The same day that the Miami Herald published their report on cooperation by the FBI and the Cuban government on the case of Luis Posada Carriles, our three favorite US Representatives, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, "condemned" the actions of the US Department of Justice.
Today the Herald publishes the statements of the three US Representatives saying:
"By asking a state sponsor of terrorism for 'evidence' regarding terrorism, the Bush administration Justice Department demonstrates a shockingly profound ignorance of the nature of terrorism, of its origins and its state sponsors... The only 'evidence' that the terrorist regime in Havana could provide the United States with regard to the twice-acquitted-in-Venezuela-Mr. Posada or anyone else would be fabricated evidence."
Ironically, the statements above are fabricated as well.
Luis Posada Carriles has NOT been acquitted twice. The Miami Herald points out that Posada Carriles was once acquitted by a military tribunal in Venezuela, but this was for charges of treason and not an investigation on the 1976 bombing. Nevertheless, that military acquittal was annulled when a "higher military court found that the lower one lacked jurisdiction."
The myth of the "twice-acquitted-in-Venezuela-Mr. Posada" has been repeated by many news outlets, even the BBC, but its all false. One need only read the reports.
As for the description of Cuba as a "state sponsor of terrorism," according to the Center for International Policy, the US State Department "actually offers no evidence that Cuba is involved in terrorist activities." Also, the US list of state-sponsors of terrorism "has no set of criteria for inclusion or removal from the list," thus its purely political and arbitrary.
It seems that Lincoln, Mario and Ileana are also guilty of "fabricated evidence."
5 comments:
Mambo Watcher:
How is it possible that I didn't recognize you? You are old Pancho Vilchez!
Would you like to comment on the topic?
Actually, I just did.
Thanks to this revelation, which dawned on me suddenly and forcefully while I was reading your blog, I now understand its author much better. Pancho was always interesting and occasionally funny (your latest incarnation is sadly deficient in that department), but, honestly, I would not have thought Pancho capable of mounting such a production as this, so I must admit that I have underestimated you. And that is a comment that is "on topic" for every thread on this blog.
"Revelation"? "Latest incarnation"? You certainly are displaying symptoms of extreme paranoia. Please leave your personal comments for your blog.
Everything about a blog — yours, mine or Val's, for that matter — is a highly personal affair, and not merely from the blogger's end. Commenters also advance their personal opinions. That's what blogging is about, Pancho.
Post a Comment