She’s getting a whole heck of a lot of bullshit criticism, but, let’s be honest here, wouldnt you welcome the assasination of fidel castro? I know I certainly would.
17 thoughts on “I’m with Ileana”
Comments are closed.
…an island on the net without a bearded dictator
It would have been great, but I feel we’re going to get cheated out of this.
The folks who are outraged by this are the same assholes who wouldn’t mourn the death of many conservative leaders. Fucking hypocrites.
And fuck fidel, too. He’s getting nice and ready for the barbecue that awaits him very soon…
Here we go again … another victim of the deadly “PC” … what if she did make the statement? “It’s fine to think it, but don’t dare say it” … I wonder if this has anything to with the fact that Ros-Lehtinen is being tapped to become the top republican on the House International Relations Committee (aka “Appeasers at Large”)…
Count me in … I’m with Ileana!
I wish you well 🙂 Melek
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”~ Churchill
Several observations:
1. This is an attempt to smear her and all Cuban-Americans. Notice the way she is labeled at the begininning as if to say, these are the people that claim to be for Democracy.
2. There is an obvious jump cut in the clip. The statement about assassinations is probably taken out of context and added to the first part about freedom fighters. You can see that see that the tone of her remarks changes slightly. In the first part she is making a statement. In the second part it sounds like (to me at least) that she answering a question. The question is probably somnething like: “How would you feel about someone in Cuba, maybe someone in the government assassinating fide castro?
3. Ros doesn’t have the power to call for the assassination of anyone. Why don’t they mention the fact that Kennedy, the hero of the left was the one that actually tried to kill Castro and that that’s probably what got him killed.
4. When I learned my WW2 history I learned about a guy named Erwin Rommel. I’m sure George will agree to this. Rommel was a hero to the German people, not only because he was a brilliant general but because he plotted, with others, to kill Hitler. If he had been successful a lot of the tragedy would have been averted.
5. Fuck castro, I hope someone does slice his throat in his hospital bed.
Big fucking deal (George sorry that I had to resort to such vile language 😉 But hasn’t that idea crossed the mind of every Cuban who has had to suffer under cagastro? After all the atrocities he has committed? I don’t give a flying fuck if he is the “recognized leader” of Cuba – fuck everyone who thinks that way. There – I feel better already.
Rommel was told to commit suicide after the July 20, 1944 plot failed in order to save his family. He wasn’t guiltless in the Third Reich, but at least he plotted, with Wehrmacht officers and the German resistance, to whack Hitler and end it once and for all. A terrible stroke of bad luck for all concerned.
I wouldn’t cry for Castro and he certainly deserves it, but it may innappropriate for a member of congress to advocate such things. On the other hand, she didn’t say the US government should do it. Everybody has a point in this case.
The U.S. congress looks more and more like the UN. Why shouldn’t it be ok for a member of congress to advocate the assassination of a repressive genocidal dictator? How many murders and years of oppression are allowable before it’s ok to end the slaughter by any means necessary? Why should good men stand by and allow evil to prevail?
I don’t know what the big deal is…so what if she said it. Everyone who has left cuba is thinking and saying the same thing. I don’t understand why people are getting so upset. I’ve been saying the same thing for years…..
This is nothing more than the continuing cultural war that the Castro apologists have successfully waged against Cuban exiles for 47 years now. The purpose of this war is to turn Cubans exiles into the villains, while Castro is turned into the victim. Have you noticed how the left is always talking about the “hate-filled” “instransigent” “right-winged” Cuban Americans who happen to be “terrorists?” The idea is that through the use of this persistent slander campaign, Cuban exiles will be pushed into a state of inertia out of fear of being labeled with yet another derrogatory name.
What is monstrously unfair about this is that while other people have the right to use violence in order to defend their national integrity, sovereignty, liberty, etc… we Cuban exiles are expected to sit with our arms crossed and not to even touch Castro with the petal of a rose.
In our war on terrorism, isn’t the US government seeking out Al Queda terrorists? Isn’t there a contract on Osama Bin Laden’s head? Why is Castro any different? By the way, have you noticed how the leftist Chileans are celebrating Pinochet’s death? Why isn’t anyone complaining??
Where is the outrage? Compare that to the criticism that Cubans in Miami were subjected to several weeks ago when they celebrated what they thought was Castro’s death.
Yap! Yap! Yap!
[Translation]
“I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.”
Oh, oh. Looks like Ileana stepped into some chihuahua poop. Speaking of poop, these events smell eerily similar to what happened to Pat Robertson when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Let flashback to August of 2005.
Robertson, why doing the “news” on his show, mentioned Chavez and said:
“I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it…We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”[1]
There was a lot of hoopla following those comments. Chavez even proposed possibly extraditing Robertson to Venezuela because “[c]alling for the assassination of a head of state is a terrorist act,” according to Chavez.[2]
Also, the US State Department called Robertson’s comments “inappropriate”[3] and said “his views do not represent the policy of the United States.”[4]
But, Ileana is in a diffierent ballpark. She’s a congressional representative of the US House, not a private citizen like Robertson.
No doubt, Ileana’s lawyers are preparing themselves for anything to come in the next few days.
Let’s review what was discussed about Robertson’s comments. According to one author at FindLaw:
“It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: ‘Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.'”[5]
Hmm: Ileana did agree to an interview for a documentary. And film can be used as an instrument of “interstate and foreign commerce.”
What about ethics violations?
According to the manual of the House Ethics Committee:
“[The Code [of Ethics for Government Service] stresses that any person in Government service should: adhere to the HIGHEST moral principles… [and] conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”[6]
Furthermore, the House Ethics Committee says that any violations can result in penalty or censure.
Will the US State Department say that Ileana’s comments were “inappropriate” like they did with Robertson?
