I'd like to know what you all think about Obama's remarks today on Latin America

Here's the link to the transcript:

http://obama.3cdn.net/f579b3802a3d35c8d5_9aymvyqpo.pdf

I have to go earn my bread right now, but hope we can talk about this later this evening or in the morning.

:hi:

but it is interesting that he backs striking the FARC if they try to set up safe haven outside of Colombia.

the Cuban position seems no different than the current. only if the Castro boys make progress towards opening up their society would he accept a meeting with Raul.

the Peace Corps expansion is OK but I think most countries in the region have moved beyond what Peace Corps can do, the countries need more skilled professionals than recent college grads have to offer.

one glaring ommission is illegal immigration. didn't see anything on that.

overall, I think its sound even if rather vague on some issues.

nevertheless, I'll go against the grain and vote for Obama instead of the front runners on the Latin American board, Chavez and Castro.

A couple of first impressions;

-this speech was way beyond the scope of CANF and way over the head of the attendees

-whoever wrote the speech has an agenda that will ultimately be damaging for Obama

-more than anything this speech reassures the defense equipment manufacturers that the US will be scooting around Latin America and that their contracts are safe

-this "going beyond the ballot box" is ominous and the comments about Chavez being democratically elected, but not ruling democratically is crap

-diplomacy went out the window in this speech and was replaced with "guns blazing" rhetoric

I'll come back later and check to see what other folks are saying

I get the impression that most here won't be on board with our Democratic nominee.

Former Sen. David Boren is Obama's foreign policy advisor and seems to have some troublesome right wing tendencies. Check out the URL below. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't the author of Obama's speech in Miami.This blog has a 3-part series on this.

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/part-iii-obama-adviser-david-l-boren-re-foreign-policy/

The guy on the left.

He worked with Melvin Laird on a book?

What is Barack Obama thinking?

By the way, in case you hadn't heard, at one time Miami was the largest CIA base in the world.

Really appreciate the information on Boren. It goes a LONG way in explaining the perplexing language. Hope someone will deprogram the candidate! He's been hijacked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More
Posted on April 20, 2008 by GRL
In Part I of this series on Obama’s newest adviser, fmr. Senator David L. Boren, I provided an overview of some of Boren’s activities specific to his “unity” efforts and some of his foreign policy “expertise.” (Part III will delve deeper into his foreign policy activities.)

This post, Part II, will explore Boren’s activities on the domestic front, with a focus on his political background followed by a detailed examination of how he almost single-handedly derailed President Clinton’s 1993 economic plan. The long-term implications of his activities in 1993 haunt us today and it should raise concerns about Obama’s ties to him now…because although these were “domestic” issues, the key parts of the plan involving energy morph into foreign policy concerns as well.

BOREN’S POLITICAL BACKGROUND

Lyle Boren, David L. Boren’s father, served in Congress from 1937 to 1947. He often broke with his party, notably by being against much of FDR’s New Deal. His son also served in the House (1967-1974) and then became governor of Oklahoma in 1975. He was in the U.S. Senate from 1979 until he resigned in 1994 to become President of the University of Oklahoma.

Boren was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale. He has been a member in the National Legal for the Public Interest along with Dick Cheney, Ken Starr and Ted Olson. Other organizations he was involved with include the Forum for International Policy (with Ken Lay of Enron also a member) and the conservative Democratic think tank known as the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (surprise! Bill Richardson is also listed as a member). (See here for more information on these and other organizations.)

Then there are his board positions, which have included Phillips Petroleum and later Conoco-Phillips (1995-2005; Torchmark, a life and health insurance company; and Hiland Partners, L.P., described as “a midstream energy partnership engaged in gathering, compressing, dehydrating, treating, processing and marketing natural gas, and fractionating, or separating natural gas liquids.”

It was during the “gasoline crisis” of the mid-1970s that “Boren rose to prominence on the national scene when he spoke out in favor of deregulation of natural gas prices at the federal level. As a result, Pres. Jimmy Carter appointed him chair of a task force of representatives from thirty states to study the problem,” according to the Oklahoma Historical Society’s Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.

