From: "Bill Mattox" 

I've never argued that the interest of the remaining parent should be
ignored, or even trivialized, as I am a strong supporter of parental rights
under most circumstances, and certainly more so than those who have the
gall to claim this advocacy for themselves... only NOW.

What I have maintained, however, is that this matter involves far more than
a simplistic (and I believe, WH driven) "fathers rights" mantra
is capable of explaining and therefore deserves a much more careful
assessment of the complex circumstances surrounding it, among which
includes the reality -- like it or not -- of a particularly powerful
political dynamic. Those who advocate that all of this be ignored and that
we simply toss the child back into the sea ASAP based upon a WH provided
sound bite are not doing so because they believe in fathers rights, but are
generally doing so either out of extreme naivet‚ or political inclination
with an inherent sympathy toward Castro's Cuba... meaning the latter have
definitive left-leaning political motives which -- as typical with the left
-- they disguise.

Regardless, this entire episode has been rich in metaphor for who we have
been, and who we are today.

"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.138397ed4701308c98986e{at}news.barkto.com...
> In article , billy-m{at}pacbell.net says...
>
> > Get a clue, like it or not, this issue has a potent political aspect to
it
> > that only a complete fool or complete partisan would ignore.
>
> And the decision should be to ignore the remaining parent's desire because
> national security (or some such) is more important?
>
> Get a clue.

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