Posted on 01/28/2005 7:45:27 PM PST by mandingo republican
This article mentions Agustin Blazquez's short "Dan Rather, '60 Minutes' an Inside View" that will be released this coming Spring as part of the Special Edition DVD of Blazquez's new documentary "The Rats Below."
A retired Architect of the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, DC, Pedro Porro, A.I.A. reveals what he found to be a serious manipulation of a segment of "60 Minutes" he participated in order to influence the conclusions of the audience.
This interview with Mr. Porro was taped on May 18, 2003 - before the recent scandal on CBS about the "60 Minutes" Dan Rather segment criticizing president Bush in relation to his military service based on fake documents.
Read more about it in this new article of Humberto Fontova.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Elian Raid Excessive-Force Case Begins
Humberto Fontova Friday, Jan. 28, 2005
When Janet Reno's INS maced, kicked, stomped, gun-butted and tear-gassed their way into Lazaro Gonzalez's house on the morning of April 22 1980, wrenched a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point and bundled him off to a Stalinist nation, they left 102 people injured, some seriously.
Many of the injured were ladies who had brandished dangerous weapons. Worse, they had displayed these weapons openly and threateningly. These weapons were rosaries.
On Monday, 13 of the injured finally got their day in court. Interestingly, the Miami judge allowed only those who were off the Gonzalez property and outside the barricades put up by the city to sue. That so many were injured gives you an idea of the dimensions of the brutality. These 13 people are suing the federal government for using excessive force on that dawn raid.
Castro's raiders always came at dawn too. People wondered why so many of us got so "emotional" and "worked up" over Reno's raid. Well, there probably wasn't a family outside Elian's uncle's house who didn't recall a dawn raid in the old country and a loved one dragged off. Often they got a crude pine box back, with the firing-squad-riddled body of the loved one inside. More commonly an anonymous phone call announced the mass grave where the bullet-shattered body of the father, brother, uncle, cousin might be found.
That torrent of tears and sea of anguished faces we all saw on TV from Miami's Little Havana that morning was mostly from terrifying flashbacks.
Not that rage or anguish was widespread – not by a long shot. Who can forget the reaction of the New York Times' incomparable Thomas Friedman: "Yup, I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elian Gonzalez warmed my heart."
Let's review the highlights of the Elian tragedy, if only because so many – even among the normally sensible – fell for the Castro-Clinton deception. Tony Snow, John Leo, Mark Steyn, among many other usually astute pundits, swallowed the Castroite ruse hook, line and sinker. Probably a third of the phone calls, especially from men, to Rush sounded as if they'd swallowed it too.
These weren't dumb people, much less wicked people. It's just that they'd never lived under a totalitarian regime – much less under Castroism. So it seemed to these guileless folks that Elian's father, Juan Miguel, was acting and speaking perfectly freely.
I'd bet not one American in 10,000 would have fallen for that during the height of the Cold War. Americans held few illusions about Communism back then. But as it turned out, regarding Elian, polls showed that almost 70 percent of the American public sided with a Communist tyrant. A very heartbreaking tally, I'm ashamed to say.
After all, Dan Rather himself, on his "60 Minutes" interview on April 16, 2000, had featured the perfectly free Juan Miguel. Dan had shown conclusively, with his battery of penetrating questions, with his own choking up.
"Did you cry?" he asked the bereaved father. "A father never runs out of tears," Juan sniffled back, lips quivering. With this Dan had primed America for the raid a week later. He left no doubt about how earnest was Elian's father's longing that his son rejoin him in Castroland. He'd shown, beyond any doubt, how utterly free from Castroite coercion this poor father had been. All the bullying and wickedness came from the Miami bunch, if you recall.
And if you can't trust Dan Rather and "60 Minutes," then who CAN you trust, RIGHT?!
Coming soon is a fascinating documentary from the indefatigable Agustin Blazquez – indefatigable in exposing Castroism, that is: "Dan Rather, '60 Minutes' – an Inside View." The documentary features an eye-opening interview with a Pedro Porro.
Mr. Porro served as the translator for Juan Miguel during the taping of the interview. Dan Rather would ask the penetrating question in English into Porro's earpiece and Porro would translate it into Spanish for Juan Miguel."
I didn't know whether to throw up or start crying when I saw the interview as it appeared on '60 minutes'," says Porro.
