SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13708)8/22/2007 6:50:16 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224743
 
for a sewerdemoRAT the sky is manhole cover



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13708)8/22/2007 6:55:09 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224743
 
Obama Misreads Cuban Reality
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Election 2008: Seeking to change his reputation for naivete, Sen. Barack Obama now presents his new vision for Cuba. But what he thinks is new is in fact already U.S. policy. He's been asleep.
To read Obama's sunny new manifesto on Cuba policy, published Tuesday in the Miami Herald, you'd think he'd invented sunlight.

He paints a picture of the U.S. hopelessly benighted about Cuba, having shut the door to the tyrannical communist regime long ago through a trade embargo, which he calls a failure. He advocates free travel to Cuba and an end to trade restrictions.

"A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy," he wrote, seemingly unaware that that's been the aim of U.S. policy since 1960.

U.S. efforts to spread democracy in Cuba have been more than talk. In July 2006, the inter-agency U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba recommended $80 million to encourage Cubans to form civil society groups as building blocks for a future democracy. Millions were allocated for for Internet access, civil society support, and education. The commission recommended $20 million for Cuban democracy efforts "until the dictatorship ceases to exist."

That's hardly the "grand gestures" of which he claims the Bush administration has been guilty. If you're a Cuban seeking freedom, it's real help.

U.S. diplomacy has been on the case, too.

Brave U.S. diplomats, like U.S. interests section chief Ambassador James Cason, openly stood up for democracy in statements inside Cuba and ran a news ticker of free world news across the de facto embassy windows in Havana until an enraged Castro erected a wall of black flags.

Meanwhile, Castro's secret police delivered their own payback, intimidating U.S. diplomats by tapping their phones and breaking into their residences, leaving repulsive Castroite mementos like urine in their mouthwash.

All of this happened during the Bush administration, which has taken more steps to encourage, but not force, democracy in Cuba than any other administration.

Having published this screed in Miami, Obama clearly wanted to appeal to Miami Cuban voters, particularly those recent economic migrants who've come to the U.S. claiming to seek asylum but who would really like the freedom to go back and forth to Cuba as part of the privileged class of U.S.-passported tourists.

Obama doesn't say precisely, but he implies he might give these Cuban-American "asylees" special travel rights other Americans don't get. That may be because he doesn't want to advertise the other supporters who want an end of travel restrictions: Castro's own apologists in the U.S. — revolutionary tourists like Global Exchange or Michael Moore, known for doing Castro's bidding.

That brings up what this really is about — dropping the trade embargo and letting more tourist hard currency into Cuba, which is exactly what the Castro regime wants.

More hard currency and travel will strengthen his regime because he controls the entire economy.

Fidel and his brother, Raul, run Cuban hotels, conference centers, nickel plants, shipping companies and tobacco concessions. That's the main reason why Forbes magazine has declared Fidel's net worth at almost $1 billion.

Any business coming into Cuba must be done exclusively through the Castro brothers' personal monopolies.

Obama failed to understand the role of money in entrenching the Castro regime when he wrote: "U.S. policies — especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to maintain and deepen ties with family on the island — were a key cause of that 'Cuban Spring,' " he said, referring to the 1990s when the communists loosened restrictions on small businesses and hard currency remittances.

As a matter of fact, the Cuban Spring was not the result of Cuban-Americans visiting the island state; it was was due to Castro losing his $3 billion-a-year subsidy from the Soviet Union. Fidel was especially desperate for ways to stay off the end of a meat hook as embittered, impoverished Cubans during his "special period" grew restless.

Only the appearance of another sugar-daddy subsidizer, Venezuela's profligate Hugo Chavez, saved Castro with his $1 billion subsidies, which may now be $3 billion.

As soon as Chavez's cash rolled in, Castro ended his "Cuban Spring" in 2003 with a brutal crackdown on 75 dissidents. And he put in place new restrictions on holding foreign currency and ended tiny private enterprises. Cuban-American travel had nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, there's no absence of trade with Cuba. U.S. food and medicine roll into Cuban ports daily, with more than $300 million in goods sold to Cuba in 2006. The U.S., in fact, now is Cuba's top food source.

Meanwhile, Europe, Japan and Venezuela also are substantial trading partners. It hasn't improved Cubans' material circumstances or freedom in any significant way.

Obama naively said he'd sit down with Castro and talk to him without preconditions, and his new effort to pander to one segment of the Miami Cuban population would give him everything he wanted.

His statements show he's grossly uninformed about Cuban realities, has no idea about U.S. efforts to encourage democracy and would be a pushover for Castro's agenda, without even drinking a cafecito with the dictator.

Even through the controlled medium of print, Obama's showing himself to be naive and not ready for prime time.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13708)8/22/2007 6:57:22 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224743
 
Sen. Step-In-It
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Iraq: One of the loudest Iraq War critics, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, reports "tangible results" from the surge. Then he jeopardizes Iraq's future by calling for the prime minister's head.
"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Levin said after three days in Iraq and Jordan with the armed services panel's ranking Republican, Sen. John Warner.

First, consider how much arrogance it takes to tell a fledgling democracy who should — and shouldn't — lead it.

Second, there's the destabilizing effect that Iraq would suffer if the admittedly flawed Nouri al-Maliki were ousted. Rival Shiite leaders in the United Iraq Alliance parliamentary coalition are less independent of Iran than al-Maliki — a troubling fact.

Even the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, admits that a perceived U.S.-orchestrated replacement of al-Maliki could be a "kiss of death" for the whole region.

Finally, Levin's haughtiness comes as he and Warner discover they can't deny major military progress. In a joint statement, the two said: "We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure."

"We are also encouraged," they add, "by continuing positive results in al Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaida and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents."

So you go to Iraq and find that Gen. Petraeus and our brave forces are performing miracles there — then come home and try to undermine the very foundations of Iraq's new representative government. It seems little short of insanity. But only a little.

Warner, for his part, may not have gone so far as explicitly calling for al-Maliki's removal — but he came close: "(T)he Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the Government of Iraq's record and determine what actions should be taken," he said in his joint statement with Levin.

The Virginia Republican, like too many Democrats, also overstates the significance of the Iraq government's inability to work out the country's deep sectarian divisions overnight.

Like Levin, even Hillary Clinton has had to admit of the surge, "It's working," while speaking to veterans this week. Yet she too proceeded to call for a premature retreat from Iraq. (Levin himself wants a withdrawal to start within four months, with most U.S. troops removed by mid-2008.)

Kudos to those Democrats who have broken with their leadership's calls to cut and run. One House member who actually voted against the Iraq War, Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., returned from Iraq saying: "(Firstly), I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility . . . and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

For Levin and Warner, longtime members of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, ego may be getting in the way of seeing what a little-known liberal Democratic congressman finds obvious.



Press Center Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Us Home
© Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13708)8/22/2007 7:21:22 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224743
 
Were the British officials lying when they said they foiled a terrorist plot to board numerous planes scheduled to fly to the US? Did US medical facilities lie when they announced some of the British terrorist MDs had applied for jobs with hospitals in Philly? How can you not believe the jihadists are planning to strike in the US when they've already done just that? The Iraqi battlefield has kept them unfocused, once that distraction has been removed, they'll re-energize their plans to attack US cities.