I looked again and found this excerpt from Clinton's press conference:
Mr. President, as you know, the Supreme Court declined to intervene today either to stop Elian Gonzalez from leaving the country or to overrule other courts, all of which have deferred to your administration.
As you look back on this...
That's pretty rare, isn't it?
[LAUGHTER]
As you look back on this, sir, do you have any sense--any regrets at all about the way your administration handled this matter?
Well, if he and his father decided they wanted to stay here, it would be fine with me. But I think that the most important thing is that his father was adjudged by people who made an honest effort to determine that he was a good father, a loving father, committed to the son's welfare. And we upheld here what I think is a quite important principle, as well as what is clearly the law of the United States.
Do I wish it had unfolded in a less dramatic, less traumatic way for all concerned? Of course I do. I have replayed this in my mind many times. I don't know that we had many different options than we pursued, given how the thing developed.
But I think the fundamental principle is the right one, and I'm glad we did.
As someone who has taken the position that JM should be the one making decisions for the boy, and as someone who always hoped that JM would decide to stay here, I don't find anything incongruous in Clinton's statement. One can want them to stay while respecting their decision to choose for themselves.
Karen |
