CLINTON REPROVES CUBA FOR NOT GOING ALONG WITH U.S. POLICY

What's Hillary Clinton's problem with Cuba and the Castros? Obama needs to order the blockade to be lifted so that normal relations can begin. To say that Cuba must institute reforms before the embargo is removed is too humiliating for Cuban leaders and the Cuban people, and they will not comply as a matter of national pride.

The BBC reports on Clinton's latest statement:

"Cuba's leaders do not want to normalise ties with the US because then they would lose their excuse for the state of the country, says Hillary Clinton.

"Cuba's response to recent US efforts to improve relations had revealed "an intransigent, entrenched regime" in Havana, said the US secretary of state.

"The Cuban authorities have long blamed a 48-year US trade embargo for holding back the country's development.

"The US says the embargo will remain until Cuba improves human rights."

Why is every government that disagrees with policies of the U.S. called a "regime," and why is the Cuban government "intransigent" and "entrenched?"

Clinton never explains. All of Latin America is calling for the U.S. to lift the embargo which hurts the common Cubano trying to make a living. Medicines from the U.S. are scarce and spare parts on American products are impossible to get. This embargo has been going on for 48 years, and what has it produced? Just misery and deprivation for the ordinary Cuban.

The history of Cuban sanctions proves an important point. Sanctions hardly ever work in bringing about political change. The U.S. tried to bring down Fidel Castro by punishing ordinary Cubans economically. But the Castros are still in power. So where is Barack Obama on all of this? And where is his commitment to negotiate instead of waging war, albeit economic war?

The current U.S. policy as enunciated by Hillary Clinton and approved by Barack Obama is a huge failure and an embarassment in all of Latin America.

U.S. LOCKS CUBA OUT OF LATIN AMERICAN MEETING

Why can't Cuba and its representatives attend the Summit of America, a gathering of countries from Latin America and North America in Trinidad-Tobago beginning on April 17? Who made the decision not to invite Cuba?

The BBC reports that Fidel Castro asked the leaders of Latin and South America to bring up the subject of the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Writes the BBC:

"Fidel Castro has called on Latin American countries to support an end to Cuba's isolation when they meet the US president at a regional summit.

"Cuba is not invited to attend the Summit of the Americas, which opens in Trinidad and Tobago on 17 April.

"In a newspaper editorial, the former president said that the summit would be a "trial by fire" for the region.

"He urged leaders to ensure that both Cuba's isolation and the US trade embargo against it were on the agenda."

Has Obama forgot so soon his promise to talk with countries where there are philosophical and political differences? We know the Republicans would like nothing better than to bomb Cuba to the stone age, given their premise not to negotiate with "enemies." But I don't see how Obama could have approved excluding Cuba and its president Raul Castro.

Almost all the Latin countries support an end to the cruel and pointless U.S. embargo. The real victims of the U.S. action are the people of Cuba who are deprived of ordinary necessities of life. Raul and Fidel Castro are no worse as leaders than Mubarak of Egypt or King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, two "allies" of the U.S. Instead of continuing the embargo, we need to see Obama adopt a more realistic, less cruel, policy of treating Cuba and its people with respect.

Reports the BBC:

"Almost all the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean now support an end to the embargo and want Cuba re-admitted to the organisation of American states, says the BBC's Michael Voss, in Havana.

"Mr Castro said that he had seen a draft text of the final statement which the US wants to be signed at the summit. It contained "a great number of inadmissible concepts", he wrote, and did not acknowledge the calls for better Cuba-US ties.

""Who is now demanding our exclusion? Perhaps they don't understand that times of exclusionary agreements against our people have been left far behind," he wrote.

"US President Barack Obama has taken a less confrontational approach to the communist nation than his predecessor, George W Bush, our correspondent adds.
But his administration continues to insist that there must be progress towards democracy and on human rights before the trade embargo can be lifted."

MEDVEDEV ON VISIT TO LATIN AMERICA, MEETS LULA, HUGO CHAVEZ & RAUL CASTRO

Lost in the sad news of the attacks in Mumbai is the visit of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, to Latin America. He has met with Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and today with Raul Castro of Cuba.

The BBC reports on Medvedev's Latin excursion:

"Mr Medvedev's visit was part of a Latin American tour aimed at boosting both Russia's presence and trade ties in a region traditionally of strategic importance to the US.

"Boosting bilateral trade between Russia and Latin America, which could reach $15bn (£9.9bn) this year, is another priority for the Russian president during his talks.

"The Russian leader travelled to Venezuela from Brazil, where he and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held talks on boosting trade and technical co-operation."

Medvedev shows how Obama should treat Latin America. For one thing, Medvedev has no qualms in talking to other cultures and visiting far-off countries. He treats each leader with respect, and that includes Castro, Chavez and Lula. Medvedev takes the initiative, unlike Bush, who wants to be courted and fawned over by leaders he thinks are beneath him. Obama in his campaign said he would sit down and talk with everyone, and here is Medvedev doing just that.

