Bush slams Obama on Cuba policy

[seafan]

Bush slams Obama on Cuba policy



J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/AP
President Bush gives emphasis to his answer when asked by a reporter during a news conference why he rejects the notion of meeting with adversaries without preconditions, in particular, Iran and Cuba, at the White House in Washington, Thursday.


BY LESLEY CLARK
February 29, 2008

WASHINGTON --President Bush defiantly stepped into the race to succeed him Thursday, chiding Sen. Barack Obama over his suggestion that he would talk with new Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

Siding with Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., who have criticized Obama's stance, Bush told reporters at a White House news conference that talking with leaders such as Castro ''would send the wrong message'' -- to Castro, Cuba and the world.
''Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raúl Castro . . . lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him,'' Bush said. 'He gains a lot from it by saying, `Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United States.' ''

Bush said he wouldn't rule out ever meeting with Castro, but said ``now is not the time.

''He's nothing more than the extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island and imprison people because of their beliefs,'' he said.

.....

Campaigning in Texas, Obama returned fire, saying ``the American people aren't looking for more of do-nothing Cuba policy that has failed to secure the release of dissidents, failed to bring democracy to the island and failed to advance freedom for 50 years.''
At a debate last week with Clinton -- following Fidel Castro's announced resignation -- Obama, D-Ill., said he would be willing to meet with Cuba's new leader, though he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

Bush, never mentioning Obama by name, suggested he was misguided if he expected a meeting with Castro to yield results.

'Now, somebody would say, `Well, I'm going to tell him to release the prisoners,' '' Bush said. ``Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace and these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them to respond.''

.....

Obama's campaign has argued that U.S. policy toward Cuba has failed and that Obama, in addition to engaging Castro, would also make it easier for Cuban Americans to visit family on the island and send them cash remittances.

Bush said he wants changes on the island first.

''I just remind people that the decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive,'' he said. ``It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake.''

.....

Will someone come and arrest this war criminal.... N O W ??????

[galadrium]

1. I think Obama's credibility on foreign policy just went up 1000%

[death to the DLC]

4. exactly

what will it take for those remaining 19% to realize that this douche is a complete f'ing idiot.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. Talking bad....Bombing good. n/t

[stillrockin]

3. Thank you, Dubya! We were waiting for your sage endorsements.

[TwilightGardener]

5. My Senator, Hagel, who is no slouch on foreign policy, backed Obama up on Sunday--

said that our policy toward Cuba is outdated and obsolete, and that we should start a new diplomatic process with them--including a new trade policy.

[Wetzelbill]

8. yeah it definitely is outdated

And Chuck isn't a guy I always agree with by any means, but he's smart and knowledgeable on foreign policy. I always like listening to him and Biden.

[EFerrari]

23. Revenge is never outdated and Obama, whether he knows it or not,

is simply continuing that old fight.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I don't think so--he's saying that he would be willing to open up a new

diplomatic relationship, but that both sides would first have to agree to pursue a pro-human rights, pro-democracy agenda--that's going into it with a true purpose, and an intent of progress, rather than a photo op that accomplishes nothing.

[EFerrari]

28. That's just it. Where does someone from a nation who tortures

and denies due process and spies on its citizens get off dictating terms to anyone?

Cuba is far more advanced than we are. Obama is just repeating the same old baseless slurs while ignoring our own human rights records. Wrong on both counts.

He's made similar mistakes about other Latin American countries. His advisor on those topics needs to be fired because he's killing his cred with Latinos.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Well, you're advocating a position that will not help get him elected, although

it may be more pure and honest. He's not going to go all Kucinich--he's not going to suddenly say that we should just drop the embargoes and restricitions and totally normalize relations on day one, without demanding any change in the way they operate. I don't think Obama believes we should do that, and it's a political loser, for sure. Political reality has to come into play here. He's already coming close to a third-rail here, by even agreeing to open up relations--look at the shitstorm he's getting for suggesting even incremental changes to our Cuban policy. It may not be what you want, but it's a damn sight better than previous policy.

[EFerrari]

31. All "Kucinich"? That's hilarious.

This has nothing to do with purity. And our government has no business dictating to the very nations it has preyed on for the last two hundred years.

The "shit storm" is just manufactured spin from the GOP. Normalizing relations with Cuba would instantly earn Obama a massive amount of support all over the world.

It's not a political loser in the least.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Sorry, but he's taking the right approach. It may seem too cautious

and too arrogant to you, but we live in a political climate (set forth by the GOP, and widely absorbed) where America is always great, omnipotent, and moral, and when we suggest deigning to let the little brown people and the unworthy regimes of the world touch our robes, it's a big deal and politically risky. Sad, but true.

[EFerrari]

35. The only constituency that might have a beef with Castro

are timing out. They vote Republican any way.

You really need to learn something about Cuba and so does Obama. Because continuing to pour kool aid is just flat out destructive.

No, Obama is wrong and it will cost him and it will cost us good will, too. Our Cuban policy is sort of like our torture policy. The world reviles it.

[Wetzelbill]

6. I think when you have a record of never having a policy that worked

It kind of nullifies your credibility when you criticize somebody else's policies. I'm just saying...

