From: "Bill Mattox" 


"Dale Ross"  wrote in message
news:390b51e9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I am serious.

No, you're not. You're playing semantic games here, and I'm not amused.

You might equally have asked, "Have I been personally harmed by
Jeffery Dahmer?" And, if so -- specifically -- how? (Is there a BS
"Grodin's Law" for that?).

In point of fact, there are, and have always been, evils in the world that
harm us (and the world) generally (in spite of your disconcerting moral
equivalence defense, which is an entire can of worms in and of  itself) and
should be dealt with both in the philosophically abstract as well as the
GENERALLY specific (the Cuban missile crises, for example, which placed the
entire world at risk of nuclear war.)

Castro has been at the core of a particularly evil political philosophy
that has dominated a major portion of the recent decade. That we may be at
the tail end of that philosophy is to ignore the fact that, at least for
Cuba (and a few others), the evil still exists, and -- for us -- still lies
only 90 miles off our shore, which also remains unique. (Mexico, for
example, may be corrupt and a huge pain in the ass in many ways, but at
least has never attempted to build a huge military base in tiny Grenada in
order to threaten our national interests.)

It is, therefore, correct to at least be on guard whenever Cuban (a.k.a.,
Castro) political interests touches our shore... and to be weary of any
internal dynamic that may come into play as a consequence of it. In the
case of Elian, he is an unfortunate victim -- and my heart goes out to him
-- but it is still important that the entire warp and woof of this drama be
considered (which, of course, should include Elian's interest), for which
the Clinton raid last week was designed to short-circuit (in spite of
typically lame WH justifications).

Elian may yet (and will likely) be sacrificed (he is now a "child of
the revolution", and will probably be returned to fulfill that role).
Nonetheless, it is now impossible to ignore the fact that BC's behavior was
classically unprincipled (in fact, rather desperate) and so it would
behoove us as a matter of national self-interest to at least intellectually
explore his possible motivations (which defenders of the RESULT are want to
do (as has been typical of Clinton defenders)). IOW, when considering BC's
proclivity to make BILL CLINTON the center of the known universe, his
rather peculiar (and probably illegal) behavior clearly warrants further
vigilance and scrutiny.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5