Boren broke with his party by voting in favor of the Supreme Court nominations of Robert H. Bork and Clarence Thomas. (He has since said his vote for Judge Thomas was a mistake.)

More:
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/part-ii-obamas-advisor-david-l-boren-how-he-screwed-us-long-term-in-1993-by-ruining-clintons-economic-plan-re-energy-and-more/

I should have checked here first, but I put out a separate post on the 3-part blog post on Boren. Oh well, at least we will cover all the bases! When I saw that he was a member of skull and bones --I knew it was bad.

It's good to have a thread open for Boren, anyway.

We need to find out why this guy was chosen and when the heck he's going to go! This guy just won't work out. He's not like a Democrat, actually.

Hope we'll see him throw himself under the bus soon. It would be the right thing to do!

I was at an African Liberation Day reception last night an many of the guests had not had a chance to read the transcript of Obama's speech. When I summarized it for them, they were flabbergasted. I told them it was important to find out who wrote the speech. They said, "good idea -- we look forward to seeing what you find out." So that is why I ended up trying to track this thing down last night.

We are organizing a group of people to get this info out on blogs, in op-eds and developing a few more schemes. as well. STAY TUNED!!

criminals who live there!

Every politician who goes to speak in Miami ends up sounding like Genghis Khan, it's what they respond to at the CANF gatherings, apparently. The people are rattlesnakes.



Havana's that-a-way!



Quick, man the boats.

A quick response to that speech just might get the message through to this guy about a subject he may not have taken nearly enough time on to learn well: Latin America. It's surely possible he's largely not well informed, yet! As you know, our own corporate media have had an almost total news blackout on Latin America from the first.

Now they write feverishly about Latin America (from the administration's position) since _Bush has stepped up aggression against Latin American leftists.

to do that work.

Thank you, magbana!

doesn't need to change a thing about their Cuba Democracy Program based on this speech.

I knew he tended that way but, mother of God in heaven, this was awful.

The World Bank? The same entity that is privatizing WATER all over the place?

The EMBARGO?

Freedom in Cuba? What about freedom for the prisoners in Cook County?

I do want to know who wrote this. It can't even be remotely described as a progressive position.

Sadly, there is very little difference between the parties when it comes to Latin American policy. Sometimes the policy is outright military intervention - other times there is just economic pressure to accept whatever "free market" nonsense our Corporate masters dictate. Oddly enough, Bush has been so distracted by the Middle East and Afghanistan, it has actually given Latin America some breathing space to make its own decisions.

The looming oil and food crisis is the major issue facing Latin America now.

"The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency. Last March, Colombian security forces targeted a senior Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) leader, and Ecuador and Venezuela moved troops and tanks to their borders with Colombia, bringing hostilities to a boiling point. But this must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. In an Obama administration, we will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders, to defend itself against FARC and we will address any support for the FARC that comes from members of neighboring governments because this behavior must be exposed to international condemnation and regional isolation."

Who knew that Obama was one of those despicable "Right Wing" "Neocons"?

And to think he's fooled everybody into thinking he's a Democrat.

There are new numbers of other people moving into South Florida now, from other places, and it's just a matter of time until this repellant blob of freaks gets diluted FOREVER. They will lose that ill gotten power, and it won't be as long as they think.

Jorge Mas Santos got up and spent everyone's precious time foaming at the mouth, waving his crude mits around just like Lincoln Diaz-Balart, churning them all up into a helpless puddle of infantile emotionalism, and then he told Barack Obama what it is that he was going to have to do to please these scumballs.



Father, Rafael, sons Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario.
You don't get the full Diaz-Balart, if
they don't wave their claws around a lot.

He astonishingly referred to his group as "leaders" of America. Yep, LEADERS. Who, them?????? The mad-dog, half-wit, pompous, strutting, duplicitous, muderous, narcissistic, corrupt, dishonest assholes who turned Miami into both, as per the U.S. Census Bureau's multiple time winner of "Poorest City over 200,000 People in the United States," and, according to the FBI, "America's Terror Capital?" Miami was known for vote fraud years before the 2000 election.

