The so-called liberals in the U.S. will be mourning today.
The New York Times wants you to believe that Fidel Castro was to some degree a blessing in Cuba though he was a violent tyrant, worse than the one before.
Carlos Slim or a Communist must have written the title for the New York Times article about Fidel Castro’s death – finally – Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90, the title blares out from the front pages.
The article continues: Mr. Castro brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere, bedeviled 11 American presidents and briefly pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Fidel brought violent revolution and communism to Cuba and he didn’t ‘bedevil’ anyone, he imprisoned, tortured, killed and then invited the Russians to build missile sites in Cuba.
They even refer to him as Fidel Castro, the fiery apostle of revolution.
The article lauds his ability to hold on to power and to become so important, though they fail to mention the importance the Communists here in the United States gave to him, and we can include Barack Obama in that.
The article reads: Fidel Castro had held on to power longer than any other living national leader except Queen Elizabeth II. He became a towering international figure whose importance in the 20th century far exceeded what might have been expected from the head of state of a Caribbean island nation of 11 million people.
They fail to mention that he held power because of the Russians and now the Iranians who want to position themselves 90 miles off US shores.
He dominated his country with strength and symbolism from the day he triumphantly entered Havana on Jan. 8, 1959, and completed his overthrow of Fulgencio Batista by delivering his first major speech in the capital before tens of thousands of admirers at the vanquished dictator’s military headquarters.
Failing to mention his threats and brutality, Jack Manning wrote, A spotlight shone on him as he swaggered and spoke with passion until dawn.
It isn’t until further down in the story that they mention he wielded power like a tyrant.
Some saw him as a ruthless despot who trampled rights and freedoms; many others hailed him as the crowds did that first night, as a revolutionary hero for the ages, Manning breathlessly sighs.
There was nothing mixed in his legacy. He was an evil man who brought abject poverty to his country. There were no advances socially.
After Cuba was given access to trade, given back their spies, and was given other privileges, Castro repeatedly rebuked and humiliated Barack Obama but the Times calls it a cranky response.
Then there is this complete fabrication: His legacy in Cuba and elsewhere has been a mixed record of social progress and abject poverty, of racial equality and political persecution, of medical advances and a degree of misery comparable to the conditions that existed in Cuba when he entered Havana as a victorious guerrilla commander in 1959.
If anyone is wondering how far left the New York Times has gone, you have your answer.
The people who know what he was are in Little Havana in Florida celebrating.