Winning!

This picture Drudge put up today is certainly a classic.

Is there any other picture that better captures the Obama foreign policy?  He's got the slight head-up tilt with the subtle s**t-eating grin knowing he's standing in front of a massive picture of the murdering Che while knowing he's supremely ticking off some of his real enemies in the process.  Even if he's not consciously doing so, it fits.  

But there he is, standing at attention representing the imperialist racist nation he's spent the last seven years tying to reform through 'hope and change'.  That change was moving America away from a country that stood firm before tyrants and tinpots to one that feels their pain and never has a discouraging word.   Imagine how Obama would have treated Saddam Hussein.  Then consider how he treats the Tea Party and most Republicans.  Ask Dinesh D'Souza who the true enemy is.   

Now, there's nothing wrong with reaching out, as Nixon did with China, as Reagan did with the Soviets.   But there is something to be said for maintaining national dignity and not giving away the store while doing so.  That includes not standing there grinning in front of a f*cking Che mural.

Some may say this is just a strategy.  Super smart three-dimensional chess Obama is just playing the commies.  Well OK, but it needs to work.  Consider that China and Vietnam are still communist countries.  Donald Trump is getting a lot of traction talking about how China is manipulating their currency at our expense.  'Success' isn't just cheap electronic stuff.  Hopefully.  

No doubt the Chamber of Commerce types were among the biggest supporters of this outreach, who if asked will blow the trumpet about how these new markets will foster freedom while the dictator continues to round up dissidents.   Actually, the people who stand to gain most from this new declaration of surrender rapprochement aren't the average Cubans, it's corporate America, who are stumbling all over themselves trying to get down there.

One might think Democrats would not support this kind of thing in principle, but they have one prime principle and it's called 'winning'.  Getting there is all part of those hazy shades of flexible gray.  To them winning is helping their guy here.  But stand back and look and it almost seems, in the hazy gray mist, that there's a tad bit too much warm fuzzy to some of the support, something kinda Bill Ayers-ish.  Maybe it depends on the definition of winning.   

Where and Why?

Where....

.. did Chattanooga jihadist Mohammed Abdul-Aziz get his AK47 and the ammo?   Has this been reported?  Haven't seen it.

... is AQ Number Three Adnan el-Shukrijumah?    There was big news of his death last year in Pakistan and he was removed from the State Department's Rewards for Justice Terrorism list, but he remains on the FBI's Most-Wanted Terrrorist list.  Why?  Haven't they gotten the DNA results by now?   

... is former Saddamite Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri?  He was reported killed in the battle to retake Tikrit some months ago, but the Iraqis never confirmed it.   An audiotape seems to suggest he's still alive.

... is AQ mastermind Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, aka the "Red-Headed Terrorist"?  He was in captivity in Syria but last reported to have been released by Bashar Assad after the West began calling for regime change in Damascus.  According to many he's the architect of the new war against the West involving lone wolf type attacks (of the Chattanooga variety). 

... is AQ kingpin Saif al-Adel?   He spent a long time hiding out in Iran after 9/11, but was rumored to have left Iran a few years ago.  Are there other al Qaeda members still being given shelter in Iran?  Has Kerry been asked about this?   Will Iran be taken off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list? 

... is Ayman al-Zawahiri?   How's the hunt going?

... why...  was FBI most-wanted terrorist Joanne Chesimard, wanted for the murder of a police officer and last known to be hiding in Cuba, not returned to the US in the process of normalized relations?  The Cuban flag will be hoisted in the State Department tomorrow morning, well, actually late tonight (to avoid inconveniencing the bureaucrats or waking the press).   Is there no talk of extradition?   Or is it a 'black lives matter' issue for the Democrats? 

Just wondering. 

What's More Likely to Happen First...

...the State Department recommending the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, or the State Department recommending the Keystone Pipeline be approved?

Say wha?

CNN is all giddy reporting a warm and fuzzy Christmas tale about the president's double-secret Cuban deal:

It might be the most bizarre of the closely guarded secrets from last week's historic agreement between the United States and Cuba: How did the leader of a Cuban spy ring serving life in a California federal prison manage to impregnate his wife 2,245 miles away in Havana?

The story goes on to ask "why", as in why would the US Government allow an incarcerated Cuban spy to impregnate his Cuban intelligence officer wife 5-7 months before a deal? Their answer:

"In light of Mr. Hernandez's two life sentences," Fallon said, "the request was passed along by Senator [Patrick] Leahy, who was seeking to improve the conditions for Mr. Gross while he was imprisoned in Cuba."