Trash.

In the meantime, refocus, and remember how many Democrats are going to be changing the picture in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate. In both places the right-wing psychopath influence is going to be flushed, and it's about time.

That's where the Cuba legislation happens. If they pass a great new bit of Cuba legislation, I'm certain a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, won't veto it. There are MANY supporters of new relations with Cuba, who have voted in a majority for new Cuba legislation before, only to have the changes struck down in committee, or in other backstabbing maneuvers, by Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

That's all over! He's going to be unable to do any damage now.

Time to clean up the damage, time to heal the sick, mend the wounded, get on with LIFE, for a change. A decent Congress will accomplish this.

Sounds as if you disagree with Obama's position.

Guess he'll never be a "real DUer", because you know much more about the true situation than he does.

You've probably never even been to Miami, either.

then again, the Underground part is quite fitting.

Obama will certainly be better to engage Latin America than Bush. I agree with Obama on willingness to "talk" to antagonistic leaders as well. but the questions; what for?, does Obama really need to?, should be asked as well.

I'd like to hear more about immigration and outsourcing of jobs though.

:rofl:

I found the speech very disheartening.

That's the way they LIVE! It's a 24/7 hate machine. Their talk radios drone on day in, day out, yammering about Cuba, and they attempt to "out" Miami Cubans they imagine might just be "appeasers," or dialogue-seekers. They actually give out their political enemies' addresses and phone numbers on the radio programs to make it easy for their listeners to harrass them.

When Cuban musicians have come to the town to perform, there have been bomb threats at the auditoriums, or the locals show up early, and start throwing D-cell batteries, rocks, bottles, eggs, even baggies filled with excrement at the people who attempt to go in to hear the bands play, like "Los Van Van." At one of the concerts a Van Van fan had to be taken to the hospital because of the assault from the crowd outside. They shriek filthy language at the women, and spit on everyone.

When they decided to throw a city-wide tantrum over Elián Gonzalez' judgement turning him over to his father, by a court, they demanded all shopkeepers shut their stores, all over town, and bring the entire town to a standstill, and they got death threats to the ones who insisted in staying open for business. They burned tires in the streets, and when some of them were taken to jail, city commissioners took meals down to them.

If Cuban painters have work being sold in galleries, chances are the store just might get firebombed. All these things have happened.

See what Human Rights Watch had to say about Miami:

T HE FOREIGN-LANGUAGE press is no small industry in the United States. New York City has at least 140 immigrant-run newspapers and magazines, and hundreds of other such publications and broadcast organizations exist across the country. California has six Vietnamese-language daily newspapers and 35 weeklies. Many of the millions of Hispanics and Asians in the United States get their information primarily from publications and broadcast outlets that write or speak in their native languages.
And yet foreign-language journalists operate in a world where the First Amendment is often irrelevant. Many of these news outlets are part of tight-knit immigrant enclaves where deviation from certain political or religious orthodoxies can make journalists pariahs, or subject them to physical attack. "I can tell you that the United States Constitution does not exist in Miami," says Francisco Aruca, a left-leaning radio personality in Miami. "There is an unwritten law in Miami: If you are expressing views against the anti-Castro industry, you are going to pay a price."
Aruca has paid that price more than once. The Cuban immigrant has long been a thorn in the side of virulently anti-Communist exiles who make up the Cuban community's business and political elite in South Florida. He first aroused their ire in the late 1970s, when he founded Marazul Charters, a travel agency that arranges tours to Cuba. But what really made him a traitor in the eyes of the anti-Castro lobby was his creation of Radio Progreso, which features Spanish-language programs in which Aruca attacks both the economic embargo of Havana and what he describes as the political intolerance of the chief exile groups. His programs, which air weekdays on WOCN 1450-AM, also carry entertainment from Cuba's state-run radio.
Exile groups regularly brand Aruca an agent of Castro's government, a charge he laughs off. The 59-year-old immigrant points out that he spent time in a Cuban prison in the 1960s for anti-Castro activity. But he doesn't laugh off some of the other tactics used against him, like the noisy demonstrations outside the station's offices or the broken windows or frequent death threats.
In February 1992, a few weeks after the militant exile group Alpha 66 demonstrated outside the radio station, three men broke into the building late on a Sunday night, looking for Aruca. Informed he wasn't there, they beat and tied up the operations manager and ransacked the station. Terrorists have also firebombed Marazul Charters--in 1989 and again in 1996--attacks that Aruca says were directed at his radio program. No one was arrested in any of the incidents and police never accused Alpha 66 of a link to the beatings at the station. "We have constant pressure on us," says Aruca. "We are a well-listened-to program, but companies cannot advertise with us. They are afraid."
Aruca is not the only journalist who has been targeted in Miami. Emilio Milian, the general manager of another Miami radio station, WWFE 550-AM, has sharply criticized anti-Castro terrorism. He lost both legs when his car was blown up in 1976.
Human Rights Watch/Americas issued reports in 1992 and 1994 that condemned the perils to free expression in Miami and warned that right-wing radio stations were inciting groups to violence. "Only a narrow range of speech is acceptable, and views that go beyond these boundaries may be dangerous to the speaker," said the 1994 report, the last study the group made of the region.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=766

