CNN Tells Anchors Be Nice to Fidel
If you’re CNN, it just wouldn’t do to give the straight dope about the thousands upon thousands of people Fidel Castro has killed in his lifetime or the hundreds of people he’s throw in prison for nothing more than speaking their minds. Oh, heck no. They have to make sure that their anchors sanitize their speech with weaselly equivocations like telling us that some idiots consider him a brave and noble soul.
I’m sure that every monster has had more than his share of useful idiots and people who are more than happy with them putting people against the wall they don’t particularly like. That’s a given. We’re not idiots. We only have to look as far as Hollywood to find the largest chapter of the Fidel Castro fan club outside of Havana.
We know there are tyrant-lovers and apologists for evil in the world. Heck, CNN employed one not very long ago. For once – just one stinking time – I’d like to see CNN tell the story of a tyrant without resorting to half-assed equivocations.
UPDATE: From CNN’s lips to the New York Times’ ears!
No related posts.
Category: No More Tyrants, Oh, THAT liberal media.
"I’d like to see CNN tell the story of a tyrant without resorting to half-assed equivocations."
They've been doing that for eight years now.
"We know there are tyrant-lovers and apologists for evil in the world. Heck, CNN employed one not very long ago."
In partnership with CNN, Time recently hired one as well, good eye!
"Your search for "kristol" > Kristol, William
found 18 results"
Ah, guys. You make me laugh.
Too late…the cuban people has suffered for too long…we have lost everything…even our most important values..I left Cuba 54 years ago….for me "our legacy, our life "is gone with the wind…"my son died in Cuba in 1969….I could not go to his funeral…I knew Fidel when we were young…never though he was going to be our destroyer…too late to resign..the damage is done…only cubans know the pain …the losses…as I said…Our Cuba is "GONE WITH THE WIND…FOREVER"…
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 02/20/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
jimmie,
Grab the tote board and let's add up all deaths caused by Castro vs. all deaths caused by US Presidents in the last 40 years.
You'll be spouting the word "amateur" so loudly to describe Castro, you might forget to describe him as a Communist.
[...] American right is all over this e-mail so let me take a slightly less aggressive [...]
A bogus comparison, Robert, and if you were dealing honestly, you'd know that. But, hey, whatever you need to do to justify your worldview, right?
What's so funny? I agree with you, and cited an additional example of your point to support it.
Kind of mean to laugh at someone who's supporting you. First time reading this blog, I would have thought you'd court more people of a similar mindset.
I hate to say it but I think that Robert in BA is correct. Over an estimated hundred thousand dead in Iraq directly or indirectly caused by our war over there.
"But, hey, whatever you need to do to justify your worldview, right?"
That number was thoroughly debunked, by a left-leaning site no less.
"We know there are tyrant-lovers and apologists for evil in the world."
Indeed. In fact, I recall quite a few of said apologists writing rosy-hued tributes to Augusto Pinochet upon his departure from the earthly plane a little over a year ago. But of course Pinochet was a good friend to American business interests and a fervent anticommunist, so his own considerable body count can be conveniently excused by the Bill Kristols and Jonah Goldbergs of our nation.
One never ceases to marvel at the moral calculus that can justify damning Castro while nodding approvingly over such USA-backed or -installed paragons of democracy as Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, Suharto, Mobutu Sese Seko, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Rafael Trujillo and, yes, pre-Kuwaiti invasion Saddam Hussein. To name but a few.
But then, to think otherwise would demand that we Americans take a long, hard look at our government's willingness to climb into bed with the most odious of dictators, long as it works to the advantage of America's corporate coffers. And as Ollie North so eloquently put it at the Iran/Contra hearings, "Americans don't want to know." Blog postings such as yours are certainly proof enough of that.
conumbdrum – I believe you'll find that your post is about 10 years too late, for two reasons.
First, you won't find an excuse for Pinochet written by Jonah Goldberg anywhere. What you will find is a column I distinctly recall thinking would elicit just the sort of comment from the average leftist that you wrote. Do go back and read the column again and tell me, seriously, he was doing anything but saying that given a choice between the two, any rational human being would say that Pinochet was better for his country than Castro was for his. And he's exactly right.
But, you'll be pleased to know that thanks to George Bush, we have taken a "a long, hard look at our government’s willingness to climb into bed with the most odious of dictators". You'll notice that we deposed one, have almost completely isolated one, scared one into giving up his WMD program, called one out publicly and repeatedly (and are stopping him as best we can from building a nuclear weapon), and have accused another of genocide. Oh, and we routinely ridicule the one down in South America.
The left, on the other hand, has invited one to speak at a prestigious college, partners with another to bolster his coffers by advertising his heating oil to poor people (and validated his crooked election), got completely tricked by one so that he now has a nuclear program (oh and criticizes the President as a "cowboy" for being tough on him), and recently put out a "documentary" praising yet another one for his wondrous social programs.
So, by all means, tell me that the right is all about coddling the dictators. Pardon me, though, if I laugh in your face when you do it.
[...] journalists have been advised to report favorably on Castro. Of course, wouldn’t want to damage a fellow comrade, would [...]
It's too bad we haven't had any Conservative Presidents in the last 50 years to take Fidel out!
jimmie,
Laugh away clown-boy.
We see right through your BS.
In fact, you're in bed with a President who dreams of being a dictator (and has the signing statements to prove it).
It was not Jimmie's initial opinion that I disagreed with. I believe whole heartedly that CNN should state the facts about what Castro is and what he has done. The news should not be censored in any way. Jimmie's response to the first comment by Robert in BA should have been: "yah, so what? I agree, but that has nothing to do with my opinion about the treatment of Castro by CNN." Robert went a little off-topic and was attacked for it. I don't think what I wrote about the number of Iraq civilians killed is that far off base. Thank you Jimmie for your link. I found a few links of my own which I looked at: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and also I looked it up the topic Casualties of the Iraq War at Wikipedia. The count is 80,419 to 87,834. I have know idea if the numbers are being fudged or not. I will leave that up to Jimmie to determine. I think people's opinions that the U.S. government is just as bad as the dictators it tries to oust could be considered a fair assessment. Remember that this goes way beyond our current war. Again, based on Jimmie's initial opinion I believe that he is correct.
Joe – The numbers are hard to come by and they involve a few judgment calls that I think are generally made to the detriment of the US. For example, it is assumed that Iraqis killed by Islamists with car bombs or what-have-you are laid at the feet of the US. That is not necessarily true. It is just as likely that had the US gone in, toppled Hussein and left immediately that the body count would be even higher. We have a lot of instances of US soldiers going out of their way not only to not harm or engage in areas where there are civilians (to their detriment) but also of soldiers putting themselves in greater danger to protect Iraqis.
It's not unreasonable to assume that an Iraq sans Hussein and without a reasonably stable government in formation would have led to many more Iraqis killed as various Islamist groups fought it out for supremacy. The internecine bloodletting would have likely been much worse also without us standing between the groups.
You are correct. How do you determine how many people have died from clashing Islamist groups? The thing you have to ask yourself, would these people have died if the U.S. did not invade Iraq? I would say probably not. So we are indirectly the cause, though you might call that a stretch. We should not have gone there. A preemptive war sets a very dangerous precedence. We continue to look like the bad guy around the world. Sad thing is this is not the first time. I hope that it is the last.
Thanks for the your opinion and info.
Thank you for yours, Joe.
Of course the "what if" game can be played as far as we want to play it. How many more Iraqis would have died thanks to the "Oil for Food" bribery scam? How many would have died once Hussein fully reconstituted his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted (thanks, again, to the "Oil for Food" scam)?
It impossible to know the answer. I am confident that a healthy, democratic Iraq will cause much less death than what had been there before. I think that is well borne-out in the history of democratic states (and their tyrannical counterparts).
I agree that Castro was responsible for the deaths of thousands. But Bush has been responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of thousands. Get a sense of perspective!
Tom – You need to have a sense of history before you have a sense of perspective. I suggest you get the former. The latter will take care of itself.