Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Babaloo's Waterloos: The Miami Herald Speaks for Henry Gómez on Posada

After hiding under a woodpile for years on the Posada Corrales case, Babalú's Henry Gómez has finally defined himself on this issue — beat the drums! — Henry will let The Miami Herald speak for him. The creator of Herald Watch, to monitor and report bias and malfeasance there, now jumps on The Herald's bandwagon by endorsing its editorial on Posada without reservations or qualifications, which he equates to "hell freezing over" or the "approach of the Apocalypse," the editorial, that is, not necessarily his agreement with it.

The Herald editorial takes the position that Posada's release on bail after an illegal detention of 2 years constitutes some kind of vindication of "U.S. democracy [where] the law is supreme." I think they mean the Rule of Law, but no matter. One way or another the proposition is risible on its face. Nowhere in the world is the law more manipulated by public or private interests than it is in this country. In Cuba, there is no Rule of Law. Here it is in the discretion to prosecute or not that the greatest injustices are committed under the cover of the Rule of Law. If the "preventive detention" of Posada Corrales doesn't show this, then nothing does.

The editorial acknowledges that Posada has never been convicted of a terrorist crime — never. That kind of statement makes an apology necessary for the hundreds of times that The Herald has so referred to him with or without qualifiers, such as "suspected terrorist" (suspected by whom? The Herald, of course).

It concludes with a call for due process for Posada (wow, I guess we must all fall over ourselves about that, right Henry?), while asserting that The Miami Herald objects to Posada's views (which The Herald defines as "advocat[ing] overthrowing Cuba's dictatorship by any means necessary, including violence against civilians"). Personally, I would prefer to let Posada define his own views. He has never, to the best of my knowledge, advocated violence on the civilian population of Cuba. In fact, he has always repudiated such violence and did so, unequivocably, last year.

And what about Henry and Babalú? Does Henry also object to Posada's views and his methods? He must, of course, since he endorsed The Herald editorial not substantially but completely.

Not everyone agrees with Henry at Babalú, however. Ziva does not and has made it quite clear in the comments section that Henry does not speak for her on this matter. It is not for naught that we have called Ziva the conscience of Babalú. Ziva asks Henry point blank: "Henry, do you also object to the U.S. bombing of Germany & Japan during WWII?" She means, of course, the bombing of civilian targets such as Dresden and Hiroshima. If Posada were guilty of all the crimes imputed to him, the toll of his victims would not even reach 100, not millions of civilians killed by both the Axis and the Allies in World War II.

Yet, according to Henry, "times have changed." No, times have not changed; the only thing that has changed is that Americans were fighting in World War II an enemy that everybody knew then and now was indeed an enemy, and Posada and other Cuban patriots are fighting an enemy no less ruthless than Hitler but whom many in the government and media regard not unfavorably. Henry makes the distinction: Hitler was pure evil and we were justified in using any and all means to defeat him. Henry, obviously, does not regard Castro the same way, and so would impose on those who still fight him new rules of engagement, which, in effect, would leave Castro untouched and his regime firmly in place for another 50 years.


It only gets worse:

Thanks Henry, I’m just trying to clarify hypothetically what could be done to bring down an illegitimate government like the castro regime in our current politically correct world. Exiles don’t have access to smart bombs. Is there an acceptable way for someone like Posada to wage war against castro?
Posted by: Ziva at April 25, 2007 01:59 PM

Unfortunately our government has made it illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba. So the answer is no, but there should be.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 25, 2007 02:02 PM

So it is now "illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba" because the U.S. government says so! But, of course, this is "unfortunate" and Henry wishes there were another means of toppling Castro, maybe sprinkling violet water on him or saying "please go away, pretty please with sugar on it."

In 1895, under the same neutrality laws, it was also illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba, which didn't stop Martí and the other Cuban patriots. I guess that back then Henry Gómez would have supported the treasonous position that Cuba could only be liberated with the permission and by the gracious concession of the United States.

Henry is proud, and rightly so, of his mambisa great-grandmother who hid rifles under her skirts for the rebels. But would his great-grandmother have been proud of a descendant who required the permission of the United States to fight for Cuba's freedom? Would she have consented to hide her pacífico great-grandson under her skirts while he awaited word from the U.S. consul as to whether he would be allowed to fight for Cuba's freedom? I do not think so. Her answer would surely have been the same as that of the mother of the Maceos.