The discretion on both sides makes sense.

Nice of the CNN reporter to provide that important context about it making sense. 

Now, does it really make any sense? Why wouldn't we just say "wait until the deal is done" since it seemed like a done deal anyway 6 months ago?  Cuba had no incentive to mistreat Gross anyway, they needed him in good enough shape to allow the deal to get done because had he died in prison before the announcement the entire thing would have been a bit more problematic.  The admin could have had one of their water boys tell Castro to pound sand, that Gross better get good treatment or the deal is off.  They needed him healthy.

Without that reason, what else makes sense?  How about Cuba insisting on letting the intelligence officer go to the prison for a conjugal as a sign of good faith--and she did. And she got pregnant. And now they have to make up a story to explain the baby bump. 

If the artificial insemination story is really true then it requires timing on the part of Obama; in other words they were always planning to break this news after the mid-terms so they timed the insemination to the expected announcement date minus about 6+ months.  Either that or the wife got knocked up by somebody else and the Cubans enlisted the US to help run a cover story. Which would be rather disgusting, our govt helping Fidel run commie agitprop.

But hey, we don't battle communism or stand strong for human rights anymore, we embrace those kinds of governments now because that's the new way to battle human rights, through capitalism.  And because of cigars and rum. 

Oh, as to the Senator implicated in helping this ruse come off, "Leaky Leahy" was the one Cheney told to F off back in the day.  Leahy once supported his friend Dick Durbin when he called our troops at GITMO "Nazis".  Apparently he prefers Marxists in Cuba over Nazis.  But America doesn't care.

Executive Actions on Cuba...

Today the president announced a plan to reward Cuba with US recognition in return for doing... well, nothing:

“This is being done because we believe the policy of the past has not worked and we believe the best way to bring democracy and prosperity to Cuba is through a different kind of policy,” a senior administration official told reporters on a conference call under White House ground rules that did not permit the official to be identified.

Outraged right wing hacks immediately weighed in with their displeasure, like Democratic Senator Menendez:

“Let’s be clear, this was not a ‘humanitarian’ act by the Castro regime. It was a swap of convicted spies for an innocent American,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “President Obama’s actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government.”

So, when do we normalize relations with the North Koreans and set up an embassy? And if not, why not?

OBAMA LIBRE!  12/18/14

Politico paints a picture of the true portrait of an emerging president, finally unencumbered by the messiness of posturing (lying) before elections.

So maybe it's worth throwing this out there.   There were interactions between the Weathermen and Cuban intelliegence (back when Obama was 7), the same Cuban intelligence running the 3 spies Obama just released in exchange for Alan Gross (he's already released the other 2 members of the Cuban 5, and we can all believe in this mystery US asset hostage held for 20 years when we see him).  Ayers is still proudly a "small-c communist" and openly advocated for Hugo Chavez only a few years back.  Of course it's probably racist to even mention their names in the same paragraph.  Viva, and onward to our new progressive future!

So, who is it?

Odd, but with a purpose:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

The question is, whose purpose?  The WaPo's version of the story weighs heavily on Congressman Rogers' comments regarding a sense that Obama counter-terrorism policy is handcuffing efforts to get the bad guys. This suggests the leak didn't originate in the White House.  Indeed AP (ABC) quotes "four US officials", which suggests they weren't "administration officials".  Jay Carney would not confirm when asked for comment today, but he didn't deny it either.  

Media outlets were using the story to highlight the new, improved "targeted killing policy", ie, Obama Kill List.   Imagine Bush being associated with anything remotely like it, and the reaction.  It's funny that Obama told Hollande at Monticello today, "I can do anything I want".  Yes, a joke, but not far from the truth as he again changed Obamacare today and if he were to contradict his own targeted killing policy by eliminating a US citizen suspected terrorist, who's going to impeach him?  John Boehner? 

So on to the speculation.  Some say a trial balloon designed to gage public reaction to targeted killing of a US citizen.  Hey, they poll everything nowadays. 

Others speculate it was designed to smoke said terrorist out of his hidey hole by indicating that one of his coming days may end poorly should the President decide to go all Obamacare on his targeted killing rules. 

Some speculate it's about letting the country in question know we know, while others look at this as career outsiders prodding the President to act before it's too late.  

