Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[Velociryx]

And GePap....having just re-read your message, yes! I think you're finally getting it.

It IS just empty words, and they're coming from our beloved leadership.

Thank you for agreeing with me!

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

So you are basing your claim on why these people should be allowed to enter into the US based on what you know to be the empty words of the admin? Why, cause you think the admin. cares if it's words are shown to be hypocritical?

They don't.

And you also misconstrue the meaning of their words. They would hardly ever make statements as categorical as those you make while keeping dictatorships as allies: that would just be to easy for the DC press corp to eat the spokesperson alive with.

[Velociryx]

GePap: I am saying (and have been again, and again, and again), that things like turning the boat around only underscore the sheer emptiness OF the words themselves.

It's quite clear that they don't care, and so we agree again. You are, in essence, preaching to the choir.

As to their words....you said it. They are THEIR words. Spoken in the national and international area. There aren't terribly many ways to interpret "don't try to catch us" "you're either with us, or against us" and "if you pose a threat to us or to our beliefs, we reserve the right to hit first."

Now, I'm guilty of a heck of a lot of things, but I don't believe that misinterpreting any of these statements is among them.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Vel, if that is what they had menat, this would have been the press conmference the next day:

AF: yes, quesiton? you..
R1: the president said any state that threaten our beliefs could come under attack: will this include SA, Egypt, and Pakistan?
AF: certainly not, those state do not pose a htreat to our beliefs. next, you...
R2: so what posses a threat to our beliefs? After all, isn;t freedom one of our beliefs, and don;t dictatorhips threatn freedom?
AF: well, no, actually no, you see, whent he president meant our beliefs, he meant in the persons of Americans. SA does not threaten any American lives, and thus can not threaten American values, you see?

so forth and so on.

[Velociryx]

The crux of it, G, is this:

One of the following statements must be true:

a) The administration (now) firmly believes and is committed to a "regieme change" in Iraq on the basis of liberation of the Iraqi people.

If this is true, and there are additional peoples from other oppressive regiemes that we can save in like manner, at no cost to ourselves or to our troops, then it is hypocracy of the highest order to intentionally NOT do so (ie - the truck-boat full of Cubans is escorted to the shores of the USA as a clear demonstration of our desire to help free oppressed peoples, wherever they might be)

or

b) The administration doesn't give a rat's ass about liberating the Iraqi people, and merely played that card as a means of maintaining public support for the war at home, and they're really after something else. (ie - the Cubans are sent home, and their innovative craft is sunk)

If this is true, then the public statements fronted by the administration are false, and acts such as forcing the Cubans back home only bear this out.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Neither of those are true. The admin. did NOT sell this war with the notion of liberating Iraq: the vast majority of Americans would not have spent even one American life to liberate Iraqis. The war was sold on the notion of a grave Iraqi threat, and only after the war begun did "liberation" become the admin. main theme. This is so becuase the actual policy that drove the Iraq war is a complex one going back a decade.

And our policy on Cuba is also a higly complex one based on political realities in the US.

The US is hypocritical when it comes to being a champion for democracy..we have been so for 55 years. This is nothing new.

[Velociryx]

Yes....it was only after the war had begun did the liberation card get played, but it GOT played. You said it yourself. When no weapons were immediately recovered, it got played, either genuinely by the White House, or as a stunt to maintain support for us being there. So yes, one or the other of those statements must be true.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Either way, the very best case is that the administration is either behaving hypocritacally or is lying, and either way, they're not gettin' my vote in the next election.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And by the way...it must KILL you when things aren't complex!

Hate to break it to you, but the ONLY reason the liberation card got played was because the administration was struggling to find some reason (ANY reason) to continue to justify the war and our presence there, not because of some imagined complexity in your head....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

An admin. Vel constitutes more than just a president. cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Powell, Armitage, Bolton, Rice were all saying slightly different things at different points. The ones that came up with this policy first, liek Wolfie, always focused on the "liberation" angle, since it is a big part fo their greater aim, which is to use US military hegemony to remake the world into our image. People like Powell, who did not agree with this, and could see it political suiced, sold the threat angle and the Violation angle much more.

The president always focused on WMD's, since it was the issue to gain political support with, but liberation was always mentioned, so that a relatively quick segway could be achieved.

Yes Vel, it is complex... (we could always have said it was all about OIL..look, 10 cents a gallon by next year! Political gold, no?)

But it is nice to hear you won;t vote for them

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris, you're a thinking dude, buddy.

Are you related to Dubya by any chance? You twist so hard to defend the man from all sides that I'm starting to wonder...

[Velociryx]

This is what I love about you, G. Even when we agree on all the major points, that hard head of yours just simply can't resist the urge to try and find something else to argue about!

Yes. The administration is made up of lots of different people, each with their own slant on things, but tell me: Do you think that for even one second on any given day, any of those people forget who they work for? Is it not true that at the end of the day, those other voices can chatter all they want, but there's actually one voice among them that carries more weight than the rest combined? That there's one person IN the administration who, when he gives a speech, THAT's the one that really counts?

Care to give this person a name?