~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can see it's virtually impossible to speak with these people as if they are actually human. That may have a whole lot to do with the tone of that completely disappointing speech.

You recall right-wingers always like to pretend to be moderate, then, when they win, and the heat is right, they all stampede to the right, and start gutting the country and handing off all the resources to themselves.

With any luck, this guy was trying to "get along" with the Miami Mafia, and will reserve his better thoughts on Latin America for when he's in office. One can only hope!

If not, well, we still have a better Congress, going more progressive every 2 years.

If all he knows at the moment is what he's read in the corporate media, he's GOING to be addled.

Once he asks for real information, and can get it, he'll see the whole story.

As we all know, with _Bush if he doesn't get the information he says he wants, Cheney goes and coerces the information from the intelligence people, one way or another. They've testified to that, so it won't do any good if visiting right-wing clowns attempt to deny this.

I don't think Barack Obama is that kind of a liar.

It's rather presumptuous, condescending, and patronizing for you to imply that Obama isn't bright, or is being misled, because he's expressed positions that are different than yours.

If anything, he's got the resources to be much more tuned in to ground truth than you are, with your absolute reliance on articles you glean off the internet.

of educated people who use their brains to think, not for hate, power mongering or exploiting their fellows. Maybe you should trying gleaning a little more yourself.

Are you also saying that Obama is uneducated on the subject of his policy positions?

As far as exploiting their fellows, Castro's policies have led to the impoverishment of his entire country. It is not surprising that many people disagree with the policies of his autocratic regime.

Maybe he's just trying to be more Catholic than the Pope at this point to garner votes in Florida -- that's a political calculation.

But this isn't the first time, for example, that he's made the same ridiculous statement about political prisoners in Cuba while we're flying 40-60 people out to black sites every day on CIA planes, while innocent people languish in Gitmo and while in his own home Cook County, young black men are rotting in jail from very political and unequal sentencing laws for drug offenses.

It's the same old US paternalism.

And, why is he talking to that bunch of haters in the first place? Couldn't he find a less dirty venue for himself?

As far as Cuba goes, most of the people I hear complaining are people like my Uncle Carlos who lost millions in the revolution and also, American politicians who want to play the exile community. I'm very familiar with that kind of "disagreement".

Yes, Obama has a lot to learn about Latin America. He'd do well to start by realizing that the young people are trending much more liberal than their parents.

and he isn't running on Bush's policies.

but perhaps this is neither the party nor the candidate for you?

perhaps this is NOT the party for me, and I've felt this way for a while...

But this is not the first time I'll be holding my nose while I vote. You work with what you get, and there is no viable Socialist party here.