OBAMA NEEDED MORE PREPARATION FOR DEBATE, ALWAYS ON DEFENSIVE, FAILS TO WHACK MC CAIN ON CIA TORTURE, GEORGIA OR WAR WITHOUT END

The New York Times reports in today's paper that after John McCain said that he was breaking off his campaign to return to D.C. for the bail-out talks and that he wanted to cancel last night's debate, Barack Obama too stopped preparing for the debate. Apparently, the Obama camp had set up an elaborate training site in Florida with stand-ins for the moderator Jim Lehrer and for McCain. Maybe this is what McCain's transparent ploy had in mind.

Obama last night seemed flat and not well-prepared. For example, he said nothing to contradict McCain's claim that he always opposed torture in interrogations even though McCain sided with Bush in voting to allow the CIA to continue that abominable practice.

Obama failed to point out that it was Georgia and Saakashvili who started the Russian/Georgian war by lobbing lethal shells and missiles at the mostly Russian civilian population in South Ossetia. And he stayed mute even when McCain derided him for saying at the beginning of the conflict that both sides need to exercise restraint.

Obama said nothing when McCain said he was naive for saying that he would have talks with world leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (whose pronunciation McCain slaughtered along with Ahmadinejad of Iran) and Cuba's Raul Castro.

Obama was too laid back, too placid, too boring. I attribute all of these failings to his suspension of debate preparation. If I was a campaign adviser, I would read him the riot act.

BUSH DENIGRATES RAUL CASTRO, CALLS CUBAN REFORMS "SO CALLED"

Now George Bush says he will seek to change the U.S. law on trading with Cuba to allow Cubans in the U.S. to send cell phones to their relatives in Cuba.

Bush says this move is designed to see if "Raul" carries through with his "so called reforms."

Is it necessary for Mr. Bush to call everyone by his or her first name, even other world leaders? It seems contemptuous and condescending for Bush to call President Raul Castro by his first name. I get the impression first-naming other leaders is a technique for Bush to demonstrate his own "superiority."

Furthermore, what is achieved by terming Cuba's relations "so called reforms"? Today, Cubans have many more economic freedoms and liberties than in the past. Does Bush do any good to U.S.-Cuban relations by minimizing and questioning Raul Castro's reforms to date?

SOME OF GEORGE BUSH 'S CLOSEST ALLIES ARE TYRANTS AND DICTATORS WHO DENY HUMAN RIGHTS

George Bush is quick to condemn Barack Obama for saying that he would sit down with world leaders, especially with those with whom the previous U.S. government has had unpleasant relations. Bush warned that such meetings would lend an air of credibility and legitimacy to those leaders who abused their own people and denied them basic rights.

Here's the White House transcript of Bush's words.

"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs. . . .

"Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States. "

But wait! Don't we have fotos of George Bush himself sitting down and hugging tyrants like Vladimir Putin, the King of Saudi Arabia who believes in 200 lashes for rape victims, Islam Karimov, the tyrannical president of Uzbekistan, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Take Musharraf. He dismissed the Pakistani Supreme Court, put the chief justice under house arrest, and sent the police out to beat up the peaceful Pakistani lawyers who were protesting Musharraf's disdain for the rule of law. Yet Bush considers him a friend and an ally.

So what gives with Bush's animosity to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The answer is a hypocritical hostility towards those leaders who don't bow down before George W. Bush.

For the fotos, take a look at Think Progress here.

INSTEAD OF DROPPING BOMBS ON U.S. "ENEMIES," FAR BETTER TO TALK AND NEGOTIATE

One of the main reasons why we need to see Barack Obama elected as president is his attitude towards foreign policy and his willingness to meet with foreign leaders with whom the U.S. has had run-ins.

George Bush says it would be unseemly to meet with Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But why? Because Raul Castro believes in Cuba's socialist revolution? Because Hugo Chavez publicly insulted George Bush by calling him "satan"? Because Ahmadinejad is a devout believer in Islam?

Meeting with leaders who disagree with American leaders or with the foreign policy of the U.S. does not exhibit weakness or or lack of judgment. Rather it indicates strength and maturity. Instead of the leaders of the United States solving all problems with guns and missiles, it is long overdue that Americans have a president who believes it is far better to talk and negotiate. Rather than declaring certain leaders and countries as "enemies" of the U.S., we should treat all countries with respect and openness.

This is the main reason why we must elect Barack Obama as president.

BUSH REFUSES TO THINK U.S. HOSTILITY TOWARDS CUBA EVEN AFTER CASTRO RETIRES

The U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is one of the main reasons why we need Bush to leave office and Obama to come in. Bush refuses to rethink American foreign policy to Cuba even after Fidel Castro says his days in government are over. The U.S. maintains an economic blockade against Cuba and against the Cuban people. This is the message of Bush: we said we are punishing Castro but even when Castro departs, as he is now doing, we will maintain the blockade and punishment against the Cuban people themselves.

The U.S. needs to sit down with Raul Castro and the other Cuban leaders and work with them for the mutual benefit of both Americans and Cubans. Instead of treating Cuba as an "enemy" of the U.S., we need to initiate dialog and contact. We need to foster friendship and respect instead of hostility and animosity.

Friendship between Cuba and the U.S. will never come as long as Bush or the Republicans hold the White House.