Whatever the case a lot of politics could be played, such as mentioning that top secret info was given to the press amidst an administration that has prosecuted more leakers than all the other administrations combined.   Will Holder go after someone here or will his reluctance telegraph the leak's origin?  Will a Fox News reporter be wiretapped for good measure?   Surely the leader of the country in question is already under surveillance.

But seriously, how best to decipher this riddle.  How about taking the above paragraphs one at a time, keeping in mind they were presumably written by an AP reporter and not the White House--bold added for effect:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The target is undoubtedly a US citizen because there was no qualifier language included.  He is a suspected member of AQ, allegedly planning attacks on OVERSEAS targets according to the writer, but maybe not the government.  Anyway, the 'homeland' is not assumed to be under threat.  Onward...

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

So there are CIA drones operating over the country in question.  Story doesn't say whether the country in question knows this or not; allows it; or simply can't stop them.  Wherever it is they do not allow US military operations, at least drones.  Finally, if the Justice people haven't written up a full case then it's unlikely he's one of the luminaries on the Rewards for Justice most-wanted terrorist site, since most of them have been around awhile.  But based on the leak of the story they believe he's about to do or direct something. 

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

That's interesting, since it suggests the country might not be hostile to the US, just that it cannot or does not allow US military action. Sometimes that is done to assuage the local population. Since Obama changed the world and everyone loves us now, it's hard to figure out who it could be.  But the language also suggests the country could be hostile and just will not go after this AQ belligerent against our wishes.  Which brings in Putin! 

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

So he's a facilitator, not an operative or combatant.  He's been around long enough to be responsible for the deaths of Americans OVERSEAS, but as earlier comments indicated the Justice people don't have a case on him yet so he must be a relatively newer discovery.   Since they mentioned IEDs that suggests a war zone like Iraq or Syria but IEDs can be used anywhere. 

So that's it.  They didn't specify if the guy was "Core" or with one of the affiliates, which doesn't help much, but we do have a few American citizens on the Rewards for Justice wanted list.  These two come to mind first:
1. Adam Gadahn, aka Azzam the American, aka, Adam the Assclown
2. Abdul Rahman Yasin.  Whether he's considered AQ or even still operating is unclear.  He was one of the bomb mixers of the first WTC attack who boogied to Baghdad after the attack and hasn't been seen since the invasion.  Saddam seemed to be hiding him so bringing him up might be inconvenient.   


There's also:
3. Jehad Mustafa, a Wisconsin native now working for al-Shabaab 

Some may think about Adnan Shukrijumah, aka, Jafar the Pilot (a very very HVT) due to his extensive time living in the United States.  But he's not a US citizen.

Stumped at the moment, but it's Monday.   

Do have some closing observations/questions.  Is it a coincidence that the WaPo released a video of the extraordinary rendition capture of Anas al-Libi today?  Not sure if that was authorized by the admin either.  If not, what's the point?   Finally, is it a clue that all passengers booked on Caribbean Airlines flights from Guyana to the United States from today through Tuesday were told to make alternative plans due to threats received?  "Jafar the Pilot" is a citizen of Guyana, by the way.  

A Cold, Strange Case

1975 was a tumultuous year for America. Gerry Ford had become president due to Watergate.  The last US personnel exited Vietnam via the humiliating rooftop retreat in Saigon.  Saturday Night Live debuted. And there were terrorist bombings.

One of the most unusual bombings occurred on December 29, 1975 at LaGuardia Airport in New York. Around 6 pm a large bomb placed in a locker in the baggage claim area exploded, killing 11 and wounding over 70. The case has never been solved.  Nobody ever took formal credit.

Online research of this event doesn't provide much. New York terrorism investigators had a person of interest, a lone nut Croatian who had placed a bomb in a locker in Grand Central Station a year later while also hijacking a TWA flight between LaGuardia and Chicago.  Since the LGA bomb blast occurred at the Eastern/TWA baggage claim it's no wonder they suspected him.  He steadfastly denied it over the years, right up to his parole and deportation back to free Croatia in 2008.  But he seems a good target.  

One reason he seemed a good target is that investigators generally took the lack of formal claim to mean the bomber(s) didn't intend deaths, just a loud statement.  This might have fit a Croatian terrorist trying to gain freedom for his people.  At the time of the blast former Israeli premier Golda Meir was visiting New York so that angle was considered, but apparently dropped.  They ruled out the bomb being meant to target any one individual in the airport (it would have been nearly impossible without a remote controller anyway). Investigators immediately suspected FALN, The Jewish Defense League, and the PLO but surely those groups would have taken credit had they been responsible.

