This “Washington Post” editorial must be investigated! The progressive daily must have been hacked. Well either that or hell has frozen over. Possibly there are pigs flying around in the sky. At issue is an editorial blasting Obama called “Obama gives the Castro regime in Cuba an undeserved bailout.” Understand this is not an op-ed but a piece supposedly produced by the editorial board of the newspaper who reveres this President, whose only conservative columnist is a liberal. Heck this paper’s mantra is “take my liberty or give me death!”

Not only did it produce an editorial that went against the President’s policy, but it went against the progressive line.

The piece begins by explaining that Cuba was nearing collapse, its friends were gone and citizens were growing bolder. This despite the fact the progressive line was the embargo of Cuba wasn’t working.

In recent months, the outlook for the Castro regime in Cuba was growing steadily darker. The modest reforms it adopted in recent years to improve abysmal economic conditions had stalled, due to the regime’s refusal to allow Cubans greater freedoms. Worse, the accelerating economic collapse of Venezuela meant that the huge subsidies that have kept the Castros afloat for the past decade were in peril. A growing number of Cubans were demanding basic human rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly. It goes on to detail the President’s actions on Wednesday easing U.S. restrictions on Cuba and warned, “that liberalization will provide Havana with a fresh source of desperately needed hard currency and eliminate U.S. leverage for political reforms.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

See what I mean? (Maybe Marco Rubio has a hacker on his staff?)

The editorial continued in its criticism of the newspaper’s Messiah/President. Regarding the Alan Gross release the Washington Post added, “While Mr. Obama sought to portray Mr. Gross’s release as unrelated to the spy swap, there can be no question that Cuba’s hard-line intelligence apparatus obtained exactly what it sought when it made Mr. Gross a de facto hostage.”

Maybe it was Ted Cruz who hacked in, because the WAPO editorial even said it disagreed with Obama’s argument that the embargo was a failure:

In fact, Cuba has been marginalized in the Americas for decades, and the regime has been deprived of financial resources it could have used to spread its malignant influence in the region, as Venezuela has done. That the embargo has not succeeded in destroying communism does not explain why all sanctions should be lifted without any meaningful political concessions by Cuba.

The editorial staff even had the nerve to say this President was snookered in the matter of Cuba’s promised prisoner release:

U.S. officials said the regime agreed to release 53 political prisoners and allow more access to the Internet. But Raúl Castro promised four years ago to release all political prisoners, so the White House has purchased the same horse already sold to the Vatican and Spain.

It also argued that past improvements of relations with communist countries have not improved those countries’ human rights records, beside Obama doesn’t really help people trying to overturn tyranny either.

The administration says its move will transform relations with Latin America, but that is naive. Countries that previously demanded an end to U.S. sanctions on Cuba will not now look to Havana for reforms; instead, they will press the Obama administration not to sanction Venezuela. Mr. Obama says normalizing relations will allow the United States to be more effective in promoting political change in Cuba. That is contrary to U.S. experience with Communist regimes such as Vietnam, where normalization has led to no improvements on human rights in two decades. Moreover, nothing in Mr. Obama’s record of lukewarm and inconstant support for democratic change across the globe can give Ms. Sánchez and her fellow freedom fighters confidence in this promise.

The Vietnam outcome is what the Castros are counting on: a flood of U.S. tourists and business investment that will allow the regime to maintain its totalitarian system indefinitely. Mr. Obama may claim that he has dismantled a 50-year-old failed policy; what he has really done is give a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life.

This editorial was an impossibility. “The Washington Post” would never criticize its supreme leader this severely. The paper must have been hacked, there is no other explanation.