For the New York Times, it’s still the Old Flame: Castro!

“To our American friend Herbert Matthews with gratitude. Without your help, and without the help of the New York Times, the Revolution in Cuba would never have been.” (a beaming Fidel Castro decorating Herbert Matthews with a medal during a visit to the New York Times offices in April 1959.)

Question: When will the New York Times throw a liberal Democrat under the bus?

Answer: When the bus is driven by their old flame Fidel Castro, that’s when. Nothing can trump THAT romance!


With a public corruption investigation hanging over him, Senator Robert Menendez suggested Tuesday that Cuban spies had planted the seeds of that inquiry as a way to discredit him and mute his strident opposition to the government in Havana…..One senior United States official said Tuesday that the government had no proof that the Cuban government was behind the effort. A second official said that although it was a possibility, the authorities had not substantiated it.

In brief, the New York Times needs more “substantiation” for Menendez’s “claim” against the Castro regime. But when it came to a claim told the New York Times by a Castroite:

“One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting!” (New York Times headline on Jan 4, 1959 about the Stalingradesque “battle” of Santa Clara) “Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties!” continues the Times article. “Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men!”

In fact, The New York Times didn’t have a reporter within 150 miles of Santa Clara at the time. They relied on their trusty Julio 26 “contacts” (or maybe the crackerjack CIA Havana station chief!)

A year later, Che’s own diaries revealed that his forces suffered exactly one casualty during this Caribbean Stalingrad, as depicted by the New York Times. Total casualties for both sides during the Battle of Santa Clara totaled about nine, including killed and wounded.





One thought on “For the New York Times, it’s still the Old Flame: Castro!

  1. The NYT is so, uh, “compromised” regarding Castro, Inc. that it will never come clean on that. And btw, Fidel undoubtedly saw Matthews as “tremendo comemierda,” which is what he was–unless, of course, he was even worse.

Comments are closed.