Video: Ros-Lehtinen calls for Castro’s assassination — or does she? Update: Lipreader says no
posted at 7:28 pm on December 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s been awhile since we had a possible case of fauxtography this juicy. The makers of a British documentary, “638 Ways to Kill Castro,” claim they caught Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican Congresswoman from Florida and ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, on tape calling for his death. The exact quote:
I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.
Here’s where things get interesting:
Ros-Lehtinen, who has never hid her loathing for Castro, says the clip was spliced together.
Watch the video closely, she says. She says her lips aren’t saying what the audio says she is. At one point in the clip, a sharp-eyed viewer can see what appears to be a skip in the filming.
”It’s twisted in a way that gives the viewer a totally wrong impression,” Ros-Lehtinen said Friday…
That said, Ros-Lehtinen, born in Havana, says she will celebrate Castro’s death — whether by old age, illness or at the hands of an assassin…
‘If someone were to do it, I wouldn’t be crying,” she said.
You’ll find the clip below. It’s true that her lips aren’t perfectly synced to the audio but they do appear to be saying what you hear her saying. I don’t see any obvious splicing, either. If they did cut it, the cut probably comes right after she says “welcome” — but in that case, out of what context was the rest of the sentence wrongly taken? If you read the sentence, the most logical place for the cut would be between “anyone” and “assassinate.” I can easily imagine something like, “I welcome the opportunity of having anyone debate me on these issues” and “There will, unfortunately, always be attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.”
I think she probably said what they’re saying she said. But judge for yourself.
Update: Mike McConnell of Kokonut Pundits says if you read her lips without the audio, it looks like she’s saying “But I won’t welcome the opportunity…” He’s right, it does.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Honesty in government… I like it. Now if we can get Jimma Carter to admit that he welcomes muslims killing Americans then we can start the healing process.
x95b10 on December 10, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Which makes her a hero in her district. lol! I mean,come on! Who hasn’t called for the death of Castro?
EF on December 10, 2006 at 7:44 PM
I do detect a skip. But her posture remains seemless.
laelaps on December 10, 2006 at 8:12 PM
What’s important here is that it would be great if someone assassinated Castro. The American govt probably shouldn’t be doing it, though.
Alex K on December 10, 2006 at 8:18 PM
I question the timing. (Castro is going to be dead shortly anyhow.)
CyberCipher on December 10, 2006 at 8:47 PM
We should have assassinated Castro early on, definitely by 1962. Unfortunately, we took the policy of being the country of wimpiness, which has been seen as weakness to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Imagine how different the world would be today if we had assassinated Castro, the Ayatollah Khomeni, Arafat, etc.!
stonemeister on December 10, 2006 at 8:47 PM
I think since the She-Wolf feels that way already, what’s the big deal?
Valiant on December 10, 2006 at 9:12 PM
So what if she said it?
spmat on December 10, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe her lips are saying what the video claims she’s saying.
Plus, isn’t that just an odd phrase? “I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.”
Is that really how you’d say it?
The word “opportunity” just seems out of place. But maybe it’s just me.
Esthier on December 10, 2006 at 9:13 PM
The language may be awkward, but if that was spliced, that there is some pretty impressive splicing. A higher quality clip would help, I’msure
Reaps on December 10, 2006 at 9:26 PM
There was some dubbing…she didn’t say “welcome” or “opportunity”, but these words are commonly spoken by pols, so it would be easy to find a close-sounding clip of her with those words to insert. Notice the “p” sound from “opportunity” isn’t vocalized at all (her lips don’t meet), and the word “assasinate” is questionable as well…either it’s the quality of the clip or some creative manipulation, but her lips don’t quite match the word.
Any experts out there?
stonemeister on December 10, 2006 at 10:05 PM
We’re on the wrong track, here. The only legitimate question is this: why haven’t we executed this filthy, murdering piece of garbage yet?
On a lighter note, the plot line that has Castro leaving dictatorship to his little brother, Raoul, is right out of the playbook for Chicago politicians. Democrats, communist dictatorship, style parity.
Jaibones on December 10, 2006 at 10:42 PM
And the problem with this is…?
jaleach on December 10, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Nuh uh….audio was tampered with…see my full analysis here as a lip reader myself:
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/12/when-british-documentary-makers-lie.html
Kokonut on December 11, 2006 at 12:48 AM
Who knows? He might be dead already.
Dinsdale Piranha on December 11, 2006 at 1:56 AM
this must be the part where the “to kill a president” crowd pretends to be against assasination.
jummy on December 11, 2006 at 2:34 AM
Uhhh, you are aware that digital compression is basically a data loss mechanism and that YouTube videos traditionally sit on the heavier end of the compression scale, no? With your analysis, it would appear that everything this guy has ever said (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=seanbedlam) has been tampered with.
The video *was* spliced, that much is certain. There is nothing to indicate that the statements from each camera position were delivered immediately following each other, or even in that order.