<snip>

Cuban authorities continue to treat as criminal offenses nonviolent activities such as meeting to discuss the economy or elections, writing letters to the government, reporting on political or economic developments, speaking to international reporters, or advocating the release of political prisoners. While the number of political prosecutions has diminished in the past few years, Cuban courts continue to imprison human rights activists, independent journalists, economists, doctors, and others—all of whom are subjected to the Cuban prison system's inhuman conditions. Even as Cuba released some political prisoners early in 1998—most of whom had completed the majority of their sentences—subsequent trials replenished the ranks of the incarcerated. Prison terms remained a plausible threat to any Cubans considering nonviolent opposition. Yet, in the cases of four prominent dissident leaders arrested by Cuban authorities in July 1997, charged only in September 1998, and tried in March of 1999, the arbitrariness of Cuban repression reached new heights...

<snip>

Read more: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-04.htm

His statements don't sound ridiculous in light of that excerpt taken from a report by Human Rights Watch.

Or is HRW a notorious "right wing organization"?

There's a lot of material there.

Does it state something like: "US authorities continue to treat as criminal offenses nonviolent activities such as meeting to discuss the economy or elections, writing letters to the government, reporting on political or economic developments, speaking to international reporters, or advocating the release of political prisoners?"

Those men were here gathering information on terrorists (who CANF materially supported, btw). They were not spying on the United States in any way. Their political prosecution was a travesty in the most inappropriate venue and they were thrown into the hole as if they themselves were terrorists.

Or, maybe the case of Sami al Haj who was thrown into Gitmo for five years for being a cameraman and tortured in hopes he'd say al Jazeera is an al Qaida front?

Leonard Peltier is still in jail, iirc. He was railroaded in an effort to shut down a Native American political organization.

There are several cases in Alabama beside Siegelman's that are patently political prosecutions. Those people didn't need to advocate anything -- they were simply members of the wrong party.

Or, do some reading on the Quakers, vegans and peace grannies that have been under surveillance for their anti-war views? People arrested for wearing t-shirts. Banned from events for their bumperstickers. Medea Benjamin has many times been arrested, denied travel visas, even escorted out of Pakistan by cooperating US-Pakistani forces for her anti-war views.

There IS a lot of material.

lets hear the alternative vision from those who don't support our Democratic nominee.

lol

I just hope he actually tries diplomacy, and stops all the nefarious shit we've been pulling for the past century or so.

At least, I expected him to go to the University or some more neutral venue.

EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS COME TO MIAMI WITH A PLAN TO "FREE" CUBA SINCE 1960.

One of the former heads of the CANF is Joe Garcia, was head of the Miami-Dade Democratic party until he threw his hat into the race against Lincoln Diaz Balart.

When it comes to Cuba policy, there is only one US political party. Political infiltration of the anti Cuba insurgency has been successful.


Also disturbing - All of the candidates support keeping Americans travel banned or second class citizens regarding travel & Cuba.

Regarding Cuba (and leftist Latin America): new boss ... same as the old boss. :(



-

off the terrorist teat.

I'm just trying to think a little and to gather more information right now. And, no illusions here about the "centrist" Democrats that are allowed to win the nomination.

"talking points." That is the thing we are trying to figure out--why? He did NOT need to do that, for creds as a "mainstream" (rightwing) politician. There are a number of psyops/disinformation points he could have left out. It was very noticeable that he included them. (The two that stand out to me are that Chavez is an "authoritarian," that Chavez "and his allies" may be "terrorist lovers," and that it's okay for fascist Colombia to bomb democratic Ecuador to kill "terrorists.") Good motives? Bad motives? Venal motives? Fear? (What is he afraid of?) Is he poorly informed? Or well-informed--and either savvy, or just plain WRONG? Who wrote it? Did he really know what he was talking about? (His misread on South America putting up with our "leadership" and our "Manifest Destiny" to be the hemisphere's moral guide points to IGNORANCE. Does he have any idea how much things have changed in South America?)

