Stupid Hold Tricks

Robert Menendez has been a pretty sharp Senator, and I don't regret making calls for him in 2006. I do regret him falling back on failed tropes of the past to not only frustrate a new era of US-Cuba policy, but to inexplicably stop dedicated professionals from doing their jobs protecting the planet from pollution and climate change.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a strong supporter of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, is launching a full-on battle this week to remove several provisions from the 2009 government spending bill that would open a small crack in the slammed door of relations with Havana.

Menendez fired a broadside at the Obama administration yesterday for backing a provision buried in the $410 billion spending bill, which must become law by next week in order to keep the government running. The New Jersey senator, a Cuban-American, objects to language in the bill that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island once a year and end limits on the sale of American food and medicines in Cuba. [...]

The WaPo reports today that the senator has held up two Obama science nominees in an attempt to twist the arms of his fellow Dems.

First of all, Menendez is hopelessly behind the times. The majority of his fellow Cuban-Americans SUPPORT lifting the travel ban, because they understand that the policy of isolation has completely failed. So do wild-eyed liberals on foreign policy like Richard Lugar. But worse, Menendez is taking his temper tantrum out on two very qualified candidates who have nothing to do with this spat.

But Menendez isn't just making his case to continue with a failed policy, he's now blocking two White House nominees -- Obama's choices to be the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- to get the senators' attention on his Cuba-related concerns.

So, to summarize, Menendez supports Obama's nominees, but won't let the Senate vote on them until after he's done complaining about a subtle change in a foreign policy that hasn't worked after more than five decades of attempts.

Markos and Kevin Drum have more. The worst part of this is that you have a liberal Democrat abusing the ridiculous Senate holds process, which encourages others to do the same:

And he's not alone. It seems that multiple anonymous senators are now holding up Holdren and Lubchenco's nominations, as Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told CQ:

"It's infuriating," said Rockefeller, who backs Holdren and Lubchenco's hiring. "They're brilliant scientists."

Science advocates said they are frustrated by the blocking of administration officials they argue are needed now more than ever. The holdup could slow timely science and environmental policy work between Congress and the administration, particularly the spending of roughly $21.5 billion dedicated to science in the economic recovery package.

Thanks a lot, Sen. Menendez. I hope it's worth it.

(Hey, maybe he and Fidel Castro can do a Bloggingheads about it...)

This Would Be A Legacy

A bill was introduced last week in Congress that would end the travel ban to Cuba and restrict the ability to reimpose the ban in the future. This type of legislation has been offered in the past but went nowhere. However, the new President has been supportive of lifting the ban (and possibly the embargo), and Cuba's new President has returned the love:

The Obama administration has taken note of remarks both by Cuban President Raul Castro and by his brother, former President Fidel Castro, expressing, in part, positive sentiments about Barack Obama and the significance of his presidency, according to a senior State Department official. Both Castros, using somewhat different language, have said they view Obama as intelligent and sincere in wanting to change U.S. foreign policy and see his presidency as historic.

The Castros' remarks have come since the U.S. election and have continued occasionally in interviews, comments to the media, and, in the case of Fidel Castro, his frequent articles in the Cuban press. "I think the statements are important. They've registered," said the State Department official.

U.S. policy toward Cuba, including the various restrictions that flow from a 47-year-old economic embargo, will be reviewed by Obama administration agencies. During the campaign, Obama said that he intended to remove restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans and that he favored well-prepared "direct diplomacy" with the island's communist government.

Cuba is moving forward, albeit gradually, with some economic reforms, and there are signs that the Cuban people are pushing for additional political and social reform from the bottom up. There's nobody better positioned to capitalize on this than President Obama. Robert Farley notes:

Nothing says EPIC FAIL more than the 47-year policy of disengagement and embargo that the United States has pursued toward Cuba -- even strong Castro foes would be well advised to seek an alternative approach. As Doherty notes, Obama doesn't appear to be afraid of the Cuban-American vote in Florida. The community is becoming more politically diverse, and in any case is losing its demographic grip over the state's electoral votes. Cuba has real "legacy" potential for Obama; 10 presidents have failed to dislodge either Castro or his opponents in the United States.

Absolutely. And while the economic benefit during this downturn would be small, certainly there would be increased regional stability in South Florida to come with a more vibrant system of trade and rapport with Cuba. I think it would be an excellent thing to focus on diplomatically in the first term.

Bush's Terrorist Has a Coming-Out Party

Luis Posada Carriles, an admitted terrorist wanted for crimes in Latin America, had a nice dinner the other night.