The first statement sets a context for the second. That is what Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is complaining about. However it’s a weak defense as her words make her intentions pretty clear and there is a complete lack of explanation for what she “really” said is she really does believe that her words have been falsified.
MKR on December 11, 2006 at 3:21 AM
I dont beieve the audio was tamperd with .. she said this “I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assasinate FC and any leader who opresses their people”
if she had said wont, then the proper conjuntion would be OR and she didnt say that.. :”I wont welcome the opportunity of having anyone assasinate FC OR any leader who opresses their people”
DarianCounts on December 11, 2006 at 8:47 AM
excuse my improper use of the emphasis key….
DarianCounts on December 11, 2006 at 8:48 AM
She has a nice suit, what’s the problem, she’s articulate, What’s the problem?
right2bright on December 11, 2006 at 9:05 AM
The problem is that if she really said what she’s accused of saying, then you have a high-ranking US official calling for the assassination of the leader of a country. And that would be dangerous ground to be on.
dalewalt on December 11, 2006 at 9:27 AM
It appears that there were 2 skips in the video about a few seconds apart. It also appears her mouth wasn’t moving with the words.
amerpundit on December 11, 2006 at 9:31 AM
Is she denying that she said it, or meant it?
Maybe she meant that she would welcome the occasion of an assasination of Castro from an internal source…
urbancenturion on December 11, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Talk about locking the barn door after the cow has gone.
honora on December 11, 2006 at 10:29 AM
I was being rhetorical, lighten up.
right2bright on December 11, 2006 at 10:46 AM
MKR,
If data compression is the problem producing less quality picture then where is the video splicing in the second half of the video that others have said they detected? Hmm? I see none unless you talking about the splicing of the 1st half with the second.
But what I do notice just by listening while NOT watching the video is that the word “I” was said twice right before “welcome”. Watch the video in slow motion and you can definitely see a word starting to form with a “w” right before “welcome” was said. And based on the lip movements she said, video alone without the voice, “won’t”. Her demeanor fits that.
Lastly, we don’t know whether the 2nd half of the video was taken 1st or vice versa, as you have said, so, you cannot confidently say how the context of the first leads or support the second.
We have two different camera shots here. My focus is on the second half of the video clip. The first half you can see her hands were clasped together downward with thumbs down. The second half you see both thumbs pressed upward and together while obviously keeping her hands clasped together even though the video doesn’t show it. Her facial expression and tone of voice indicate words were said in the negative or disapproval rather than approval or support like in the 1st half of the clip. She said “won’t”. Her lip movements said “won’t” and the audio “I” was said twice with the second “I” used to help cover the audio gap seen visually over the word “won’t.” That’s why the two didn’t look right together. The audio “I” and her lips saying “won’t”. Timing is everything here, and the British documentary makers failed on that part.
I stand by my analysis as a lip-reader.
Kokonut on December 11, 2006 at 11:14 AM
There’s a couple people made a similar comment, but yeah, long weekend… consider me lightened :-)
dalewalt on December 11, 2006 at 11:25 AM
I don’t care and in fact I hope she did say it.
Timber Wolf on December 11, 2006 at 12:17 PM
So, the clip is juicy because the Left can pass it off as since she is an opponent of Castro, the smear would be plausible. Sneaky way to do business, especially since it’s very easy to find unadulterated clips of prominent Lefties calling for the untimely (to put it mildly) removal of President Bush, who does not keep scores of journalists rotting away in his jails, unlike Castro. And if Bush’s “rule” was so awful, how come celebrities like Alec Baldwin and Danny Glover can’t be relied upon to leave, and float to Cuba?
Is it time to issue an international demand that Castro release his political prisoners and push-cart them across the line so they can serve out the remainder of their life sentences at that “hellhole” Gitmo instead? If Gitmo is sooo bad, wouldn’t Castro love to send his enemies there instead of keeping them in his lovely cells? What are talking about distance-wise? Five miles?
naliaka on December 11, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Castro isn’t really much of an issue right now, at least as it seems to me; in fact, he just seems to be a distraction. Nevertheless, assassinating him would give our assassins some practice before they go over and begin picking off Saudi clerics who urge Iraqi Sunnis to wage war against us. Besides, any occasion to rescind Executive Order 12333 is serviceable at least to that extent.
Kralizec on December 11, 2006 at 1:58 PM
I’m going to have to agree with Kokonut here. The audio messes up in the beginning of the second splice but synchs back up near the end. I have done some audio work and usually the out-of-synch aspect doesn’t re-synch itself that fast. This looks like there was some work done on the audio. In this clip, I don’t know if it has been shortened for HotAir but it sounds as if she is cut off in mid-sentence at the end of it all.
Kokonut is it possible that she is asking a rhetorical question? “Would I welcome the opportunity…?” The head seems to emphasize a “would” right at the beginning of the splice as if she were starting to make a larger point. – Just an amateur look at it though.