Yet there was one group operating in the mid 70s out of the New York area that didn't seem to get mentioned--the Weather Underground.  Their public statements--both then and now--downplay the death/injury objective of their bombs and play up the bang to make a point objective, which would also fit the no claim of credit.  Were they ever suspected?

According to this Wiki timeline the WUG took credit for 3 bombings in 1975 before the LaGuardia blast...

January 29 - Bombing of the State Department; WUO states this is in response to escalation in Vietnam. (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29, 1975, p. 1)[34]

January 23 - Offices of Dept. of Defense in Oakland are bombed. In a statement released to the press, Weather expressed solidarity with the Vietnamese still fighting against the Thieu regime in Vietnam. [35]

Spring - WUO publishes "Politics in Command," which is its new political-military strategy. It furthers the line of building a legal, above-ground organization and begins to minimize the armed struggle role.[34]

March – The WUO releases its first edition of a new magazine entitled Osawatomie.[36]

June 16 - Weathermen bomb a Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York, WUO states this is in solidarity with striking Puerto Rican cement workers.[34][36]

July - More than a thousand women attend the Socialist Feminist Conference at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH in which WUO supporters attempt to play a major role.[34]

July 11-13 – The Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC) holds its first national convention during which time they go through the formality of creating a new organization.[36]

September – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation; WUO states this is in retribution for Kennecott's alleged involvement in the Chilean coup two years prior.[36][37]

So they were active in the year leading up to the event.  For some reason the Times interview with the former bomb squad investigator didn't mention them, not even to say they were considered but ruled out. 

The "COINTELPRO" scandal (domestic warrantless wiretapping to follow revolutionary groups prevalent during the Vietnam war) occurred in 1971, which led to federal charges against WUG suspects being dropped.  We also know the FBI had a mole in the group at some point.  Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine had gone underground in the early 70s and were still there in 75, having just released their own communist manifesto dedicated to Mao and Satan called "Prairie Fire" a year earlier.

The WUG was not a group of yahoos.  They actually took credit for bombing the State Department at Foggy Bottom in late January 1975.  They had previously bombed the Pentagon.  No child's play.  They also bombed a DoD office and a bank later that year, then a corporation.

Then for some reason the group "slowly disbands" beginning in 1976 with many members turning themselves in over the next few years to take advantage of an amnesty program brought about by Jimmy Carter.  According to Ayers the group split about that same time, with a more radical faction carrying on after a merger with a black separatist group (later carried out the Brinks robbery in 1981).  So what triggered this sudden split in 1976?

Conventional wisdom says it was because the war in Vietnam had finally ended.  Yet our evacuation from Saigon occurred in April 1975 while the group still bombed Kennecott Corporation in September of that year, supposedly in retaliation for their involvement in a Chilean coup.  Ayers and others have said the end of the war caused the group to begin to split apart--the quintessential rebels without a cause--at least on the surface.  But as Prairie Fire illustrates their war wasn't just over the Vietnam conflict but against capitalism at large.  Ayers still admits this today.  Yet for some reason their bombing philosophy basically ended at some point towards the end of 1975 leading to a split. Why?    

This is not some whackadoodle post to suggest the FBI knew about bombings and did nothing, or God forbid were involved in the LaGuardia bombing--the mole was apparently only a go-between operating between central HQ and field units.  The government would have been derelict of duty had they NOT investigated a group whose mission statement was to overthrow the government.   There's reason to believe that communist Cuba was helping to fund the Weathermen, which is not to say Cuba was involved directly in any bombings, but it's not to say they weren't either.  Perhaps there was an international or domestic angle the government didn't want publicized at the time, ie an entity sending a silent message, who knows.  

Since this post is about the Weathermen it's also not designed to link Obama to any terrorism.  He was in Hawaii at the time, 14 years old or so--yes, evidently being mentored by a communist but there's no known link between Davis and Ayers.  And yes, he started his political career in Ayers' living room and the campaign deceived voters about their relationship, but that can also be explained by the radioactivity of Ayers outside of liberal academia (in bitter clinger America), which would amount to a political distancing without culpability.   Then again, the radioactivity would have been considerably higher.  

No, this post is merely from a guy sitting around in his underwear bringing to light a very strange chapter of terrorism history in America and asking a question--were the Weathermen ever considered suspects and if not, why not?