More repudiation of Henry and Robert's pacifist position from their peers at Babalu, as well as a well-connected jab from Ziva to Robert for despicably suggesting that Cuban exiles condone blowing up airplanes:

I don't want to sound a discordant note here, but ... Marti did not ask anyone for permission to organize armed revolts against the tyranny of Spain. In fact, history shows that many Cubans ran afoul of US laws in the 1890's with illegal expeditions and shipments of arms that were sent to Cuba and many were confiscated by the US authorities at that time. So this is nothing new, only the characters and names have changed. Cubans cannot expect freedom to come down from the hand of anyone as a gift. We have to do it ourselves, regardless of who we offend or who tries to interfere with our cause. Our cause is just and deserves our best efforts and if our friends want to stand with us,that is fine. If they want to interfere, then we should cast them aside and ignore them.
Posted by: Cubamoto at April 25, 2007 04:48 PM

Robert I agree with that, and I don't know anyone who would condone blowing up civilian aircraft. The current political climate plays right into the regimes hands as far as men like Posada are concerned. He’s been tried and convicted in the world press. So far, I haven’t read anything that makes me believe that Posada is guilty. In fact, I think he’s being badly mistreated by the country he well served. I do believe that being in a state of war with the castro regime is legitimate, whether or not any official government sanctions that war. I don’t see how it can be otherwise unless you’re willing to cede to dictators the right to own and plunder a nation and its people however, they see fit. I cannot accept that.
Posted by: Ziva at April 25, 2007 05:13 PM

¡VIVA LA ZIVA! Hers is the voice of María Grajales and Marta Abreu (Note to Val & Henry: Ask Ziva who these women were).

As always Henry continues to dig himself into an even bigger hole: After 11 years in a Venezuelan prison awaiting trial, and having been acquitted by both a civil court and a court martial there, Posada should ideally be retried again — in Venezuela, according to Henry, who laments that Venezuela is an ally of Castro's because it means that the U.S. can't deport Posada to be tried there a third, fourth or fifth time for a crime he has already repeatedly been acquitted of. Henry believes that "there is smoke" (from the explosion of the plane?) although he concedes that there may not necessarily be fire. Oh sure there is a fire; it is the one that Henry, Robert and Oscar Corral are trying to light under Posada, as Val laments that I correctly predicted they would.


Agustin Farinas said...

From now on I will refer to you as your Superiorness the Omnipotent. LOL.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


The sad thing is that Val isn't joking; that's exactly how he thinks of me: I have it on his own authority as well as that of others. My presence on his blog always irked him for that reason. My opinions on my own blog continue to elicit the same response from him. Only if I ceased to exist would he cease to be threatened by me. Sad, really; but at the same time vastly amusing, don't you think?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

No man can make another feel inferior unless he consents to it.

Agustin Farinas said...

Yes, I find the feud between you two kind of sad. The reaons I say that is because you are both good dedicated fighters with the same goal, to inform the world about our cause which is both just and worth fighting for. But somehow this small feud has diluted the force and the real emphasis of that fight. All of us should save our salvos for the big enemy: Castro and his minions. "A house divided against itself, will not stand" ( I may be paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln) but is a great truth.We need to pull our resources and concentrate the fire on the right target: the oppresive Comunist regime in Cuba. Everything else is secondary. Just my humble opinion, of course.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


"Fire a salvo" may not be the best metaphor. You might offend Henry, Val and Robert, those great pacifists.

Agustin Farinas said...

I have always said that we should not expect that our freedom should come as a handout from anyone, that someone be the US Govt. or anyone. It is up to the Cuban people outside and inside Cuba to carry on the fight. Handouts bring with them some implicit compromise with those who are doing the "handing out" for lack of a better phrase. If we fight by ourselves and achieve our goal of total freedom, we have no one to thank for or owe anything to anyone. The US has its own interests and geopolitical goals (as they should) and so do we. At times they may coincide and that is fine; but we should not delude ourselves thinking that the freedom of Cuba is first and foremost in their minds. They may desire it because Cuba is a sworn enemy of the US but their main goal (as I see it) is tranquility and stability in the Southern region of the US. If said goal is achieved by reaching a compromise with a post-Fidel Govt even though it may not be to our liking,they will do it. Remember, they have permanent interests not permanent friends. The recent history of Cuba is full of those examples. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 comes to mind. An arragenment was reached between the two Superpowers and we were left holding the bag thereby ensuring that the status quo remained. And it has been so until this day. It is sad for us, but true.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


