The CIA’s disclosure of its own failed mission to eliminate Fidel Castro in 1960 using poison pills and the Mafia adds only a small amount of new detail to an already ample public record of the CIA’s activities during the Kennedy Administration.
But it has been welcome in
The CIA’s naming of the late Tony Varona as a participant in the last stages of this abortive operation has drawn sharp reaction here and elsewhere (including, I’m told, at great length on Miami radio) in defense of a man who cannot defend himself. But the reason for the indignation is not clear to me. Because it allows Castro to score points? Because assassination is an unjust method of war? Because Varona had more courage than to join a poison-pill caper?
A commentator in El Nuevo Herald, Vicente Echerri, leaves nothing to doubt, however. Castro’s assassination “would have been not only an act of political wisdom, but also a preventive measure internationally in benefit of western civilization and the human race.”
3 comments:
Nice post. I didn't hear this mentioned on Radio Mambi, maybe I missed it, but you are asking the right questions.
Why are Jaime Suchlicki, Juan Clark and Enrique Ros in denial about this possibility of a poison pill?
In "el exilio" almost every violent action aimed against the Cuban government is considered noble and honorable. That's why Orlando Bosch, Eduardo Arocena and Luis Posada Carriles are considered heroes and Oswaldo Paya is seen as a wimp.
The mold of these heroes originates from the lessons of the Ten-Year War where the great Cuban leaders made history. Many in exile cite them as the model of honor and wisdom.
Thus, the strategy of the poison pill does not mix with the legendary figure of Antonio Maceo or Jose Marti.
Juan Clark (in Diario las Americas) and Enrique Ros (in El Nuevo Herald) made it very clear:
Ros said that Tony de Varona "era un hombre de HONOR y valiente que buscaba soluciones políticas o militares, pero de FRENTE, no tortuosas."
Clark says: "Tony Varona fue siempre un hombre FRONTAL en la lucha contra Castro. Ese tipo de procedimiento no está de acuerdo con la trayectoria de toda su vida."
Those who consider themselves part of "el exilio historico" are described as no less great than the heroes of 1868 beyond.
This is part of the propaganda that allows Luis Posada Carriles, and others Cuban terrorists, to be painted as victims. Otherwise, it negatively stains the hard-line exile image.
Thanks for linking my blog by the way. I've also begun to enjoy your posts and have recently added your blog to my list. You provide a great source of information on Cuba.
Keep it up!
Since Castro and his communist rebels used terrorist bombs, murder of Government officials, and general mayhem, ranging from bombs in hotels and places in Havana and all over Cuba where the general population went every night. These acts were committed against the civilian population not military targets, to bring about their revolution. So why are they surprised that the same methods are used against them? Why was it fair for them to have used these methods, but when the same actions are used against them, are they described as unaceptable? What makes them so special?
Post a Comment