His fierce ideological dogmatism strikes up debates for which he has no solid arguments.
The newspaper published this Thursday an editorial under the name "Cuba and the Terrorism List".
Let’s remember this list was created in 1982 during the Ronald Reagan’s far-right administration, and manufactured by the State Department.
It adds that back then the Cuban regime supported the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, "among other terrorist groups."
But underestimates the peace negotiations that have been taking place in Havana representatives of the government and the guerrillas of that country.
The New Herald editorial believes that Cuba "is no longer the beacon of the revolution in the hemisphere," as its model lost appeal even among Marxists.
The first thing to repeat is that the island never wanted its model to be copied because Cuba didn’t imitate others.
Maybe with some other has stood side by side, but always defending the independence and sovereignty of each nation.
Then the Herald writes that, by de-listing Cuba, Obama is indicating that he recognizes a change in behavior.
On behalf of whom? Perhaps one of the nations more shaken by terrorist on Earth?
Only the mercenary invasion of Playa Giron, located in the Bay of Pigs, south of Cuba, on April 17, 1961. This invasion caused 176 dead, 300 injured, and nearly around 50 disabled.
The Democratic President John F. Kennedy publicly assumes the historic responsibility for this event.
The final figure of victims because of the several terrorist actions initiated after the Revolution of 1959 reached 3478 dead, 2099 disabled and a large number of wounded.
Incidentally, the Herald refers to "a change in behavior" and then adds a paragraph that may lead to different interpretations:
"A change in behavior was also quoted by the George W. Bush in 2006 when he took Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, after Tripoli ended a program to develop weapons of mass destruction".
What does the newspaper imply? Does it mean that such statement did not prevent the aggression later?
No wonder the proverb that man is the only animal that stumbles on the same stone, or even many more.
The editorial also indicates that one effects of removing Cuba from the list would be to eliminate certain financial sanctions against it.
What laws of the international rights supported? And after more than 20 resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly against that policy; how long will it be in force?
According to the editorial, if Havana is off the list it would give confidence to U.S. banks, and later the granting of "loans to small private companies in the island".
Curious persistence on giving a privileged treatment, a point which observers call to pay attention amid the complex scenario in which develops the bilateral relations.
But the Herald editorial could not finish without emphasizing his taste for lies and half lies.
It read that in the history of the "Cuban regime" weighs the executions carried out in the early years of the revolution.
Who were the most drastically punished those days?, vicious murderers and torturers who failed to flee to the United States.
The editorial did not mention the rest of punishment carried out.
Now legislators of Cuban origin acting on Capitol Hill in Washington conspire to at least hinder the process of bilateral approach.
Among them, resurfaces the name of Senator Bob Menendez, so far characterized as fervent enemy of Cuba.
But now and please pardon his friends from the New Herald, a political corpse.