washington.
By Julia E. Sweig and Peter Kornbluh, Julia E. Sweig is senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "Inside the Cuban Revolution." Peter Kornbluh is the author of "Bay of Pigs Declassified."
To curry favor with Cuban Americans, Bush turns a blind eye.
A little-noticed but chilling scene at Opa-locka Airport outside Miami last month demonstrates that the Bush administration's commitment to fighting international terrorism can be overtaken by presidential politics — even if that means admitting known terrorists onto U.S. soil.
That's what happened when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso inexplicably pardoned four Cuban exiles convicted of "endangering public safety" for their role in an assassination plot against Fidel Castro during a 2000 international summit in Panama.
After their release, three of the four immediately flew via private jet to Miami, where they were greeted with a cheering fiesta organized by the hard-line anti-Castro community. Federal officials briefly interviewed the pardoned men — all holders of U.S. passports — and then let them go their way.
The fourth man, Luis Posada Carriles, was the most notorious member of this anti-Castro cell. He is an escapee from a prison in Venezuela, where he was incarcerated for blowing up an Air Cubana passenger plane in 1976, killing 73. He also admitted plotting six hotel bombings in Havana that killed one tourist and injured 11 others in 1997. Posada has gone into hiding in Honduras while seeking a Central American country that will harbor him, prompting Honduran President Ricardo Maduro to demand an explanation from the Bush administration on how a renowned terrorist could enter his country using a false U.S. passport.
The terrorist backgrounds of Posada's three comrades-in-arms are as well documented as their leader's. Guillermo Novo once fired a bazooka at the U.N. building; in February 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 40 years for conspiracy in the 1976 assassination of former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and his American colleague, Ronni Moffitt, in Washington. (His conviction was subsequently vacated on a legal technicality.) Gaspar Jimenez was convicted and imprisoned in Mexico in 1977 for murdering a Cuban consulate official; he was released by authorities in 1983. Pedro Remon received a 10-year sentence in 1986 for conspiring to kill Cuba's ambassador to the United Nations in 1980. These are violent men. Panamanian prosecutors said they had planned to detonate 33 pounds of explosives while Castro was speaking at a university in Panama. Had they not been intercepted by the authorities, the blast not only would have killed the Cuban president but quite possibly hundreds of others gathered to hear him speak during the inter-American summit.
For a small but powerful minority in the Cuban American community, the Posada gang are freedom fighters. But Sept. 11 taught the rest of us about the danger of political fanatics who seek to rationalize their violence. To uphold his oft-stated principle that no nation can be neutral in the war on terrorism, shouldn't President Bush have condemned Moscoso's decision to release these terrorists? To protect the sanctity of U.S. borders and the security of Americans, shouldn't the administration have taken all available steps to keep known terrorists out of the United States?
But Florida is crucial to Bush's reelection strategy. Currying favor with anti-Castro constituents in Miami appears to trump the president's anti-terrorism principles. So far, not a single White House, State Department or Homeland Security official has expressed outrage at Panama's decision to put terrorists back on the world's streets. The FBI appears to have no plans to lead a search for Posada so he can be returned to Venezuela, where he is a wanted fugitive. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has rounded up and expelled hundreds of foreigners on the mere suspicion of a terrorist link, has indicated no intention to detain and deport Novo, Jimenez and Remon.
In June, the White House seemed to have maxed out on pandering to hard-line Cuban exiles when it virtually eliminated family visits and remittances to Cuba as part of a new initiative to undermine Castro's rule. But that policy has upset anti-Castro moderates in both parties because it criminalizes efforts to build family ties across the Straits of Florida, something a family-values president should support. In response, Bush's decision to accept the repatriation of the Cuban exile terrorists seems calculated to shore up support in the Cuban American community.
"I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush recently said in an interview.
But the decision to allow members of the Posada gang into this country, and the televised spectacle of Miamians applauding their return, sends a different and dangerous message: In a swing state, some terrorists are not only acceptable but welcome.
The US always used terrorists and dictators to reach their targets. Only think about the Taliban (US gave them weapons), Bin Ladin, Batista...
All these people get what they want - as long they were usful for US and/or in the fight against other countrys or groups. Than US stopped the help immediately. Do you think, such people will stay friends of US, if you take them their lovely toys and the green leaves, they get every month?
The Great Game has always been played thus...the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is a son of a bitch...Dag, not everyone/country/people plays by the EU "let's sit and and discuss (ad nauseaum) our disputes" rulebook. There are bad people in the world. Castro is one of them, maybe not the worst, but bad enough.