DrM2B on December 11, 2006 at 2:24 PM
DrM2B,
Looking at again, I know a “w” lettered word was said before she said “welcome”. That’s a fact. Whether it’s “won’t” or “would” is the point of contention here. In fact, I’m inclined now to agree with you. It does seem more plausible with the lip movements now that she said “but would I welcome..” and that would be consisent with her demeanor and body language. In fact, the clip cuts it off her talk at the begining (of the second clip) and at the end where she seems to continue to talk. In fact, at the end she seemed to have shrugged a little bit before getting cut off which may indicate that she was answering a question.
Thanks, DrM2B. I’ve just updated my blog.
Kokonut on December 11, 2006 at 2:45 PM
Go to DU – he’s a hero over there.
Rick on December 11, 2006 at 4:40 PM
I have no problem removing Communists from the world.
LeviRocks on December 11, 2006 at 5:56 PM
CBS and other news outlets would argue that it doesn’t matter that it was clipped and changed; it could have been true, it would fit her history (their history), the facts are not as important as the story that could be. Her profile will be villified to the point where facts are not that important.
The facts just don’t matter to them nomore.
right2bright on December 11, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Sing, child, sing.
doingwhatican on December 11, 2006 at 7:14 PM
Regardless of the words that are actually comming out of her mouth, one might notice that her head shakes from side-to-side indicating a negative response rather than an affirmative (where the Head would bob up and down).
How many of you have ever shook your no when you were actually saying yes?
kiakjones on December 11, 2006 at 10:16 PM
* How many of you have every shook your head no when actually saying yes?
(Having a bad night with grammar and spelling)
kiakjones on December 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM
Sorry KoKonut, I just fully read the post on your site and it seems we both picked up on the same body language issue.
It’s pretty apparent just from her mannerisms that she is certainly answering in the negative; the subconscious, reflexive action being controlled by right hemisphere of the brain cannot negate the logical left-brained speech. The two hemispheres of the brain cannot function independently of one another – unless one suffers from relentless and debilitating epileptic seizures and requires a medically severed corpus cerebellum.
Even with such surgery – not even Slick Willie could pull off that charade.
kiakjones on December 11, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Ask them, I’m not the one claiming it exists. I’m also unsure exactly which “others” you are referring to, as I haven’t seen a convincing argument that this clip has been doctored, including yours.
That was precisely what I was talking about.
Apparently you didn’t listen too closely because she says “I” three times. The first time she says it her pronunciation is quite poor, it sounds as though she was going to begin her sentence with a word like “well” and instead changed to “I” during vocalisation. It comes out more like “Why, I, I, welcome…”
Interesting that her first sentence starts exactly the same way… “well, I, I, just feel”. Must be habit.
Good, we agree on something.
Would you care to state your qualification as an expert on body language?
The fact you continue to miscount the number of times Ileana said “I” is a pretty damning reflection on your argument. If you cannot get the most fundamental facts correct how can you confidently say that she said “won’t” (and later change your argument to “would”) is beyond me.
I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that you are an expert lip reader. What I do doubt, however, is your ability to read lips from motion distorted and highly compressed digital video that is out of sync with it’s audio track.
MKR on December 12, 2006 at 2:12 AM
So MKR, what is it; “Why,I,I, welcome….” or “I,I,I, welcome….”.
First you say three, then you say maybe Why with 2, then you dis him with a “pretty daming reflection” quote.
Just askin.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 1:04 PM
You clearly cannot read.
MKR on December 12, 2006 at 5:37 PM
She said it. I read lips.
Soothsayer on December 21, 2006 at 9:16 PM
No it doesn’t. She clearly says that she welcomes anyone who would off Castro or ANY LEADER THAT OPPRESSES THE PEOPLE. With that last line, how can you reasonably think she was saying “Won’t”. Your lip reading skills need work. Try watching t.v. without the sound for practice. It’s part of sniper training.
Soothsayer on December 21, 2006 at 9:22 PM
And what’s WRONG with her saying it? The liberalization of our rules of engagement are what most liberal rules are….stupid and designed to hamstring us but NOT OUR ENEMIES! Didn’t Saddam try to off Bush Sr AFTER we signed some stupid agreement not to pracitice assassination? Aren’t our soldiers getting killed because of the namby-pamby assed “knock on door before shooting terrorist” rules?? Liberals’ overwhelming preoccupation with homosexuality, feelings of terrorists, rights of terrorists and evil in general, has made them weak. Anyone who can look at a man who bends over for another man, AS A MAN, is too weak for the game and it creeps into every other aspect of their lives. I know some of you think this is extreme but it’s not, it’s all entertwined. Children can’t play Dodgeball cause someone might get hurt. Chris Matthews just finished whining about us putting our “Soldiers in harms way”, one wonders what he thinks their job might be! If “being in harms way” ain’t on a soldiers W2 what is?
Soothsayer on December 21, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: