The Soviet Union did not have to fall. If Carter had won a second term and Mondale had succeeded him, the Communist dictatorship might have received the outside help it needed to survive.
And we would still be living under the shadow of the Cold War.
Carter couldn’t save the Soviet Union, but he did his best to save Castro, visiting Fidel and Raul in Cuba where the second worst president in American history described his meeting with Castro as a greeting among “old friends”.
Raul Castro called Carter “the best of all U.S. presidents”.
Obama’s dirty deal with Raul will make the worst president in American history, Castro’s new best friend.
Carter couldn’t save Castro, but Obama did. This was not a prisoner exchange. This was a Communist bailout.
Obama boasted that he would increase the flow of money to Cuba from businesses, from bank accounts and from trade. When he said, “We’re significantly increasing the amount of money that can be sent to Cuba”, that was his real mission statement.
The Castro regime is on its last legs. Its sponsors in Moscow and Caracas are going bankrupt due to failing energy prices. The last hope of the Butcher of Havana was a bailout from Washington D.C.
And that’s exactly what Obama gave him.
Obama has protected the Castros from regime change as if Communist dictators are an endangered species.
From the beginning, Obama put his foreign policy at the disposal of Havana when he backed Honduran leftist thug Manuel Zelaya’s attempt to shred its Constitution over the protests of the country’s Congress and Supreme Court. And its military, which refused to obey his illegal orders.
Obama’s support for an elected dictator in Honduras should have warned Americans that their newly elected leader viewed men like Zelaya favorably and constitutions and the separation of powers between the branches of government unfavorably. It also showcased his agenda for Latin America.
His embrace of Raul Castro brings that agenda out into the open even if he still insists in wrapping it in dishonest claims about “freedom” and “openness” while bailing out a Communist dictatorship.
Obama began his Castro speech with a lie, declaring, “The United States of America is changing its relationship with the people of Cuba.”
The Cuban people have no relationship with the United States because they have no free elections and no say in how they are governed. The only Cubans who have a relationship with the United States fled here on rafts.
Obama did not make his dirty deal with the Cuban people. He made it in a marathon phone call with the Cuban dictator.
When Obama claims that his deal with Raul Castro represents a new relationship with the people of Cuba, he is endorsing a Communist dictatorship as the legitimate representative of the Cuban people.
This is a retroactive endorsement of the Castro regime and its entire history of mass murder and political terror. Obama is not trying to “open up” Cuba as he claimed. He likes Cuba just the way it is; Communist and closed.
Obama did not consult the Cuban people, just as he did not consult the American people. He disregarded the embargo, Congress, the Constitution and the freedom of the Cuban people.
His dictatorial disregard of the embargo, which can only be eliminated by Congress, in order to support a dictatorship, is a disturbing reminder that the road he is walking down leads to a miserable tyranny.
Cuban-American senators from both parties have been unanimous in condemning the move. These senators are the closest thing to Cuban elected officials. But Obama disregarded Senator Menendez, a man of his own party, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz.
Instead Obama chose to stand with Raul Castro and his Communist dictatorship.
Obama tried to whitewash his crime by exploiting Alan Gross, a USAID contractor who was imprisoned and abused by the Castro regime, as if the release of an American hostage justified helping the men holding him hostage stay in power. And the media, which was reprinting Castro’s propaganda claiming that Gross’ imprisonment was justified, is busy now pretending that it cares about his release.
He had similarly tried to whitewash his Taliban amnesty by using Bergdahl and his parents as cover. If a deal is struck with Iran, the release of Robert Levinson, Saeed Abedini or Amir Hekmati will almost certainly be used to divert attention from the fact that their own government has collaborated with the thugs and terrorists who took them hostage.
Even though Obama criticized European countries for paying financial ransoms to ISIS, his own ransom paid to the Castros is worth countless billions. And the blood money pouring out of American banks into the Castro regime will encourage other dictatorships to take Americans hostage as leverage for obtaining concessions from the United States. Americans abroad will suffer for Obama’s dirty deal.
No European country recognized ISIS in exchange for the release of hostages. Only Obama was willing to go that far with Cuba, not only opening diplomatic and economic relations, but promising to remove the Communist dictatorship from the list of state sponsors of terror despite the fact that the last State Department review found that Cuba continued to support the leftist narco-terrorists of FARC.
FARC had taken its own American hostages who were starved and beaten, tortured and abused.
Now Obama has given in to the demand of a state sponsor of terror to be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for releasing a hostage.
Obama has sent a message to Iran that the best way to secure a deal is by wrapping it in an American hostage. He has told ISIS that we do negotiate with terrorists. And he has once again demonstrated that his vaunted “smart power” is nothing more than appeasement wrapped in excuses and lies.
But Obama did not act to help Alan Gross. He did not even act because he genuinely thought that diplomatic relations would open up Cuba. In his speech, Obama used the claim commonly put forward by Castro apologists that the very fact that the Castros were still in power proved that sanctions had failed. Yet the lack of sanctions against Cuba by the rest of the world certainly did not usher in the new spirit of openness that Obama is promising. Rewarding dictators with cash never frees a nation.
This was not about saving Alan Gross. It was about saving Raul Castro.
Obama and Castro are both weakened leaders of the left. Like the Castros, Obama has lost international influence and his own people have turned on him. The only thing he has left is unilateral rule.
If Obama saw something of his own hopes and aspirations to engage in a populist transformation of the United States in Manuel Zelaya or Hugo Chavez, his horizons have narrowed down to those of Raul Castro. His ability to remake the world has vanished and the American people are revolting against his collectivization efforts. They want open health care markets, free speech and honest government.
Obama can no longer remake the Middle East, he certainly can’t bring the Soviet Union back from the dead, but he could still bail out Raul Castro and maintain Communist rule in Cuba.
No matter how often Obama claims to be “on the right side of history”, the Castros are a living
reminder that to be on the left is to be on the wrong side of history.
Obama did not want to see the “Berlin Wall” fall in Havana on his watch. After watching his own grip on the United States collapse, he did not want to see the left fail again.
We can never know how history might have been different if Carter had gotten a second term or if Mondale had replaced Reagan. But Obama’s deal with Castro reminds us that the end of the USSR was not inevitable. It happened because we stood up against the tyrants in the Kremlin and their useful idiots in the White House.
A good man like Reagan could make a difference by bringing down the USSR. A bad man like Obama can make a difference by keeping Cuba Communist.
This article originally appeared as Obama’s Bailout for Communist Dictators at Front Page Magazine.
Well put, thoughtfully presented...moral clarity, thy name is Knish.ReplyDelete
I can remember that I was a child when I heard on the car radio that Batista had been overthrown and Fidel Castro was taking over Cuba. What a long strange trip it has been...The Cuban people certainly did not deserve the poverty and terror that has been visited upon them, while the Castro brothers and their cronies live the lifestyles of the Rich and Vicious.
Guess it's safe for the Castros to retire and hand the reins over to whomever is next in line, the "success" of the Revolution has been guaranteed by Barry-O.
I can add nothing to your piece. Well done, and thank you much. A shameful chapter added to history by this marxist scum.ReplyDelete
"Anonymous", your comment about hearing the "news" about Castro taking over Cuba struck a chord with me. Similarly, I was about 13 or 14 at the time, and though not particularly knowledgeable or sophisticated in things geopolitical, I did know enough to feel remarkably disappointed when the fall of Batista was quickly followed by the Castro Communist's almost immediate announcement of their betrayal of Cuba, democracy, and the Cuban people. What incredible hypocrites our own Democratic Party has become, we dare not take our current experiences for granted, Obama and company will do it here too, if they're given enough rope, it's beyond a shadow of any doubt. Thanks Daniel for a superb article.ReplyDelete
Obama has a problem in Burma.
Burma has a Leftist military regime that Obama might like to preserve. Unfortunately for Obama, the regime is not over friendly to Muslims immigrants from Bangladesh - Rohingyas, the new Palestinians of Asia.
I was in Cuba in 1959, just after the revolution and found at that point the common people to be highly enthusiastic about the take over. Do realize in that year Castro did not yet show being a communist, just a reformer and Batista who was his predecessor was the normal (South American style) dictator, out to steal himself and his cronies rich at the expense of the people while Castro claimed he would elevate the commoners. I am not sure America played it right in the beginning and could not have brought Castro under their influence. Also afterwards at the Bay of pigs attack, where Kennedy inherited an ill concocted plan from the Eisenhower administration, if America would have provided more air-force assistance to the invading mostly Cuban refugee army they might have cut Castro's rule short but Kennedy did not want to commit himself for whatever reason.ReplyDelete
Absolutely the best article I've read on the subject.ReplyDelete
Bravo, after hearing every lame and numb analysis by Fox News, this is a breath of fresh air and a vinegar sop in the mouth of Obama!ReplyDelete
Thank you for an excellent article. We need to be reminded both that freedom does not replace Left wing slavery without the courage to stand up to Communist dictators and that Obama, as a socialist and nihilist dedicated to stamping out freedom and individual rights, will do everything he possibly can to bail out Communist tyrants.ReplyDelete
Obama surrendered in Iraq, and the Left counts it a win.ReplyDelete
Now he surrenders to Cuba, again, the Left counts it a win.
Who knew "winning" was so easy?
After watching yet another one of 0bama's disgraceful blunders (to describe them mildly) in foreign relations, it's only a natural conclusion that Iran will become a member of the nuclear Club before this pitiful administration ends. If the U.S. gets a real president after this clown finally leaves office (a very big IF given the present conditions), the new president will have to make extremely diffcult decisions in dealing with a nuclear Iran. The muslim thugs ruling that oil-soaked wasteland will not think twice before using a nuclear bomb, first on Israel and afterwards on some portion of the U.S. territory.ReplyDelete
I am in awe of your analytical skills. Obama Unbound - Today Cuba. Tomorrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. Abandon Israel.ReplyDelete
Obama's just an evil puppet for the Chicago Soviet/Communist machine aka DNC. He's not clever enough to any of this stuff on his own or even interested enough. POSOTUS ought to be referred to with a more fitting name to really lay out who he is: "Trayvon Hussein Gosnell" is more in line with the various evils he represents. "THG" indeed.ReplyDelete
Another example of the left showing its eurosupremacist roots. Screw the people of Cuba as long as there is leadership that believes in Communism and the worse kind of European ideas behind it. Let's pretend concern. Let's pretend we care about minorities. That is until you are inconvenient. We can all be sure that one of the police killed in Brooklyn, Rafael Ramos was a white hispanic and a legitimate target to Obamabots.ReplyDelete
I expect to be bailing out the "investors" that build resorts where GitMo once was, when they have their "investment" seized by the Castros. I guess we get to bail the mess out twice.ReplyDelete
I'm surprised at the number of people on the right that are cool with this. - djr
Thank you for voicing so well the concern that so many of us have over the sell out to Castro and Communism. I would like to add a few things that some may not realize about this mess since it has been in play over 50 years now. Our CIA supported Castro in his take over and assured our administration and the American people that Castro was a true reformer and one of us. He actually spent time here in the US and was certainly familiar with our way of doing things.ReplyDelete
Also, Mind Rider, from what I have read about the Bay of Pigs thing, that was something concocted by the State Department/CIA and Eisenhower did not really have that much knowledge of what State cooked up. Kennedy shot the deal down to bring in the Navy and Marines as he was not fully informed about the "invasion" and it was more or less dropped into his lap and he refused to go along with the plan that was cooked up without his prior approval or knowledge. At least that is the narrative, and that is a long discussion all on its own.
Now, two questions:
1. Whose payroll is Obama on? It certainly looks like he is following a set of marching orders from the far let.
2. What is the problem in Cuba? Wasn't this a communist worker's paradise, and they did not need the corrupt decadent imperialist capitalist colonialist reactionary Americans? How is it that Cuba can be an economic failure by not trading with the USA? What? They really need our money there? I am shocked, utterly shocked.
Another red herring from President Slappy Claus.....he ignores our real problems while doing nonsense like recognizing Cuba. One day hopefully we will have an adult in the White House again.ReplyDelete
Kennedy refused to provide the air support, and refused to make the Bay of Pigs a full scale invasion. Thus a debacle. It was an act of moral cowardice by another failed Democrat president.ReplyDelete
Additionally part of the secret deals to "resolve" the Cuban missile crisis was a US commitment (honored by follow on presidents) to never overthrow Castro. Another act of moral cowardice.
We didn't need to be warned. We Know all about O's mission. There is nothing we can do to stop his evil ways.ReplyDelete
I made the Venezuala/Russia/oil collapse connection about two seconds after obama "normalized" relations with Cuba.ReplyDelete
The democrat party is the greatest threat this republic has ever faced. They are here, queer, and in control.