From Porro we learn that Clinton's friend and lawyer Gregory Craig, then acting as Juan Miguel's (read Fidel Castro's) lawyer, was crafting most of the questions HIMSELF ("Did you cry?"– sniff, sniff) and passing them along to a willing Dan Rather. Craig was stage-managing the whole thing!
"It was obvious that Craig and Rather were on very friendly terms," says Porro. Juan Miguel, on the other hand, "was very stressed, it was obvious. And Juan Miguel was never alone, either. He was always surrounded by men from the Cuban Interests Section, men they called "bodyguards," or by Gregory Craig himself. You could tell he wasn't free."
That Craig (Clinton's and Castro's lawyer) worked for the law firm Williams & Connolly, which happened to have CBS as a client also, might or might not be significant here.
At any rate, smells like more than "myopic zeal" to me. Dick Thornburgh, please call your office, sir. Using forged documents for campaign propaganda on a "60 Minutes" show stinks for sure, but is it worse than using the same show to facilitate the kidnapping of a 6-year-old on behalf of a Stalinist tyrant – after his mother died that he might be free from the tyrant's bloody paws?
Is it worse than using this show to stage a massive farce – a veritable show trial complete with bogus confessions and coerced testimony – on behalf of the world's last Stalinist?
Regarding the hapless Juan Miguel, think of "Godfather II." Recall the Senate hearings where Frankie Pentangeli, under FBI protection, was prepared to testify against Michael Corleone. The stage was set. Looked like a done deal for the feds.
Then whoops! Frankie looks up and sees his bewildered brother Vincenzo from Sicily, sitting next to Mikey. Remember how Frankie's tune changed? Think of Elian's father, Juan Miguel, as Frankie Pentangeli. There was no gun (visible) at his head either.
"It wasn't Juan Miguel who wanted Elian back," says Elian's uncle Lazaro in the indispensable book "Unvanquished," by Enrique Encinosa. "It was Fidel."
And as for all that stomping and macing and firepower that morning, it horrified and enraged many people for sure – it also amazed. Why such overkill? Why such Shock and Awe, many wondered?
Well, it appears that those agents genuinely feared they were on a very dangerous mission. Fidel Castro himself, you see, had confided to his friend Bill Clinton via his friend Gregory Craig that Lazaro's house was primed to erupt with deadly firepower much like the monastery atop Monte Cassino had erupted in 1944.
Don't let appearances fool ya, Castro's agents had assured Craig. Lazaro's little bungalow is crammed with armaments and packed with Miami Mafiosi as hell-bent on blasting away at INS agents as Hitler's Grenadiers had been hell-bent on blasting away at Allied troops from Monte Cassino. A wide-eyed and gaping Clinton and Reno had Castro's word on it.
Well, the only blasting that morning came from mace and tear gas into the faces of ladies holding infants and rosaries.
If this sounds as if I'm somehow exonerating or excusing the brutality, please perish the thought. A Justice Department that relies on, then acts upon, intelligence from Fidel Castro strikes me as a hundred times as dangerous (and stupid) as one whose agents occasionally descend to "excessive force."
Humberto Fontova is the author of "Fidel: Stupid Liberals' Favorite Tyrant," a Conservative Book Club "Book of the Month" available starting March 30.
When Janet Reno's INS maced, kicked, stomped, gun-butted and tear-gassed their way into Lazaro Gonzalez's house on the morning of April 22 1980, wrenched a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point and bundled him off to a Stalinist nation, they left 102 people injured, some seriously.
_____________________________________
Ah April 22, 1980!!???? Typo? It was 1998 wasn't it?
Elians mother gave her life so her child could live in freedom, but leave it to the commie loving `Rats of the Clintoon administration to show more respect for a killer named Castro. "Oh but Elians father wanted him back" Yeah, and I`m sure his father wasn`t pressure by the killer. I mean didn`t anyone in the Clintoon administration find it slightly suspicious that Elians father also chose to bash the US at the same time? Something that the killer takes every opportunity to do, even when Carter is down there kissing the killers azz?
It was 2000. He was pulled out of the water in November 1999.
Pretty much garanteed that the Cuban Vote will be Republican for the next 100 years.
I cannot understand how any American could approve of using military force to settle a child custody dispute in favor of a foreign dictator.
According to Ann Coulter, Elian was born 2 years after his mother divorced Juan Miguel.