Fidel Castro: Brilliant Man

Well, except for that little part about wanting the Soviets to nuke America. Otherwise, he's just a jolly green giant. And very civil. Always civil.

Carrot and Stick Confusion

Obama promised to use diplomacy to fight our enemies instead of warmongering, using the old carrot and stick approach to get things done. In regards to Honduras the stick looks pretty big:

The Obama administration on Thursday cut all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. aid imposed after he was deposed in June.

This quote from the State Department stands out:

Kelly said "restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras." He said the United States would not recognize the results of the election under current conditions and stressed it was imperative that the vote meet international standards.

"That election must be undertaken in a free, fair and transparent manner," he said. "It must also be free of taint and open to all Hondurans to exercise their democratic franchise. At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections."

Regardless of whether their Supreme Court was 100 percent correct in throwing out a Chavez clone trying to subvert their constitution the Obama administration is taking a position of demanding a court reversal before they recognize the new leadership. Bizarrely, this stance puts them on the side of the Chavez-lite president, since it's clear to anyone paying attention that the term limit provisions in their constitution were designed to stop the very type of leader they stopped in Zelaya.

The bigger question is how this position squares with our foreign policy towards established thugocracies such as Cuba and Iran. As Meteoric Rhetoric points out--we now allow US citizens unlimited visits to Cuba with no noticeable sticks being waved at Castro. Additionally, the United States recognizes the recently elected government of Iran, saying the problems with their elections was an Iranian thing dealt with by Iranians. Why not say the same about Tegucigalpa?

Granted, this may be some clever subterfuge employed by a bunch of forty-pound brains in the White House and State Dept who have a means to an end that has sailed right over my mobster head. But when does the next shoe drop? How is this strategy supposed to thwart thugs and promote democracies? And if it doesn't, when does the kickass kick in?

I'm also curious as to when the international media will start referring to our government as the "leftist government in Washington" as they sometimes do in stories about third world countries? In addition to our curious stance on the above, we've got admitted communists and avowed socialists serving as advisors and cabinet ministers and a president with connections to communists and socialists in his past. Seems somewhat fitting.

Another Place, Another Time

One of the Green Room guys at Hot Air has unearthed a comment from Miss Nancy in May 2002 regards our friend Abu Z:

Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. "He's not b.s.ing us on everything." Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation."

Zubaydah was the only top-ranking AQ fish we'd captured at that time and his complicity in past acts was well-known before Bush arrived, perhaps even to a long-time member of the House Intelligence Committee. Tenet described Abu as someone who thought he was more clever than his interrogators. The passage of time has softened Abu's rep but we have the internets!

In early 1999, Hijazi and Abu Hoshar contacted Khalil Deek, an American citizen and an associate of Abu Zubaydah who lived in Peshawar, Pakistan, and who, with Afghanistan-based extremists, had created an electronic version of a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of Jihad. They obtained a CD-ROM of this encyclopedia from Deek.

This encyclopedia apparently contained counter-interrogation techniques, some of which were probably familiar to Zubaydah. His history also included coordinatng the Millennium attacks, as explained by 60 Minutes II in late 2001:

Other holy sites were on the hit list: a hill near the Dead Sea where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Thousands of pilgrims were expected there. Another target: Mount Nebo, which Moses climbed to see the promised land. But the top target was the Radisson hotel in downtown Amman, its 400 rooms fully booked by Americans and Israelis for the big millennium party. Jordanian agents got word that the man known as Abu Ahmed the American was boasting there wouldn't be enough body bags in Jordan to hold all the corpses.

Everything was set. The planning had been completed, the explosives were hidden in Amman. Abu Ahmed the American was about to return here from Afghanistan. It might have come off if Jordanian intelligence hadn't intercepted a phone call on the evening of Nov. 30 from Osama bin Laden's lieutenant in Pakistan to the cell in Amman. The lieutenant spoke in code. His words were: “The grooms are ready for the big wedding.”

The message had come from Abu Zubaydah. Osama bin Laden's chief recruiter.

The story goes on to recount the American version thwarted by an alert border guard spooking an over-anxious Ahmed Ressam (any mention of the Millennium plot always brings to mind Sandy Berger's socks caper and why he wanted that after-action report so badly).

And while this history doesn't serve as a smoking gun as to whether Pelosi was briefed specifically on waterboarding in September 2002 it does serve as a reminder of how dangerous and important they believed Zubaydah was at the time and how it was seen as key to get information from him before something else happened. That would explain why Pelosi and Goss asked the CIA whether they were 'doing enough' during that meeting.

It also serves as an example of how the public perception has changed in eight years. We've either reverted completely to a 9/10 frame of mind, squabbling over moral questions that would have given few pause when officials were scrambling to stop further horrible attacks, or Bush actually won the GWoT when nobody was looking, nullifying future threats. History, intelligence, and common sense would suggest neither--the public is surely still aware of threats, moreso than before 9/11. But after seven years of war and the Democratic propaganda against it they're confused as to the real enemy.

Texting Their Way to Freedom

It must have been a bizarre day in the White House briefing room as Obama sent Robert Gibbs and his new Special Assistant to the President and a Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council, Dan Restrepo, to announce he was dropping all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit family members in Cuba, and to send them remittances. Quoting Mr. Restrepo:

Todos aquellos que creen en los valores democráticos básicos anhelan una Cuba que respeta los derechos humanos, políticos, económicos, básicos de todo su pueblo. El Presidente Obama considera que estas medidas ayudarán a hacer realidad ese objetivo. El Presidente - El Presidente alenta a todos quienes comparten este deseo, que sigan cometidos a su firme apoyo para el pueblo cubano.

Loosely translated, this will help bring the freedom through the coming cell phones and Direct TV to the Cuban peoples if the regime doesn't get upset.

Who is Restrepo? He's an advocate for reforming illegal immigration by first stopping the haters:

To achieve that control, the president will have to work with Congress to leave behind the hate-filled demagoguery that defines the immigration debate.

So there's that. At the presser a question was asked by a Colombian journalist about the kind of relationship Obama would pursue with his country coming off their favored status with the previous one. Mr. Restrepo used a diplo-punt to avoid the question, but perhaps answered it last year:

On the U.S.-Colombia free-trade pact, Restrepo said Obama believes the agreement cannot move forward until progress is made against violence committed against Colombian labor and civic leaders.

He went on to say McCain's experience in the region didn't trump Obama's image of reform (no, he didn't mention Che). Now he's in the administration and reaching out to pursue better relations with communist Cuba, who've shown very little progress on democratic reforms. Go figure. Anyway, the press soon asked the obvious question (along with asking why Obama himself wasn't out there announcing such a thing):

Q But the Cuban government would have to allow it to move forward? I mean, they could stop this if they wanted to I assume.

Well, yeah. At last check they were still a bunch of totalitarian commies who don't follow White House Executive Orders. But Gibbs and Restrepo kept hammering their message of fostering travel and money orders between Cuban Americans (who normally vote Republican and have helped carry Florida for the GOP in the past) so another reporter asked this:

Q Will you allow -- does this announcement allow direct flights between the U.S. and Cuba? How will Cuban American families get there?

And the answer was presumably yes, sort of maybe. Whether this would count as part of Fidel's "how can we help Obama" pledge is unknown at this time; or whether this might apply to new routes for Cubana Airlines is still pending. Perhaps they needed a Cuban government spokesman as well. Ok, cheap shot.

Bottom line, as with everything liberals propose this has a big upside if the stars align. Obama is apparently using his international political capital to put pressure on the regime to loosen up, perhaps taking Fidel's offer and turning it around on him. Since nothing else has worked, maybe this will. A freer Cuba is the end goal for everyone.

But there's always a nagging, underlying feeling these kinds of things are mere ruses to actually help the Marxists while appearing to hurt them. It's not as if Obama has never dabbled with, shall we say, 'different' political philosophies before. Then again, you're reading a blog written by a tea-baggin' wing nut hung up on tradition so--being as diplomatic as possible and using a helpful politically correct tool-- tendremos que esperar y ver. The Iraqis really liked their cell phone and cable TV freedoms after we eliminated Saddam.

AND THE BIG GUY WEIGHS IN.. 4/14/09

Not sure if this is reaching out the hand or clenching the fist, but I'd say it's the latter:

Castro, in his message, said Obama can use his "talents" in creating a constructive policy that would end the embargo that "has failed for almost half a century."

"On the other hand, our country, which has resisted and is willing to resist whatever it takes, neither blames Obama for the atrocities of other U.S. administrations nor doubts his sincerity and his wishes to change the United States policy and image," Castro said. "We understand that he waged a very difficult battle to be elected, despite centuries-old prejudices."

Hopefully Obama will not leave dangling the impression that Bill Clinton committed an "atrocity" by not doing as he did (we already know what he thinks of Bush, of course).