ance of Lt. Col. Chris Simmons on
You can also read his publicist’s press releases, one before his appearance, and one after. And you can watch this trailer from a forthcoming movie in which he is collaborating.
In his latest appearance, Simmons continued in his smear-artist mode. He accused three Americans of being Cuban agents, but offered no evidence, or he referred to evidence (“a transcript,” a “recently acquired confession”) that he is unable to present in public. He stuck with his practice of saying that there’s nothing unfair about his accusations, and if the accused don’t like it they can take him to court. The idea seems to be that Simmons has such authority that his statements are beyond question.
That, at any rate, is how the host Oscar Haza sees it. One again, Haza didn’t interview Simmons as much as he gently guided him through a presentation. Simmons spoke at times from prepared notes. When Haza asked a question, it was big, fat, belt-high, and right in the middle of the plate.
In previous appearances, Simmons has pointed out that he speaks for himself, and that he is a retired Army officer now serving in the reserves.
To the audience last week, it probably seemed that Simmons was speaking for the
The
At the end of the program, Simmons promised to return to name more names.
Alejandro Armengol wrote a sharp column in the Nuevo Herald about Simmons’ appearances. It’s not kind to Simmons and its conclusions about
My comments on previous appearances by Simmons are here, here, and here.
5 comments:
why are you so worry about what he says , if you don't trust him? o maybe he is showing part of those agent and them you worry
The column Armengol wrote had the right title. But it should not have been about Col. Simmons but about Armengol himself. This guy is probably the most anti-american writer in the whole Herald staff. There is nothing about the US that Armengol seem to like and everytime he pens an article is to criticize the land that gave him asylum when he ran away from Cuba.
He rails against the exiles, the US government, and anyopne who is opposed to the Castro regime. A short review of his last few articles should give anyone an idea where his heart is at.
Castros' reflexions figure prominentlty among his latest articles besides some of the most pro-Cuban regime opinions in all of the printed media in the US.
Armengol is not an objective observer when it comes to Cuba.
I personally think Simmons is lying.
From all the sources he says he has, I don't think he has ever quoted any document. Also, he once relied on a supposed document that was unearthed by Antonio de la Cova. That "document" has only been authenticated by De la Cova himself.
I am gonna argue that Lt. Simmons is lying to everyone.
If you are against character assassination then be against it from any direction -- because character assassination has been a stock in trade of the Castro regime for 50 years. I don't agree with the way this guy is operating -- if he calls these people out he needs proof. But still maybe you folks now have a better understanding of how exiles feel after being systematically smeared as Batistiano, revanchist, terrorist mafiosos for so many years.
Mambo,
"I am gonna argue that Lt. Simmons is lying to everyone."
Fidel Castro has been lying to the Cuban people (remember I am not a communist in 1959?) for decades and you do not seem to mind or have any problem with him. You have consistently defended, apologized and excused any crime and abuse the Cuban regime has perpetuated on the Cuban people with gusto in every post on you defunct blog. Why are you so choosy now and want to argue against this guy? When are you going to own up to Castro's lies and abuses too? When? When indeed.
Post a Comment