Of course, this is all about the commie killer wanting to make the USA look bad, and the Klintoon admini-castration couldn`t help but fall all over themselves to accomadate the killers whims. The killer represents to them their ideal leader of the ideal socialist/commie society in their eyes, and they sold out the freedom of a little boy in a misguided dream to show "communism/socialism works". I worked with Cubans, I know Cubans, and there is not one Cuban alive who will tell you that if given half a chance they would never in a million years bring back their child to live in that hell hole. Cubans regularly put their lives on the line, they regularly DIE to get out of that country, and there in no way in hell that father was speaking from his heart when he said he wanted his kid to live under the killer. He knew it and the Klintoon admini-castration knew it, but what else could he say when caught between two avowed sociopathic commies? Just wait, Elian is coming of age and you`ll see..He is going to let it be known that he wants the hell out of there, and I hope when he does it`s when Hitlery is running for President.
What restraints there are, that Janet Reno live by the rule of law, were thrown out the door.
Here, at Free Republic, the crowd cheered.
High drama; they loved it.
Nevermind the Constutional requirement that the federal govenment only has the power that it is authorized by enumeration.
Janet Reno broke the law because she could, and nobody would stop her.
Unfortunately, the matter has been of no interest among the Bush [still running 29% of the Clinton] Administration.
Well, you see, for a true conservative who believes that a child is not the mere creature of the State, there is a problem. For how can the U.S. government claim rights to decide Elian's fate over and above the wishes of his natural father?
The response of most "conservatives", is essentially, he's the father, but who cares. Here are the main conservative counterarguments:
1. Juan Miguel couldn't really wish his son to be returned. This is simply a matter and belief and nothing else, for even if Juan Miguel swore this under oath a million times conservatives would still insist he was only a puppet of the Castro regime. And besides a father who really thought to have Elian live in the U.S. was important and wished that would certainly be willing to stand up to the Castro regime and say so.
2. Elian wasn't really Juan Miguel's son. Where's the proof? The fact that Juan Miguel and his wife two years earlier divorced proves nothing.
3. Elian's mother gave her life for Elian's freedom in the U.S. Yes, but she's dead now. Elian's father is the one to make decisions for him now. Or should we simply start kidnapping children from Cuban parents whenever we have the opportunity to do so, rationalizing that of course their parents would want them to live in the U.S.
4. The rights of Elian to live under freedom in the U.S. trump any concern for parental rights. Here many "conservatives" seem to have adopted the liberal premise that the rights of children supersede the rights of parents. Well, frankly, no they don't. It's not Juan Miguel's fault that he was born and is forced to live under Castro's regime. And it is his natural right to have children without them being taken away from him by the U.S. government. By this logic, maybe we should start taking away children from poor parents and give them away to rich ones. After all, the children have the "right" not to live in poverty. And their parents should understand; they should want the best for their children, right?
So, IMHO the Elian case was actually a case of abandoning conservative principles in order to keep the Cuban-American vote.
Good Lord, dude. Didn't you READ the article? Are you THAT ignorant of Communism? Go link up with Ed Asner and Michael Moore and feel at home. Beyond any doubt that father HAD A GUN TO HIS HEAD! All who'd lived under Castro KNEW it at the time. They knew how he operates. Why do you think they were so UNANIMOUSLY for Elian staying? The father, Juan Miguel, had applied for a U.S. visa a month before Elian arrived here. He called his Miami relatives repeatedly ASKING THEM TO TAKE CARE OF ELIAN FOR HIM--UNTIL HE GOT HERE. Now we read, from an eye-witness, how Rather/Craig(Clinton/Castro)manipulated that poor cowed man on national TV, how he was constantly surrounded by Castro goons. That shameful ignorance of Totalitarianism apparently continues! This WAS NOT a custody dispute, GEEESH! How much more proof do we need?
Greg Craig is a mango tree lawyer. I wish him the worse in life.
Freepers, is there any change this mango tree lawyer will also go hauled into court (I hope)?
I re-read the article and could find nowhere in it where Juan Miguel expressed his wish that Elian stay in Miami. However, if evidence can be produced showing that that was the actual desire of Juan Miguel, then I will change my position. I'm not too hard-headed to change my opinion if the facts are not what I originally thought.
go = get (sorry)
Yes, I read at that time that Juan Miguel was in agreement with his child’s mother about bringing Elian to the U.S. I cannot cite you chapter and verse, but this was in many articles during that period. All those articles were here on FR.
You are correct!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.