To Fidel Castro, the bright-eyed, telegenic Elián González was a “traitor” who could become a symbol of freedom for both the exiles in Miami and the people of Havana, and who could therefore damage Castro’s image at home and abroad. Therefore, soon after Elián was found floating around the ocean in an inner tube, Castro assembled 300,000 Cubans on Havana’s streets to protest the “kidnapping” of Elian by the United States. Then Castro tried to lure Elián back — as Ceausescu had tried on me, after I had escaped from Romania. Elián’s two Cuban grandmothers were dispatched to the United States, bringing photo albums with pictures of Elián’s relatives, schoolmates, home, dog, parrot, and empty school desk “waiting for you to return.” Cuba supplied the grandmothers with new clothes and travel expenses. They were, of course, accompanied by Cuban handlers, who managed their every move in the United States.
Elián himself did not fall for Castro’s tricks. Unfortunately, President Clinton and his attorney general, Janet Reno, did swallow the bait, and the boy went back to Cuba. It was not long before Russia’s Pravda began crowing: “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”
Elián González became an international symbol of freedom. Today the Miami house where he lived as a free child is a popular museum, where visitors can see a popular shrine to the boy — who is now a 19-yer-old prisoner on a starving Communist island. Elián’s school uniform still hangs in the Miami closet, along with dozens of outfits that he never got a chance to wear. A giant image of the Associated Press photo showing an American federal agent pointing an automatic weapon toward Elián, who had been hiding in a bedroom closet, is also on display.
According to international law, our embassies are part of the United States, and an armed attack on any U.S. embassy is considered an act of war against the U.S. So far, every indication is that the armed attack on our consulate in Benghazi was planned and carried out by terrorists. If this proves to be true, then the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens was indeed an act of war against the U.S.
A Libyan security guard at the consulate, who was seriously injured during that so-called “spontaneous” attack but survived, has testified that “there wasn’t a single ant outside” until 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions. The men lobbed grenades into the compound, shouting “God is great.” They wounded the guard, and then moved to the villas that make up the consulate compound.
For his part, the interim president of Libya, Mohamed el-Megarif, stated that the terrorists had chosen a “specific date” for this attack, and that “foreigners” took part in it.
Our ambassador to Libya was indeed murdered on September 11, 2012, the day when the United States was mourning the death of some three thousand Americans who had also been killed by Islamic terrorists. That day also happened to be the very day the Kremlin was celebrating a significant anniversary — 125 years since the birth of Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the KGB, now rechristened as FSB.
Was the Kremlin involved in the assassination of our ambassador in Libya? We do not know yet. But we do know that the ambassador was killed with Russian weapons and ammunition. We also know that the Kremlin and its intelligence organizations have a penchant for symbolism, a weapon of the emotions successfully wielded by all Russian tsars and their Communist successors.