It has always been so in our relations with the U.S. Cubans were excluded in 1898 from participation in The Treaty of Paris, which concluded Cuba's War of Independence (known in this country as the "Spanish-American War"). Cubans, who had won the war before the U.S. intervened to co-op their victory, were also prevented by the Americans from marching in the victory parade in Cuba. One indignity heaped upon another in an endless chain of infamies. If I were to start, where should I end?

The trouble is that Val and Henry do not know Cuban history. So long as they remain ignorant of Cuba's past they will be unable to understand its present or contribute to its future.

Rick said...


I love how you support this armed struggle...sitting at your computer in New Jersey. You criticize and castigate others for their pacifism but all you can muster up are words.

If the laws of this government don't mean a thing to you, you're young enough and you apparently have more than enough time to practice what you preach. There shouldn't be anything stopping you.

A "dedicated fighter?" You have got to be kidding, Agustin.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


There is no armed struggle, unfortunately. Posada, in fact, is the armed struggle at this moment and I support him as much as I can, you can rest assured of that.

And what exactly are you dedicated to Rick? What do you stand for and what do you practice? Maligning Cuban exiles seems to be your principal occupation on your blog when you can steal the time from your real employment.

Maybe I shall pay a visit to your blog, Rick. You seem to be craving it and your abysmal numbers certainly indicate that you need me.

Agustin Farinas said...

I stand by my comments. Anyone who is dedicated to inform via the Net the poorly informed public about our cause deserves that attribute. Marti did this from the bully pulpits in Tampa, Key West and New York. No one can't denied he used these methods in the struggle to the bst of his abilities. He did not go and used a machete to participate in the struggle first hand until jelousies and envy reared its ugly head and then he decided to go and fight with his hands instead of with his pen, his perfect tool. Sadly his innocence in military matters where he was a neophite, did cost him his life. I don't think you would criticize Marti for doing his part from afar. It was what he was best suited for. Maceo, Maximo Gomez and others were better fighters in the field, but Marti was a novice in these matters. I don't live in the USA but in Latin America where the fight is for lack of a better term (I hate to use these words)"a battle of ideas" and everyday is a constant struggle to bring our point of view across to many poeple who are totally ignorant about Cuba and only repeat the Communist propaganda. Trust me, it is not easy, is an uphill fight.

CorgiGuy said...


By reading your various posts and archives, i see that you see yourself as a figther for the freedom of cuba.

What i'm not getting from your writings is your prescription for change. Do you think that constantly dwelling in the past and demomnizing the bearded one brings you and your allies amy closer to the goal of freedom for the cuban folks? What is your vision for reconciliation with those on the island? What is your idea of freedom?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


There is no one prescription for the future but many, and this is as it should be. Cuba's problem for 48 years has been that only one Cuban's opinion has counted for anything on the island and, tragically, that one Cuban happens to be a megalomaniac and mass murderer; the one man, among all Cubans, whose opinion should never have mattered for anything. Once Cuba is free of him and the system he engendered, which feeds the needs and wants of such a man and no one else, then all Cubans, both here and on the island, will be free to choose whatever path best suits the needs and wants of all Cubans. I should prefer, of course, that Cuba once again became a constitutional democracy, and I believe, unless I am very much mistaken, that such is the hope of all Cubans whether here or on the island. Let me clarify that the only obstacle dividing us is Castro himself. There is no need to "reconcile" those who live on the island and those who live in exile because we all belong to the same family and are one people. Only those who support Castro and wish to divide and conquer our people as the best means to maintain Communism in Cuba after he is dead promote the self-serving fallacy that there is a breach between us; despite Castro's unrelenting efforts over half a century to destroy the Cuban family and all natural ties that unite us, he has only succeeded in bringing us even closer together; for the reaffirmation of the Cuban family, in the face of Castro's continuous attacks upon it, has perhaps been the only victory we have obtained over Castro in these many years, but it is the most important victory and the one which will insure a future for our country once our national nightmare is over.

Next question?