In Castro’s salon, Afghanistan’s pants shortage, the awful Al Sharpton, &c.

January 11, 2002 8:00 a.m.

Did you know that the Castro regime had an “attorney general” (that’s part of what totalitarian regimes do: ape American and democratic practices — sham elections, etc.)? It does. And that “attorney general,” Juan Escalona, had the following to say about the transfer of al Qaeda prisoners to the American base at Guantanamo: “It’s another provocation from the Americans. I hope 15 or 20 get out and kill them.”

I love it when Cuban officials talk that way — so much more honest than the propaganda ladled out to willing dupes. (Interesting question: Can there be willing dupes? Probably not. There are outright Castro apologists, then there are dupes.)

For years now, Yanqui entertainers, sports figures, and politicians have trooped down to Havana, to hug and be hugged by the dictator — even as his victims writhe and cry out and rot in unseen places. My fond hope is that one day there will be a general awakening, and that these Americans will be ashamed. But if it hasn’t happened by now, 43 years into the Castro nightmare, it probably never will.

After the publication of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, some people were embarrassed — but not all. After the publication of Armando Valladares’s Against All Hope, some people were embarrassed — but far from all. G. B. Shaw’s admirers are a little embarrassed over the great man’s love affair with the Bolsheviks. Charles Lindbergh’s admirers are a little embarrassed over his fondness for the Third Reich. Jane Fonda is a bit embarrassed, I believe, about her embrace of the beasts of Hanoi. The admirers of John Kenneth Galbraith? Are they a teeny bit embarrassed about his glee over Mao’s China? I doubt it.

Anyway, the Castro fools (or knaves) take the cake. The other day, a group of pols — including Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter — flew down to Havana for a big soirée with the dictator. They had in tow a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, Michael Smerconish, all wide-eyed and impressed. The column he produced is a classic in the genre of outrageous naïveté. It has given Cuban democracy and human-rights advocates heartache — but then, they’re used to heartache.

I single out Michael Smerconish and his column, not because they’re unusual — deserving of special opprobrium — but because they’re so typical, so representative.

You’ll be happy to know that “[Castro’s] laugh broke up the room.” “The conversation was spellbinding.” “Castro was vibrant, animated, courteous [courteous!], fully engaged, and unflinching in his views. He had an agenda and a message to deliver to us. But no subject was off-limits. He was the opposite of today’s sound-bite, blow-dried politicians.”

Oh, how it must comfort Castro’s prisoners to know that their persecutor keeps his hair natural!

(I reprint here — because the phenomenon is similar — the infamous words of Amb. Joseph Davies, about Joseph Stalin: “He gives the impression of a strong mind which is composed and wise. His brown eye is exceedingly kindly and gentle. A child would like to sit in his lap, and a dog would sidle up to him.”)

Castro was all for anti-terrorism, of course. Writes Smerconish, “Castro said the only difference he has with the Americans on terrorism is the best way to eradicate the problem, adding that it is important to ‘attack it from a moral and ethical point of view, not the bombing of innocent civilians.’”

I wonder if Smerconish knows that Cuba is one of only seven regimes on the State Department’s list of terror-sponsoring states, along with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the other lovelies. I wonder if he cares.

One of the party had brought a little gift for Castro. Know what it was? A New York Fire Department hat. Castro duly put the hat on — a perfect propaganda opportunity for him, handed to him by these idiots — “and in front of cameras for the world to see, Castro for at least one moment looked no different from Rudy Giuliani.”

Arlen Specter did press him on holding elections: After 43 years, isn’t it time to have one? Castro parried, “You mean like you had in Florida?” Michael Smerconish seems to have taken this as a great touché moment.

In the course of this mighty meeting of the minds, the dictator said, “How do you define human rights? Is there any proof of torture in Cuba? We don’t have much money, but we will give you all that we have if you can prove anyone has been tortured here in the past 43 years. There are no missing people in Cuba.”

In the face of such lies and such evil, all one can do is . . . well, I’m not sure.

Look, this Philadelphia guy is probably not a bad man. He’s probably just a fool, a know-nothing, someone who thought it would be cool to meet someone famous (although he is a journalist, and they’ve given him a column). Yet his kind of gullibility has helped Castro remain in power for over four decades. The great moral revulsion in America against Castro will never come; any revulsion, at least on the part of our elites, is directed at the exile community in Florida.

I have been told a million times, “no one cares about Cuba.” Indeed, I titled my piece for NR on this subject “Who Cares About Cuba?” (June 11, 2000). The other day, I received the following charming letter: “I’ll save you some time: Cuba doesn’t matter. Cuba is a dead letter. Nobody gives a sh** about Cuba. Nobody is going to give a sh** about Cuba.”

Yes, but a few of us do — not least the Cubans. “Who cares about the Jews?” “Who cares about the Cubans?” Who cares about anybody who is having his face kicked in by the boot of tyranny? The least we can do, it seems, is not give aid and comfort to the tyrant, and not cover for him. I’ve quoted it a hundred times, and will no doubt quote it a hundred more. It comes from Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who knows a thing or two about Cuban reality (and about the principles of freedom — as suggested by that first name): “For the life of me, I just don’t know how Castro can seem cute after forty years of torturing people.”