Castro's Crackdown; Stone on Crack

[Monte Smith]

What do we make of Castro's recent crackdown, including his execution of three "hijackers?" Here's an objective perspective from that conservative sweetheart WFB, who nicely masticates Oliver Stone before moving on to the main course.


CASTRO KILLS STONE
By William F. Buckley Jr.

Let us pause in order to suppress any smile over the three Cuban hijackers executed by Castro, but go on to smile broadly over the terrible consequences of all of this for Oliver Stone.



Here we were, April 2003, and Fidel Castro reaches into corners of his country to round up 75 conspirators against the socialist health of the Castro regime, giving some of them prison sentences as heavy as 28 years. The trials were done in very fast motion, so that there was no opportunity to reflect on what it was that the defendants pleaded. But reports confirmed that no charges were leveled that suggested that any of them had blown up bridges or passed exploding cigars into Castro's dining quarters. What they did, simply, was to write and talk in favor of freedom of speech.



When Castro moves, he does so decisively. The civil libertines were arraigned, tried and sentenced, and background thunder was provided by the rifle fire executing the three hijackers.



The most decisive counteraction in the West was done by HBO. The movie and television company had been planning a splashy introduction of an extended documentary on Fidel Castro by -- Oliver Stone. It was all packed up, ready to go. In fact it had been screened in February at a movie festival in Berlin. Castro had given three whole days to Oliver Stone, and that proved to be total immersion -- Stone came away a devout apostle of Castro and Castroism. He spoke of his encounter: "We should look to (Castro) as one of the Earth's wisest people, one of the people we should consult."



Now, the conversion of Oliver Stone was probably not all that difficult. Stone is attracted to any person, statement, event, book, firework or parade that stimulates the depreciation of America and its institutions. In his movie depiction of the assassination of President Kennedy, he suggested that the FBI, the CIA, the White House and the Supreme Court engaged in a right-wing conspiracy vaster than anything ever imagined by Hillary Clinton in order to conceal the story behind the assassination of JFK.



The wording of the HBO official on the fate on Mr. Stone's documentary was finger-dippingly delicate. "In light of recent alarming events in the country, the film seems somewhat dated or incomplete." Perhaps it will be shown after Fidel Castro restores liberty to the Cuban people, who have been without it for 44 years.



At the very least, it was foolishly thought, we would have sterner stuff from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This organization meets every winter in Geneva. It has had stalwart U.S. ambassadors in the past, including Walter Berns, Allard Lowenstein and Leonard Garment. They did what they could, back in the Cold War, to breathe a little concern for human rights into the Commission on Human Rights, but a resolution to call Castro into account failed. What was got out of the commission was a wispy recommendation that a representative of the United Nations be invited to Cuba to investigate human rights. The commission voted with full knowledge that the invitation will not be extended and, as usual, everybody will just get used to Cuba under Castro.



There is a fresh threat, however, hovering offstage, and not yet called up. It is to levy economic sanctions against Cuba trade by the European Union. There is also a movement in Congress to forbid the sending by Cuban Americans of U.S. checks to Cuban families. These come to $1 billion of hard cash to that sick economy, and no doubt such a measure would hurt Castro, but such hurt would be disproportionate. The family that fails to get the $100 monthly check from the Cuban-American emigrant is put into true pain and distress. Such deprivations reach Castro as mere trivia, one more price to pay for continuing to harness Cuba to socialism and poverty and idolatry.



It is contended by many observers that precisely what moves Castro to his excesses is any movement that threatens mellowness. To permit free speech is to encourage the very idea that Castroite resolution is softening. Calls by Cuban Americans to end U.S. sanctions threaten his hold on Cuban life. Castro has disdained the glasnost and perestroika adopted by Gorbachev -- see what such things did to the Soviet Union!



The challenge for the United States is to ignore his continued manhandling of freedom and to retaliate against it with the weapon he fears most, which is increased exposure to Western capitalism and Western practices.

[willy]

Fidel's not all that bad. Just ask his biggest fan: Jimmy Carter.

[Dr Dave]

Willy, that's just stupid and mean. Or mean and stupid. Either way...

I never considered Oliver Stone to be exactly a mental giant. So it is hardly surprising that he would unquestioningly buy Fidel's story of Fidel.

[Monte Smith]

Yeah Willy! Don't be mean to Jimmy Carter. How could you be mean to Jimmy Carter? How could you be stupid and mean to the most moral man ever to blah be President of the blah United States of blah blah blah....

Not surprisingly, Willy and Monte are--in their infantile way--being grossly unfair to someone who does not buy their hateful attitudes. Carter certainly did not play up to Castro when he visited Cuba. I suggest that our resident asps get a transcript of Carter's Cuba speech.

[Monte Smith]

Chris, you have a good point there. Carter's speech in Cuba was important and necessary. I give him kudos for delivering it.

Thank you for acknowledging that, Monte.

[Monte Smith]

No prob, Chris. Now you can return the favor by high-mindedly acknowledging that you really have a pair of brass ones to accuse me or Willy of being grossly unfair to politicians who don't share our political attitudes, given your consistently shrill attacks on politicians you oppose. Or do you really check twice to make sure that none of your own arch commentary is ever "infantile?"

[frankpop1]

it's an absurd charge that carter may be a patsy for castro. altho i am still mystified by the standing ovations and gratious welcome that castro received in nyc a few yrs back. recently, i read arrogant posts by al in nyc and rainyday, who suggest nyc is the only enlightened beacon of the united states in light of of nyc's anti-war sentiments. i wonder how jazz defectors Paquito D'Rivera, Arturo Sandoval, & Bebo Valdes would consider castro's warm reception in nyc.

