There's an old saying in Spanish: "por la boca muere el pez" ("fish die through their mouths").
Over the last two weeks, The New York Times' newest editorial writer, Ernesto Londoño, has (obsessively) written a half-dozen editorials and commentaries on U.S. policy towards Cuba.
As we've documented, these have been full of glaring contradictions, misrepresentations and omissions.
The more Londoño writes, the more desperate and shameless (and clearly uneducated) his attacks.
And today, he drove off the policy cliff.
He's penned an editorial calling for President Obama to commute the sentences of three Cuban spies (part of the "Wasp Network"), duly convicted by a federal jury in the United States, and exchange them for an American development worker, who was taken hostage by the Castro dictatorship precisely as a tool of coercion.
Like his previous editorials, which have been praised by Fidel Castro himself, today's piece is already being circulated by Cuba's embassies worldwide and the regime's state security bloggers (cyber-warriors).
After all, it's not every day that a major American newspaper echoes the ransom demands (and talking points) of a brutal, anti-American, totalitarian dictatorship. Not to mention, one considered a "state-sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. government.
The good news is that serious policymakers know this is a highly irresponsible proposition, which would set a very dangerous precedent. It has also left quite evident the agenda and resounding inexperience of its author.
Londoño -- on behalf of The New York Times' Editorial Board -- argues that the United States should succumb to Castro's coercion, mainly for two reasons:
1. Because a unilateral and unconditional rapprochement with Castro's dictatorship merits it.
Of course, he omits that the American development worker, Alan Gross, was taken hostage just a few months after Obama's first attempt at a unilateral and unconditional rapprochement with Castro's dictatorship in 2009.
Thus, this rationale is utterly senseless (at best).
Over the last two weeks, The New York Times' newest editorial writer, Ernesto Londoño, has (obsessively) written a half-dozen editorials and commentaries on U.S. policy towards Cuba.
As we've documented, these have been full of glaring contradictions, misrepresentations and omissions.
The more Londoño writes, the more desperate and shameless (and clearly uneducated) his attacks.
And today, he drove off the policy cliff.
He's penned an editorial calling for President Obama to commute the sentences of three Cuban spies (part of the "Wasp Network"), duly convicted by a federal jury in the United States, and exchange them for an American development worker, who was taken hostage by the Castro dictatorship precisely as a tool of coercion.
Like his previous editorials, which have been praised by Fidel Castro himself, today's piece is already being circulated by Cuba's embassies worldwide and the regime's state security bloggers (cyber-warriors).
After all, it's not every day that a major American newspaper echoes the ransom demands (and talking points) of a brutal, anti-American, totalitarian dictatorship. Not to mention, one considered a "state-sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. government.
The good news is that serious policymakers know this is a highly irresponsible proposition, which would set a very dangerous precedent. It has also left quite evident the agenda and resounding inexperience of its author.
Londoño -- on behalf of The New York Times' Editorial Board -- argues that the United States should succumb to Castro's coercion, mainly for two reasons:
1. Because a unilateral and unconditional rapprochement with Castro's dictatorship merits it.
Of course, he omits that the American development worker, Alan Gross, was taken hostage just a few months after Obama's first attempt at a unilateral and unconditional rapprochement with Castro's dictatorship in 2009.
Thus, this rationale is utterly senseless (at best).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario