Matt Yglesias

8 Responses to “US-Cuba Warming Under Way”

1. JohnsonDelegate Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm

   So naive. You forget the very real threat of a good example. If this works, whom will Obama appease next?

2. Hector Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm

   I wonder when Obama is going to compensate Cuba for an almost 5 decade embargo, for the Bay of Pigs, and for attempting to assassinate Castro. Obama should get down in sackcloth and ashes and apologiaze.

3. Mattyoung Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm

   He may be a Communist, but he’s our Communist!

4. Midland Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm

   Good. We’ve wasted too much diplomatic currency on this boycott campaign, and all it does is make us look foolish and corrupt. Sort out an arrangement to treat Cuba like any other run-down dictatorship. We kiss up to plenty of them already.

5. SLC Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm

   I have to say that if Dictator Castro is willing to cooperate with us, he is no worse then any number of dictators we have associated with in the past (e.g. Franco, Trujillo, Salazar, Stroessner, etc.). As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said about Trujillo, he’s a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch.

6. El Cid Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm

   Remember, the Western leader who kneeled down before an Arab potentate and apologized for his nation’s history of exploitation was, in fact, conservative extraordinaire and Bush Jr. buddy Silvio Berlusconi.

7. El Cid Says:
   June 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   The OAS proposal was, in fact, approved, but the government which was the recipient of the vote has its own opinions:

   OAS lifts ban on Cuba after 47 years

   By NESTOR IKEDA – 1 hour ago

   SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras (AP) — The Organization of American States on Wednesday lifted a decades-old ban on Cuba’s participation in the group and cleared the way for the island’s return despite initial U.S. objections.

   The vote by acclamation to revoke a 1962 measure suspending Cuba from the hemispheric group toppled an enduring landmark of the Cold War, and made clear that Latin American nations are forging a more independent relationship with the United States.

   “The Cold War has ended this day in San Pedro Sula,” said Honduran President Manuel Zelaya immediately following the announcement. “We begin a new era of fraternity and tolerance.”

   The action doesn’t mean Cuba will return to the 34-member body that helps coordinate policies and mediates disputes throughout the Americas. Cuban officials have repeatedly insisted they have no interest in returning to an organization they consider a tool of the United States.

   So, there you have it. Everything has changed, and little has changed.

8. SteveGinIL Says:
   June 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

   Obviously, a lot of substantive issues remain, including the main elements of the US-backed embargo of Cuba and the continuing Castro-run dictatorship on the island.

   Why must we continue to label Castro a dictator, simply because he fooled the U.S. in the late 1950s and aligned with someone else?

   We don’t refer to past monarchs who had far more power than Fidel as dictators. Louis XIV was absolute ruler over France, and Henry VIII over England, but nowhere in the history books or text books are they referred to as dictators.

   Is it because Castro came to power by overthrowing the previous government? The history of Europe is rife with dynasties being overthrown and superceded by the victors in what amounted to civil wars. Where are the historians re-writing history to label the victorious and new kings as dictators?

   Would it have been different if Castro had had the Bishop of Havana crown him King Fidel the First?

   Why do even progressive pundits use the labeling of the right when talking about Castro? Why do they apply the same terms – “dictator”, “leftist strongman”, “socialist dictator” – to the duly elected (and re-elected) Hugo Chavez of Venezuela?

   It is time the left abandoned the lock-step terminology of the right, which was always based on the premise that the U.S. was entitled to run the world and anyone who didn’t toe our line had to be demonized and slandered every single time the leader’s name came up in any article.

   If actions in the real world are the criteria, then every U.S. President that sent mercenaries and CIA operatives and Oliver North types into torture, maim and kill populists and progressives in Latin America (oh, that couldn’t be “terrorism,” could it?) should be labeled a hemispherical dictator.

   On the contrary, Castro never invaded another country, not did Chavez. I guess they were too busy dictating within their own borders to expand their policies to foreign countries. Is that the logic?

   In any event, I am just saying progressives should not use the terminology of the right to attack leaders with which they share some principles.

   Oh? The progressives side with leftists and socialists? Oh, MY! What will Rush Limbaugh do with THAT?!

   Remember, folks, that Hillary Clinton and most of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the AUMF regarding Iraq because they ere operating out of fear of what the right wing would accuse them of being – cowards and anti-American. And what good did that do the Democrats or the Senators or the country?

   Choose your own damned terms for Castro! Stop running too scared to refer to him as the “President of Cuba.” And now that it is Raoul, the same goes for him, too. And Chavez. And Ortega, who has been elected in Nicaragua. And anyone who happens to stand up to the U.S.

   .