( i dont know if nyc is solidly against the war. al and rainy are obviously ignorant of other regions in the nation that poll against the war. in iowa, sen lieberman caught hell from the democrats on his last campaign trip for his pro war stance as reported by npr. i wonder how the many jc posters with anti-war sentiments now view war monger sen. lieberman after they sang his praises at the time of his vice-presidential nomination. )

Originally posted by Monte Smith
No prob, Chris. Now you can return the favor by high-mindedly acknowledging that you really have a pair of brass ones to accuse me or Willy of being grossly unfair to politicians who don't share our political attitudes, given your consistently shrill attacks on politicians you oppose. Or do you really check twice to make sure that none of your own arch commentary is ever "infantile?"

But Monte, you and Willy make up stuff, the rest of us tell it like it really is! Are you going to dispute that Bush is a non-elected moron? That his war was "justified" by lies? That these people are crooks? That they have once again changed their tune re reasons for the invasion and occupation of a small country? That Powell lied to the U N Security Council?

Acknowledge at all these statements are true, and I will tell you that Woodrow Wilson was a racist, that Margaret Truman couldn't sing her way out of a paper bag, that Eleanor Roosevelt did amazing things with candles, that a very large number of Democrat politicians are spineless sellouts, that Lindabird Johnson had the Watusi all wrong, that.....


Well?

[frankpop1]

Are you going to dispute that Bush is a non-elected moron? he's not a moron and the election issue is dead. it's a supreme court humiliation that they have to endure for eternity, but it's time to let that go. i have.

That his war was "justified" by lies? it was justified in that iraq refused to abide by the surrender agreement. there was a choice. iraq could be disarmed or we choose to live with the possiblity that iraq had chemical weapons.

That these people are crooks? -- ?

That they have once again changed their tune re reasons for the invasion and occupation of a small country?
a small country that used to have the 4th largest army in the world and invaded a smaller country. further, they refused to adhere to their surrender terms. i agree with clinton.

Clinton agreed with the Bush administration that the United States is justified in using military force to disarm Iraq. "I don't think the president needs another Security Council resolution, as a matter of international law," he told Couric.

and during clinton's administration:
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

That Powell lied to the U N Security Council? that is seriously troubling, if he lied intentional. in any event, heads should roll for whomever is responsible for the misinformation.

[Monte Smith]

Oh well. I had to take my best shot at getting you to fess up, Chris. Frankpop has refuted your standard allegations above, so I shall limit myself to refuting your assertion that I lie and make things up. I do not. At least not on this board. We won't go into all aspects of my life, wink wink. No, I have serious opinions, but I do try to be 100% honest about them and never to confuse opinions with facts. You and I see the world differently, Chris. I'm willing to believe that our disagreements are honest. I wish you would be as charitable.

Hey, anyone want to talk about Castro?

Originally posted by frankpop1
That Powell lied to the U N Security Council? that is seriously troubling, if he lied intentional. in any event, heads should roll for whomever is responsible for the misinformation.

If he didn't lie intentionally, is it any less troubling? Should a person in his position not know what so many of us readily surmised? Should he not have had an inkling that his claims might be false? If he had as much as an inkling, should he not have refused to give those "reports?"

Was Harry Belafonte not right, after all?

[Tom Storer]

I think I may agree with Buckley's article here. Certainly I agree with respect to his assessment of Oliver Stone, a certified buffoon, but some of Buckley's statements are opaque to me.

There is a fresh threat, however, hovering offstage, and not yet called up. It is to levy economic sanctions against Cuba trade by the European Union.

What does this mean? That the EU may stop trading with Cuba? That the EU will be fined for trading with Cuba? By whom? Does one levy sanctions? Who's doing the levying and what is being levied? Buckley, although to the far right of Gengis Khan, generally writes clear prose but here he leaves me behind.

It is contended by many observers that precisely what moves Castro to his excesses is any movement that threatens mellowness. To permit free speech is to encourage the very idea that Castroite resolution is softening. Calls by Cuban Americans to end U.S. sanctions threaten his hold on Cuban life. Castro has disdained the glasnost and perestroika adopted by Gorbachev -- see what such things did to the Soviet Union!

The challenge for the United States is to ignore his continued manhandling of freedom and to retaliate against it with the weapon he fears most, which is increased exposure to Western capitalism and Western practices.

I'm not sure what he means by "mellowness." His own mellowness? In other words, don't challenge me or I'll be moved to excess? Does Buckley mean we shouldn't disturb Castro's mellowness for fear he will be moved to excess? And does "increased exposure to Western capitalism" mean trade sanctions, however levied, or no trade sanctions? I can't figure out just what course of action ol' WFB is promoting here.

[mke]

Is Castro a dictator? Yes.

However, to simply dismiss Cuba as being poverty-stricken is too easy, seeing as it was one of the most advanced 3rd world countries during the Cold War.

IMO, the trade embargo should have been dropped after the end of the Cold War. That seems to be what has sent Cuba's economy and society reeling.

[Uli]

In all this it's comforting to know that we keep our own enclave of human rights enforcement on the Island. According to reports from human rights organisation we even let an unknown number of children benefit from the treatment

[Dr Dave]

Okay, Willy and Monte. You're not mean. You're just stupid.

[Monte Smith]

Thank you, Dave. Now I can go kick puppies without that cloud hanging above me.

DEATH TO FIDEL CASTRO VIA EXPLODING CIGAR!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I think Stone's castro flick got cancelled by HBO. For some reason the guy's been romanticized by some on the left. I don't know why.

But let's face it, history is full of examples where horrible dictators have been embraced by the left and right. There's no consistency.

Part of the Castro "mystique" is the stupid embargo. What is the most dangerous Communist country in the world right now? It ain't Cuba. I'm more worried about China and N. Korea but technically we have better relations with those countries than Cuba. It don't make sense.