I have no illusions about Obama, and never did. I've always thought that we have a long, perilous struggle ahead of us to restore democracy here. I think his SUPPORTERS are good sign (active, roused up citizenry). I never believed that anyone with a REAL reform agenda would be permitted to become president here, not in the near future--not until we've done hella work on our democracy, including ridding ourselves of Bushite-controlled "trade secret" voting machines. I have all along believed that we will need to recover our democracy in increments--and, in that sense, Obama is a positive, as an incremental improvement. I'm also familiar with his Foreign Policy mag publication. So I am not a shocked, disappointed Obama fan. I think this speech was very odd--and very over the top; and the venue was odd. (What the hell is he doing speaking to the Republican Miami mafia anyway--in a major foreign policy speech? Why choose that venue?)

Also, one of the issues for those of us familiar with South American events, is: Is it worth trying to influence Obama (is he merely disinformed)? What should we do with the info that his stated Latin American policy is 90% Bush Junta, with a dollop of whipped cream on it (he's willing to talk to our "enemies")?

(our non-existent taxpayer indebtedness bankrupt dollars in hock unto the 7th generation). $5.5 BILLION in military aid to Colombia alone. Billions to the Miami mafia in welfare support of rich Cubans. All the major drug routes from Colombia to the U.S. The 4th Fleet and all its brethren on land. Corporate biofuel profiteering (and killing of the planet.) Pesticide corps ("war on drugs"). Bullet corps. Helicopter corps. Military uniform corps. Dyncorp. Water rights to major aquifers. The biggest oil reserves in the western hemisphere (Venezuela, Ecuador). World Bank/IMF loan shark profits. Slave labor force of desperate poor brown people. And on and on. I wouldn't be surprised if, taken all together, South American boodle trumps Mideast boodle.

BIG boodle = BIG danger for U.S. politicians. (Ask the Kennedy's.) So-o-o-o...

Has Obama made a deal with the devil? (David Boren/CIA)

Rafael Correa said an interesting thing about the Devil. When they asked him about Chavez's remark at the UN that Bush is the Devil, he replied that it is "an insult to the Devil." (And I love the fact that his 50/50 numbers in his presidential race jumped to 60/40--his final vote margin--after this reply. Don't know if the two things are related; but it didn't hurt him at all.)

The thing is that the Devil--the global corporate predators who are oppressing us all--is much BIGGER than Bush, Cheney & cabal. Bush, Cheney & cabal are just their water boys. The Devil's henchmen. And no President of the United States is safe from them.

Is Boren Obama's watcher--FOR them--or "white hat" CIA protection FROM them?

I had NO IDEA that Obama had such an adviser. It certainly explains the Miami speech--but maybe not so simply as we think (U.S. "Manifest Destiny" propaganda). He may have been advised to do that for his own safety. I wonder when Boren came aboard. And I don't know--I really don't know--if it's good or bad. You see, it's not just vote counting that is non-transparent in this country. It is EVERYTHING that is non-transparent in this country. We really don't have any idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes in this government. So Boren could be evidence of a "white-hat" CIA takedown of this Bushite fascist coup. (Tenet would certainly have motive for that--they really screwed with him.) I've had the feeling for some time now that Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table," was some kind of bargain. I thought it might be "we won't impeach you, if you don't nuke Iran," but now I'm thinking maybe it was "we won't impeach you, if you don't nuke Iran, and if you agree to step down peacefully when the time comes."

Now, think about oil, for a minute. Iraq is a disaster. They may never reach full production again. And if Iran is off limits (maybe because it risks war with China, or a general nuclear holocaust), where else is there sufficient oil to fuel U.S. global corporate predator "free trade" (plus the U.S. military all over the frigging planet)?

They either have to take down Chavez and Correa--which the Bushites have been unable to do (because democracy is the strongest defense of all, don't ya know), OR somehow take them down democratically (the Chavez/Correa are "terrorist lovers" crap and all the other crap--the Miami "suitcase full of money" caper, etc. ), OR they have to be nice to them. Obama's speech sort of dances between the latter two. Smear them, or listen to/cooperate with them. It holds the smear out as a threat. But it also holds out a (barbed) olive branch--"we're willing to TALK."