[ProfessorGAC]

13. You're Just Saying . . .The Absolutely Correct Thing

Is anyone really listening to Silverspoon anymore?
The Professor

[Mika]

7. Looks like Obama wants a more aggressive policy against Cuba.

``the American people aren't looking for more of do-nothing Cuba policy that has failed to secure the release of dissidents, failed to bring democracy to the island and failed to advance freedom for 50 years.''

Seems like Mr Obama is either unaware of how ACTIVE US policy has been against Cuba for 50 years, or he is just making shit up.

[Wetzelbill]

9. I'd say he's thinking more along proactive lines

But yeah, do nothing hardly describes our Cuba policy for the last fifty years for sure.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Actually, I think it HAS been a sort of do-nothing policy, after the

Kennedy administration. What have we done besides embargoes? And travel restrictions? We can do agribusiness there, so they don't starve, but other than that, we basically shut them out of the world and ignored them. Which is dumb, because we have active relations and extensive trade with other communist, non-human-rights-respecting countries. Why is Cuba so nefarious, and China isn't?

[EFerrari]

20. His policy position is nearly indistinguishable from Junior's. As is Clinton's. nt

[Mika]

10. Cuba needs the US to "advance freedom"?

Before the 1959 revolution

75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.

More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.

85% had no inside running water.

91% had no electricity.

There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.

More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.

Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.

The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.

45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.

25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.

1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).

27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.

Racial discrimination was widespread.

The public school system had deteriorated badly.

Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.

Police brutality and torture were common.

___



After the 1959 revolution
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.

No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.

The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.

The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.

Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.

Can Americans make this claim about their own country? I'm afraid not.


Cubans want normalization between the US and Cuba, and they have thrown their doors open to us, but, it is our US government that prevents what the majority of Americans want their government to do - normalize relations. Worse yet, the US government forbids and has criminalized travel to Cuba by Americans - something that Cuba hasn't done.

[Billy Burnett]

11. Yes, Mika. Americans have that midas touch. Wherever they go freedom is on the march.

After all. look at the freedom America has brought to gitmo.

``````
Billboards on the Malecón, Havana

[spanone]

12. bu$h* doctrine....bomb now, bomb later

[Smith_3]

14. Talking to Cuba is bad, but borrowing three billion dollars from China is good.

As long as you use the cash, to buy weapons for "allied" Iraqi militias :eyes:

[bdamomma]

15. shut up *, no one is listening to you.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Notice he doesn't criticize Hillary's policy which she stated in the debate

Either Bushie agrees with it or thought it was not worth mentioning

Interesting.

[EFerrari]

22. They are vitually the same and the same as his own. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. Still doesn't explain why..

I'm looking at underlying political motives.

Clinton's explanation at the debate was more hardline than Obama's.
However both are more hardline than what I would like to see.

Hillary is not out of this race by far, and still could win this race
but I see a three way tag team in the last week occurring with Bush, McCain and "another candidate" against Obama's foreign policy stance.

[EFerrari]

27. It's an insult to Clinton and an attack on Obama. A 2-fer, imho. n/t

[Johonny]

18. tyrant such as Raúl Castro

= tyrant with no oil connections. Tyrants that directly fund terrorists and Bushes Dad get talked to.

[OhioBlue]

19. This from the guy that

looks into Putin's soul and sees a good man
holds hands with King Abdullah
Allies with Musharraf


but yeah, we shouldn't talk to neighboring Cuba 'cause the leader is a bad man. but,,,,,, we can talk to these other guys because they're not bad men.... well, they are.... but, we should talk to them to advance our interests.... but not to neighboring Cuba because we have no interests?????

Yeah - I don't friggin' get it.

[EFerrari]

21. Re post: Mr. Castro, Senator Obama and the Case of Don Siegelman.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_080224_mr__castro_2c_senator_.htm

[stillcool]

30. what do you think...

about the need to say certain things about foreign policy in order to get elected..or, would any candidate get to where Clinton, and Obama are without making concessions to certain industries and interests? I have never heard a candidate, or a politician discuss in detail the cause and effect of this countries penchant for intervention due to business interests. Or how the Pentagon over-rules domestic policy. And, how does the fact that we are the world's leader in the manufacturing and selling of weaponry, play into the equation of bombs vs. diplomacy? I get so confused about the importance of geopolitical strategies, when I know so little about who the players really are, and what moves are being made to achieve prominence on the world stage. Is there any country that explains this to it's citizenry. Like do the Brits know what actions it's government is taking on behalf of BP? Something else that confuses me is the emergence of high-tech advancements in the communications industry, and how that is being used to promote dominance. It seems like this stuff has been going on forever, and don't know if it can be separated from who we are. After all, it defines who we are, more than anything else I can think of.

[EFerrari]

33. Nothing defines us better than our militarism and our euphemisms for the same.

:shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. Poor georgie. Still stupid after all these years. And arrogant/condescending, etc.

Oh and georgie, your "judgment" is always a mistake.

[tanyev]

32. "Bush said he wants changes on the island first"

Boosh wants Uncle George Herbert Walker's shares of West Indies Sugar back in the family first.

[LeftinOH]

36. "..sitting down at a table, having your picture taken with a tyrant.."

..and this is coming from the hand-holding, cheek-kissing pal of Saudi Royalty. Cubans have far more freedom than Saudis (especially the women). What a hypocritical asshole.