... But WAY better than the king of Saudi Arabia or other "nice" guys, "Sponsored by U.S.A."
Or you real believe, that these guys are against Bin Laden? *lol* Not at all US are living with (and through) these ultraorthodox moslems. Ah, and don't forget Israel What's up there? US tells them: "Oh you are bad guys, aren't you?" And does - NOTHING. Why? Look into the parlaments namelists, in the hollywood factory etc.; i.e. 75% of US media is in jewish hands. Naturally it doesn't say ANYTHING about the politics of US Goverment These Arabs and Jews are real good businessmen, and in case of any actions against their countrys, many of them will take their money and leave the country. Isn't it?
That's not a thesis of conspiracy; that's a hard ecomomic fact.
Dag...I'm not trying to justify these regimes, just saying that from a position of self interest, I'll do business with some @$$holes if its necessary to further the casue of my country...Kissinger called it realpolitik, and Willy Brandt jumped right on board...
Yes, that's life. Money makes the world go round... and cuba hansn't anything interesting fot US but some jineteras over there and the votes of the exile cubans. So Castro will stay the evil enemy, and King Farukh the good friend. But many people don't understand this system, forced by the media and the CIA they believe what Bush and Co. telling them in TV.
I always think of this nice photo of the blonde with the big boobs and the t-shirt "I wish this were brains..."
Yes, THAT's tha way! If anyone is telling a truth, you don't like, call him a racist and /or a antisemit That's easier than searching for facts or arguments against this thesis.
No. I was reading some documentations about foreign investments in USA. And how many cash is stored in US by arab oil sheiks.
And I saw some namelists i.e. of hollywood regisseurs and US Congressmen. Wondered how many names ended with "...berg" and "...stein" and other of this kind Ah- forgot: I LOVE Steven Spielberg.
Naturally - if you have other informations, I am ready to learn.
Ah, and I am not antisemit nor antimoslem or racist. Even if you want to interprete my thesis in this way. If you have no other arguments against me...
@Quebecmike
Isn't it easier to call me at once a "Nazi", as like many guys from north america and GB do so with germans, that had a own (non USA) view of politics? Didn't the US Press even Schroeder call a Nazi? Why so indirect? Ah, and how you call a guy, who is calling any arab coutrys as a "axis of evil", cause they are no christians but (naturally) arabs? In my mind THIS is a racist!
[This message was edited by dagobert on September 20, 2004 at 09:25 AM.]
Not at all, I wonder why the americans so fast calling anyone racist, nazi or antisemit, if you tell anything against israel. If I could make another thesis against the agressive nature of catholicism, based on the inquisition up to the (by bishops) murdered popes in the last 200 years and the absolute autority of Rome, they will call me a jew
Dag...I figured your choice of words merely reflected the fact that English is not your native language (Mein Gott in Himmel!)...I was taken aback some myself by your choice of words but cut you some slack...there are people who may take referring to the Israeli governement as "Jews" in an offensive way, as some Frenchmen would "Frogs", Germans "Nazis", Americans "Gringos", etc. Everyone has their slanderous nickname...I offer this as friendly advice if you want to avoid inadvertantly provoking backlash...
It's always hard to write in a foreign language Not at all, i knew the difference between "Jews" by religion and "Israelis" by state. The problem is, that the Jews reacting (even here in Germany) very sensible, if you are telling anything against their "motherland" Israel. That is a huge political problem; any action against Israel mostly will be taken as a attack against the "holy land" and the jewish religion. Even in the israelian goverment these ultraorthodox jews will get more and more power. That's why the most themes about Israel wouldn't be discussed in the public.
Not at all, one aspect of the jewish religion is, that every jew has to visit once in his life the holy town. It is his spiritual target. So imho. every action, that will act against the tendence to invade Jerusalem to make it free of moslems and a clear jewish city, will be a act of "antisemitism", a direct attack to the jews. They simply think it is their right to invade Jerusalem (I am talking about the ultraorthodox Jews).
The jewish religion is very peaceful; and I were talking with moslems too about this theme. Most of the "modern" moslems want to coexist in peace with jews and christians as like Mohammed told in the quoran. Time will show, if it is possible. As long spiritual leaders want to extend their power with war and hate, it won't work.
US is a good sample of coexistence of religions - with little failures. A meltpot of races and religions, but anyway with a latent racism between the single groups. Now, it is a young country; the time will show, if it works. I hope so.
[This message was edited by dagobert on September 20, 2004 at 10:44 AM.]
What's up there? US tells them: "Oh you are bad guys, aren't you?" And does - NOTHING. 