Just some thoughts, on learning that David Boren is involved. Still thinking it through. That's all we can do, really--read the entrails. That's what we, the People, are reduced to. And hope that it's not as bad as it looks. (NEVER, NEVER forget who Obama is up against.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yeah, right. The drug problem stops at the border.

As those of us less starry-eyed observers have noted, the narcos' activities have definitely spilled over national boundaries into other South and Central American countries. A well-organized and well-financed criminal enterprise can EASILY do to Ecuador what the Colombian cartels did to the north--overwhelm the central government with firepower, organization, and terror tactics.

DU's Marxist acolytes have probably failed to notice this phenomenon because their ideological mentors didn't think such things were possible or worthy of consideration.

I will give the Castros credit for keeping the narco-traffickers from doing to Cuba what they've done elsewhere in the Caribbean. I doubt that they did it for ideological purity; I suspect it was because they're bright enough not to let anything with the potential for wealth and power that the traffickers have displayed elsewhere get a toehold on Cuban shores.

it must first have the cooperation of the terrorist Colombian regime, not to mention, BushCo's.

U.S. INTELLIGENCE LISTED COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT URIBE AMONG
"IMPORTANT COLOMBIAN NARCO-TRAFFICKERS" IN 1991

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/index.htm

Go spew this right wing tripe somewhere where people don't know better. Marxist acolytes, my bald headed abuela.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Surely, you weren't making fun of me were you?

but you have my approval if you want to use that screen name too, Magbana.

Colombia IS the regional problem.

The speech in Miami FASCINATES me. Don't overlook the fact that this is his first true "general election" event. He is trying to send a signal here to somebody.

I truly can't figure out which group it is, the anti-Castro, non-engagement Cubans or the apparently growing number of Cubans who are shut off from serious family events there.

I am trying to learn more about this region because I have been moved by the stories of Cuban American acquaintances. This thread has a lot of food for thought.

and much more to do with Chavez and Venezuela. Copying here a post I left on the "What in the FARC is Obama doing?" topic.:

"CANF may be an obligatory stop for most candidates, but ususally . . . Updated at 2:23 PM

the campaign strategy is to make it a SHORT visit with a SHORT speech that says crappy things about Fidel and then make a quick exit. What was unusual about Obama's speech to CANF on Friday is that it was LONG an focused on a wide variety of Latina American issues.. Given his nuanced and not so nuanced shifts on what he has been saying about Chavez, I think the whole point of his CANF speech was to let the world know that he is ready to kick ass in Venezuela. This makes me think that his advisors are privy to information suggesting the US is closing in on Chavez a la the article I posted about the Pentagon moving around the chess pieces.

His speech was unfortunate, but certainly meant to go well beyond the CANF folks."


Anyway, just a speculation of mine.

trying to appease a certain segment of the electorate who knows that FARC must be hunted down and destroyed, along with their supporters.

There are a lot of people whose consciences won't accept that.

I slept all day and woke up to this garbage.

My feelings about Obama just did a 180 - from liking him quite a lot to disgust at his parroting the same old shit.

You can't just blame his foreign policy advisor - it's his mouth saying those things.

you, you could end up being assassinated, like John F. Kennedy!

These creeps have been delighted to involve themselves in filthy, murderous violence for decades, all over the world, including their big triumph, Watergate. Maybe that's the reason politicians seem to bow and scrape to them.

and came across an analysis of JFK's primary speeches re foreign policy. They were balanced a lot like this speech of Obama's, "tough" and also, inviting discourse.

And guess who is advising Obama? Ted Sorenson, former aide and speechwriter to JFK. So . . . I don't think any of this is an accident.

once, just once, we could have a leader who isn't business as usual in Latin America. While we were fucking up the Middle East even more than anyone thought was possible, Latin America was doing something wonderful. I just want to hear just one of them tell the truth and failing that, to keep their mouths shut.

Which I will do now, but I'm still bitterly disappointed...

All viable candidates must adopt certain qualified positions which are defined by the official foreign policy establishment in Washington, as well as elite political commentary found in the so called MSM. These positions include the policies regarding Latin America that have been well established for many decades. One cannot defy 'American interests' in Latin America, which can be generally defined as the control over resources, markets and labor there by the U.S corporate political power structure.