And, since Ileana is also a member on the Committee on International Relations[7], can the US, as easily as it did with Robertson, dismiss that her “views do not represent the policy of the United States?”
Most likely, like the Robertson circus, Ileana will juggle her way out of this. Just like Robertson did with his comments, Ileana is totally denying she made hers. Which is silly because she basically repeats those remarks in the Miami Herald by saying:
” I want him off the world stage, six feet under, not holding an iron fist over his people. I’ll be happy when he goes, no matter which way he dies.”[8]
Yet, while Robertson did not get charged or extradited, he did EVENTUALLY apologize[1], mainly due to the pressure.
The real question here is: Will Ileana EVENTUALLY apologize for her comments?
Like an old constipated chihuahua once told me: Only time and pressure will tell.
[1]http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp
[2]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/28/world/main798843.shtml
[3]http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html
[4]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4182294.stm
[5]http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html
[6]http://www.house.gov/ethics/ethicschap1.html
[7]http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/members.asp?committee=full&subnav=close
[8]http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/16200122.htm
Hunter,
Im allowing your comment to stay up even though I find your nick insulting and most assuredly on purpose.
As a Cuban exile, Ileana has every right to express whatever the fuck she wants to express about fidel castro.
My hope is that she doesnt apologize and matter of factly states “Yeah, I said it and I meant it. So what’s yourt fucking point?”
Chihuahua_Hunter
Tsk, tsk, tsk…
Let’s see if I can explain it in a way that is simple enough for you to understand.
Reverend Pat Robertson’s call for the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying that Chavez poses a “terrific danger” to the United States, and that he represents a threat to our national security, was done LIVE on national TV. There isn’t ANY doubt in anyone’s mind that he said it.
Ileana Ross-Lehtinen, on the other hand, was videotaped during an interview. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that with today’s technology videotapes can be manipulated.
Below is a list of Democrats that stepped on CHICKEN poop.
In 1971, the pro-Hanoi anti-war group, (that presidential candidate John Kerry was principal leader and spokesman of,) debated and voted down a plot to assassinate U.S. Senators who supported the Vietnam War. Where is John Kerry now? He claims he never attended that meeting (but we know better, don’t we?). Even if he didn’t attend the meeting, he knew about what was discussed. It is a CRIMINAL offence to withhold this type of information.
This one is my favorite…. In 1997 newly appointed to his White House post under the William Jefferson CLINTON (D) administration, none other than SENIOR Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly demanded the assassination of Saddam Husain. What? No uproar from the Liberal media? Nope! The MSM voiced NO objection at all! In fact, dear George wrote an entire article in NEWSWEEK magazine headlined “Why We Should Kill Saddam.” In his article, George went on to explain that Saddam “deserved swift and lethal justice.” he further stated that “we’ve exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes.” Amazingly enough, dear George even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:
“If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it.” Don’t you just LOVE this guy?
On April 2005, Randi Rhodes from Left-wing radio “Air America,” aired a spot threatening to assassinate President Bush for trying to reform Social Security. After “White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the incident very inappropriate and over the line” Ms. Rhodes offered a not so very humble apology.
Leftist journalist, Charlee Broker, ranting against President Bush after he was re-elected, concludes his speech with the following: John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. – where are you now that we need you? Geez, whatever did he mean by that?
If you want to hunt Chihuahuas … you can’t be a rat!
Well, I supported her before and still support her now. Firefly, excellent rebuttal. I would love to see what chihuahuas has to say about Firefly’s post. And I too, go on the record and state that I would love to see FC assassinated now.
I would certainly rather see fifo expire at the hands of the people (any people) than see him just die like any other old man.
I think he should be dragged through the streets of La Habana and beaten to a pulp. Even if this could be done 1 million times over…it would never be enough to equal all the pain and suffering this sub-human has caused in many countries, not just Cuba.
I doesn’t seem to me that the Chihuahua Hunter’s comments were partisan in any way, but you guys have responded in that fashion. Why? I don’t see where CH said “republican” or “conservative”, yet he/she pointed out what had occured in the last media frenzy about a call for assassination.
Either way, I think CH was arguing that it is a possibility that events may develop similar to Pat Robertson’s, where after much denial, he finally apologized.
The question is fair. Will events turn out like Robertson’s for Ileana Ros Lehtinen? Maybe, but maybe not.
While she is a congresswoman, she is not a reverend, nor a celebrity target. And, most importantly, she has plenty of supporters for her controversial commentary.
Here’s more examples of calls for assassinations made through the media:
The law:
Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
— Executive Order 12333, issued Dec. 4, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, continuing the policy of his predecessors Ford and Carter. Neither Bush nor Clinton has rescinded it.
The handy (and illegal) tips from the press:
“Conventional Wisdom,” Newsweek, Nov. 17: “Take him down.” (next to a photo of Hussein and a downward-plunging arrow)
Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, New York Times, Nov. 6: “Saddam Hussein is the reason God created cruise missiles. …So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let’s make sure it’s a head shot.”
George Stephanopolous, former Clintonite and current ABC News analyst, on ABC’S “This Week,” Nov. 9: “This is probably one of those rare cases where assassination is the more moral course…we should kill him.”
Sam Donaldson, co-host of “This Week,” Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam “under cover of law…. We can do business with his successor.”
Bill Kristol, ABC News analyst, “This Week,” Nov. 9: “It sounds good to me.”
Cokie Roberts, co-host of “This Week,” Nov. 9: “Well, now that we’ve come out for murder on this broadcast, let us move on to fast-track…”
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Nov. 17: “It won’t be easy to take him out. …But we need to try, because the only language Saddam has ever understood is force.”
From:http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/11/kill_saddam.html