It is hard to nail someone with the label "pro-Castro," just like it's hard to label someone with the label "pro-Saddam." When someone takes the side of Cuba whenever there is a conflict of interest with America, maybe it's not "pro-Castro" as much as it is "anti-America," although I'm sure that label would be derided the same way. What would you call it? What do you call someone who can be relied on to take the side of America's enemies in any argument or conflict of interest? If you've got a better name for them, let me know.

These people certainly qualify, whatever the label, and maybe you might consider them a harmless fringe group, but these are the folks that put thousands of people on the streets before the war and they haven't given up yet.

Maybe you forgot about the Elian case. The Cuba sympathizers all came out of the woodwork then, when it was established that it was okay for the United States of America to return a child to a slave state if it meant returning him to an estranged father. When it was established by the media and the Left that Castro was a kindly old man with only Elian's best interests at heart, and the Cuban-Americans in Florida were all psycho hose beasts who knew nothing about Cuba or anything else. When suddenly the Left "discovered" family values, and the importance of fathers.

A modern Dredd Scott decision. If a slave child makes it to freedom in the North, he should be restored to his father working the fields for his master on a plantation. Sounds reasonable to some people, I guess.

Our government sent soldiers into a private home to dump a child back into a slave state after his mother died for his freedom. I thought it sucked back then and I still do.

On the other hand, it's probably why Bush is president now.