I suppose one can't judge Obama too harshly. He is after all, a politician who must deal with the realities of the American political system, and as such, he has no choice but to embrace certain positions if he wants to continue receiving campaign funding and the bestowment of viability by those who own and control the propaganda machine. Hopefully, he will find the ability to do what is right once he is in office, but I am very skeptical.

I'll be holding my nose along with you this election season and hoping for a day when the interests of wealth and power no longer have control over our political system.

I suppose I'll have to visit the basement more often. It is rather amusing, reading the 'analysis' of certain individuals who frequent the Latin America threads and think they know something about the world. It's interesting that one rarely, if ever, sees them commenting on other topics. Perhaps it would reveal more about their 'progressive' positions than they care to.

Its good to see you. I've been wondering about you.

That is his job.

Our job, if you will, is different, is to challenge both as publicly as possible. I'm going to try to write a little series that does that and get it up somewhere on the net. There are many of you here in this forum that know more than I do and I hope you'll consider doing the same during the run up to November. :)

I would love to read your commentary on the subject.

on Cable TV, on the Discovery Channel, which you would find fascinating:

Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW

Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort

Posted - November 24, 2003



Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in ." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."

Among the key documents relevant to this history:

• Oval Office audio tape, November 5, 1963. The tape records a conversation between the President and McGeorge Bundy regarding Castro's invitation to William Attwood, a deputy to UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, to come to Cuba for secret talks. The President responds that Attwood should be taken off the U.S. payroll prior to such a meeting so that the White House can plausibly deny that any official talks have taken place if the meeting leaks to the press.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Mr. Donovan's Trip to Cuba," March 4, 1963. This document records President Kennedy's interest in negotiations with Castro and his instructions to his staff to "start thinking along more flexible lines" on conditions for a dialogue with Cuba.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Policy," April 11, 1963. A detailed options paper from Gordon Chase, the Latin America specialist on the National Security Council, to McGeorge Bundy recommending "looking seriously at the other side of the coin-quietly enticing Castro over to us."
  
  
• CIA briefing paper, Secret, "Interview of U.S. Newswoman with Fidel Castro Indicating Possible Interest in Rapprochement with the United States," May 1, 1963. A debriefing of Lisa Howard by CIA deputy director Richard Helms, regarding her ABC news interview with Castro and her opinion that he is "ready to discuss rapprochement." The document contains a notation, "Psaw," meaning President Kennedy read the report on Howard and Castro.
  
  
• U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Item of Presidential Interest," November 25, 1963. A strategy memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy assessing the problems and potential for pursuing the secret talks with Castro in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination.
  
  
• Message from Fidel Castro to Lyndon Johnson, "Verbal Message given to Miss Lisa Howard of ABC News on February 12, 1964, in Havana, Cuba." A private message carried by Howard to the White House in which Castro states that he would like the talks started with Kennedy to continue: "I seriously hope (and I cannot stress this too strongly) that Cuba and the United States can eventually sit down in an atmosphere of good will and of mutual respect and negotiate our differences."
  
  
• United Nations memorandum, Top Secret, from Adlai Stevenson to President Johnson, June 16, 1964. Stevenson sends the "verbal message" given to Lisa Howard to Johnson with a cover memo briefing him on the dialogue started under Kennedy and suggesting consideration of resumption of talks "on a low enough level to avoid any possible embarrassment."
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Adlai Stevenson and Lisa Howard," July 7, 1964. Gordon Chase reports to Bundy on his concerns that Howard's role as an intermediary has now escalated through her contact with Stevenson at the United Nations and the fact that a message has been sent back through her to Castro from the White House. Chase recommends trying "to remove Lisa from direct participation in the business of passing messages," and using Cuban Ambassador to the UN, Carlos Lechuga, instead.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm





ABC news reporter Lisa Howard

Lisa Howard:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL2.htm

No wonder Kennedy had to go. He wouldn't escalate Viet Nam, he wanted to talk to Castro. Bad for the Cold War businessmen.