Connecticut Democrat Jim Himes went on CNN this week and managed to acknowledge that Raul Castro may be a criminal while spending most of his breath attacking the Trump administration instead. The performance, delivered on the "Situation Room," was a case study in how Washington Democrats handle questions about hostile foreign dictators: answer briefly, then change the subject.
Guest host Jim Sciutto posed a straightforward question. Given the possibility that the administration might follow what Sciutto called "a Venezuela model," would Himes support indicting Castro first and pursuing his removal later? It was a yes-or-no setup. Himes did not give a yes-or-no answer.
Instead, the Democratic congressman offered a few words of conditional openness, "if there's a case to be made against Raul Castro, let the facts play out", before steering hard into an extended broadside against the Trump administration's use of military force, its approach to Cuba, and what Himes characterized as "illegal wars and illegal actions." The ratio of concern about a communist strongman to concern about the sitting president was not close.
The full exchange, reported by Breitbart, is worth reading in its entirety because the priorities it reveals are unmistakable. Himes opened with a nod to accountability, then immediately redirected it away from Havana and toward Washington.
"Legal accountability is critical. And, by the way, the Trump administration people may think about that as they undertake illegal wars and illegal actions, for example, the double-tap strike on the two individuals, the drug runners who were clinging to a sinking boat. Accountability is important for everybody."
Notice the mechanics. Himes was asked about Raul Castro. Within one sentence he had pivoted to the Trump administration. Within two sentences he was referencing a specific military strike, what he called "the double-tap strike on the two individuals, the drug runners who were clinging to a sinking boat", and labeling it an illegal action. The question about Cuba's longtime ruler became a vehicle for attacking the administration's enforcement posture.
Only after that detour did Himes circle back to the nominal subject. And even then, the concession came wrapped in a political jab at the president himself.
"It is possible that Raul Castro undertook criminal activities, not a concept that would be entirely foreign to the occupant of the Oval Office himself."
So Raul Castro, the man who helped his brother Fidel run a police state for decades, gets "it is possible" and a conditional clause. The president of the United States gets a direct personal comparison to a communist dictator. That framing tells you everything about where Himes's instincts land when the camera is on.
Himes did not stop there. He went on to argue that using American military force to "enforce global laws" is unacceptable and that any such action requires congressional approval.
"What is not okay is us deciding that we are going to use the military to enforce global laws. That's not what the military is for. And so, again, the president has talked for a very long time about going after Cuba.... But the use of American military force is not okay, and it is certainly not okay when it is not approved by the United States Congress, as the Constitution demands."
Set aside, for a moment, the constitutional argument about congressional authorization. It is a legitimate debate, and serious people hold different views on it. What is less legitimate is using that debate as a shield to avoid answering whether a foreign dictator should face legal consequences.
Sciutto asked a narrow question: indictment first, removal later, would Himes support that? The congressman never said yes. He never said no. He said "let the facts play out," then spent the rest of his time attacking the administration's conduct, comparing the president to Castro, and warning against military action nobody had asked him about in that specific question.
One phrase in Himes's remarks deserves particular attention. He described the subjects of a military strike as "the drug runners who were clinging to a sinking boat." He framed this as an example of the administration's "illegal actions."
Himes did not dispute that the individuals in question were drug runners. He used the term himself. Yet his framing cast them as victims of excessive force rather than participants in an illegal narcotics operation. The emotional weight of "clinging to a sinking boat" was clearly meant to evoke sympathy, for people Himes himself identified as drug traffickers.
This is a recurring pattern among congressional Democrats. When the administration takes aggressive action against people engaged in illegal activity, whether at the southern border, on the high seas, or anywhere else, the reflex is to question the enforcement, not the underlying crime. The drug runners become sympathetic figures. The enforcers become the villains. And the public is left wondering whose side their elected representatives are on.
Sciutto's reference to "a Venezuela model" suggested a framework where legal indictments precede broader action, charges first, then diplomatic or strategic pressure. It was, on its face, a measured approach. Indict the man. Build the case. Let the legal process lead.
Himes could have endorsed that sequence. He could have said: yes, if the evidence supports it, indict Castro and let the courts do their work. That would have been consistent with his stated belief in "legal accountability." Instead, he treated the question as an opening to relitigate the administration's military posture and take shots at the president.
The result was an answer that gave Castro more benefit of the doubt than the administration. "It is possible" that Castro committed crimes, Himes allowed, the kind of hedge you use when you are not particularly interested in pursuing the matter. Meanwhile, the administration's actions were flatly labeled "illegal wars and illegal actions," stated as fact, no hedge required.
Himes said "accountability is important for everybody." The statement sounds evenhanded. But the rest of his remarks applied that principle in only one direction.
Castro got conditional language and a suggestion to wait for facts. The Trump administration got definitive accusations of illegality. The president got compared to a communist dictator. The people enforcing drug laws got cast as aggressors against helpless men on a sinking boat.
If accountability is important for everybody, it might start with the man who helped run a one-party state that imprisoned dissidents, crushed free speech, and drove millions of its own citizens to flee across open water. Himes acknowledged that possibility in passing. He did not dwell on it. He had other targets in mind.
This is the problem with the Democratic approach to foreign strongmen. The instinct is never to press the case against the dictator. The instinct is to use the dictator as a prop in a domestic political argument. Castro becomes a footnote. The real target is always closer to home.
The Wednesday broadcast was a small moment in a busy news cycle. No votes were cast. No legislation moved. But it captured something important about how a sitting Democratic congressman prioritizes threats.
Asked directly whether he would support legal action against a foreign authoritarian, Himes spent most of his answer attacking his own government. He labeled administration enforcement actions "illegal" without qualification. He extended sympathy to drug traffickers. He compared the president to a communist ruler. And he gave Castro himself the gentlest possible treatment, a maybe, a conditional, a suggestion to wait and see.
The voters in Connecticut's Fourth District can decide whether that reflects their values. But the rest of the country saw a congressman who, given a choice between holding a dictator accountable and scoring points against the administration, chose the points every time.
When "accountability for everybody" means everybody except the communist, the phrase has lost its meaning.