So yes. The other little chattering chipmunks all had their say, and when no weapons were found, another reason needed to be fronted for the war. One was. Liberation. And WHEN that card was played, it was either played genuinely, or it wasn't. Those are the two choices (and they are exactly the same as the two choices I outlined above.....the one you said that "neither was true.") - not possible. It's either a genuine statement, or it's....not. There aren't any other choices. If it was a genuine statement, then the cuban boat should have been escorted to the shores of the US, and the occupants given asylum, because this would have been a clear demonstration that the liberation message was meant for oppressed folks, no matter where they might be. If it was a lie, then we could expect to see the cubans returned home, and the boat sunk.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This is what I love about you, G. Even when we agree on all the major points, that hard head of yours just simply can't resist the urge to try and find something else to argue about!

Yes. The administration is made up of lots of different people, each with their own slant on things, but tell me: Do you think that for even one second on any given day, any of those people forget who they work for? Is it not true that at the end of the day, those other voices can chatter all they want, but there's actually one voice among them that carries more weight than the rest combined? That there's one person IN the administration who, when he gives a speech, THAT's the one that really counts?

Care to give this person a name?

So yes. The other little chattering chipmunks all had their say, and when no weapons were found, another reason needed to be fronted for the war. One was. Liberation. And WHEN that card was played, it was either played genuinely, or it wasn't. Those are the two choices (and they are exactly the same as the two choices I outlined above.....the one you said that "neither was true.") - not possible. It's either a genuine statement, or it's....not. There aren't any other choices. If it was a genuine statement, then the cuban boat should have been escorted to the shores of the US, and the occupants given asylum, because this would have been a clear demonstration that the liberation message was meant for oppressed folks, no matter where they might be. If it was a lie, then we could expect to see the cubans returned home, and the boat sunk.

-=Vel=-

100% agree Vel. My earlier point re: this is the real intention of war was another scene within the war on terrorism. Major purposes being the declared ones of eliminating the WoMD and ability for terrorists to gain safe haven and acess to same WoMD. My point has always been regardless of WoMD the underlying reason was Saddam was an easy target and it allowed the US to put all other nations in the region on notice.

Your points are well taken that once no WoMD and smoking gun was found the administration cravenly changed their tune to the liberation theme in order to court public favor.

Knowing that the admin is spin doctoring everything wrt Iraq war motivations and then surmizing the original reasons for war (which they declared at the time) still does not put the latest turn about of Cubans at odds with the 9/11 moods and policies (like them or not). It does put it at odds obviously with the newly stated humanitarian aims.

I understand the admin is disingenuous and yes it does cause me anger. Face it, most Americans realize that what is going on now is spin doctoring to the nth degree.

But I also realize that the real motivations for the war in Iraq are still in keeping with tighter illegals policing.

What amazes me though more than anything is the rationale can be used post 9/11 to give this tougher stance on illegals but pre 9/11 when these same things were going on there wasn't the huge outrage now displayed.

[Meldor]

Truck Rafters Seek Political Asylum
HAVANA (Reuters) - Twelve Cubans who tried to sail to Florida in a 1951 Chevy truck ingeniously converted into an amphibious craft are making a second attempt to get to the United States, this time as political refugees.

The group, repatriated to communist-run Cuba by the U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) 10 days ago, applied on Wednesday for political asylum at the U.S. Interest Section in Havana.


"This is our last hope. We want to go. We love our country very much, but there is no future here," said Michael Lau Valdez, 25.


The nine men, two women and a three-year-old boy got halfway across the Florida Straits in the bright-green truck floating on twelve oil drums with a propeller attached to the transmission before they were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard. They were making eight miles per hour in the Chevy.


"We weren't looking for publicity or money. We just wanted to get to the United States. We hope we can do that legally now," said Eduardo Perez, owner of the truck, which was sunk by the Coast Guard.


The group, all under 35 years, said they had not been harassed by Cuban authorities since their return to a Havana suburb, but they did not expect to find work again in Cuba.


They drove to the U.S. diplomatic mission in another 1951 Chevy truck to turn in their application forms.


U.S. diplomats hand repatriated migrants a form to apply as refugees if they feel they are being politically persecuted.


"These 12 felt that they qualified. Whether we as the U.S. government feel that they qualify is a different matter," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Interest Section.


President Fidel Castro (news - web sites)'s government has not been known to allow repatriated rafters permits to leave Cuba legally.


The would-be-emigres said they will take to the sea again if they do not get U.S. visas, but next time in a faster craft.

I put some stuff in bold just to put to rest all of the rumors about what happened after we forced them to go back. Castro hasn't thrown them in prison and their life is no different than before. Strange happenings for such an evil man.

The problems I have with Castro deal with what he has done to the country, the way he took a country that at one time was the jewel of the gulf and turned it into an economic wreck. However, if forced to leave the US, I would rather go to Cuba than to a lot of the other Latin American countries.

[Velociryx]

I knew we were on the same page, Master Og...I just wasn't 'spressing myself as succintly as I shoulda been before.

I think the outrage we're seeing now about stuff like this is specifically because the administration is making such a big to-do about the liberation angle in Iraq, and it raises eyebrows in the public when we're willing to take a risky position (3 billion a month and 1-2 lives a day in Iraq) to "liberate them" but the coast guard can't be arsed to do the same in an essentially riskless venue.

Even the biggest Bush supporters scramble for cover then, because it underlines the point that those actions aren't in line with the latest spin, which means one or the other of them is a lie.

Hand in hand, I also agree with you that the initial (and underlying) reasons for the war....and likely the REAL reasons (as opposed to the spin doctoring occuring in the here and now), are not at odds with the actions toward the Cubans.

-=Vel=-