...the man being honored by 500 fellow Cuban Americans at a sold-out gala was Luis Posada Carriles, the former CIA operative wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges and under a deportation order for illegally entering the United States three years ago [...]

Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, condemned the celebration of Posada as a mockery of justice and evidence of a Bush administration double standard in fighting terrorism.

"This is outrageous, particularly because he kept talking about violence," Alvarez said of Posada. "He said that the whole thing now is 'to sharpen our machetes' " for a confrontation with leftist regimes in Latin America.

The U.S. government has never given Venezuela a formal answer to its 3-year-old request for extradition of Posada, despite a treaty providing for such cooperation that has been in effect since 1922, the ambassador said.

Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, is alleged to have masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 on which all 73 on board were killed, including a youth fencing team returning from a tournament in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. He is also suspected of plotting a series of hotel bombings in Havana in the late 1990s, one of which killed an Italian tourist.

He has boasted of his many attempts to kill Castro and has allegedly been involved in, according to court documents, "some of the most infamous events of 20th century Central American politics." [...]

Analysts speculate that the U.S. government has dodged calls for prosecution of Posada for fear he would disclose details of CIA involvement in coups, assassination plots and scandals, including the Iran-Contra Affair.

Peter Kornbluh, head of the Cuba Documentation Project at George Washington University's National Security Archive, has compiled declassified CIA and FBI documents on Posada that show he remained in close touch with Washington handlers throughout his covert service.

"The spectacle of a wanted international terrorist being publicly feted as a hero in Miami makes a mockery of the Bush administration's commitment to wage a war on terrorism," he said of Posada's coming-out party.

I seem to remember a speech wherein the President averred that "we will make no distinction between terrorists and the states who harbor them."

Hm.

Let the bombing of Miami commence!

More on Posada Carriles from the archives. He was a CIA operative, by the way, involved in all of these plots to overthrow governments and assassinate sovereign leaders, when a guy by the name of George Bush was CIA Director. In fact, the Cuban airliner bombing was carried out with full knowledge of the CIA, while it was under the auspices of Mr. Bush.

FL-25: Proving His Thesis

So Joe Garcia, a House candidate in South Florida who I really like, produced his first ad of the year hitting Mario Diaz-Balart for focusing solely on anti-Castro rhetoric and Cuba policy at the expense of everything else.



In response, Diaz-Balart... accuses Garcia of taking money from Castro.

And this is where it gets ridiculous: Mario Diaz-Balart's campaign has coupled this release with a whisper campaign that says we're taking donations from the Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro regimes. In the past few days, our campaign has received numerous calls about this.

They're claiming it's coming in the form of contributions lower than $200, which no campaign is required to report the provenance or identity of.

Still, it's pretty amusing that Diaz-Balart's response proves Garcia's point, no?

This is going to be a race to watch.

World Report

From time to time I round up global events in a little ditty I like to call "World Report." I'm going to write it for you now.

• There's little in the way of actual news coming out of Cuba, where the transition from brother Fidel Castro to brother Raul appears to be fairly seamless. There's some great commentary around the Web, however. Steve Clemons calls the situation a "historic opportunity" to change American Cold War-era policies with Cuba, lift the embargo and move toward normalized relations. Tony Karon discussing, in a fascinating way, the allure of Castro to foreign leaders, as someone willing to stick it to the Americans. And both Matt Yglesias and ">Ezra Klein synthesize these two perspectives:

"for good reasons and for bad ones, the romance of thumbing one's nose at the USA has powerful and important resonance for a lot of people around the world. Under the circumstances, it rarely serves our interests to get into dramatic confrontations with leaders who are far too puny to objectively threaten our interests. After all, what significance would Castro have without his superpower adversary? US persecution of the Communist regime in Havana is really the only thing it has going for it."

A corollary to that point is that the more unpopular America is, the more political appeal opposing us will have. So the more we do to stoke anti-American sentiment, the more we strengthen the domestic political hands of the very leaders we oppose. It's a vicious circle, and one the Bush administration has been pursuing with all the zeal of a kid who just discovered ring-around-the-rosie.

• In Pakistan, the two leading opposition parties, Benazir Bhutto's former Pakistan People's Party and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League-Q, will form a coalition government. This puts even more pressure on the Pervez Musharraf, who is trying to cling to power with an assist from the United States. Meanwhile, the opposition parties want to enter into dialogue with the militants who have been stepping up their attacks, in addition to restoring a free press and an independent judiciary.

• Angry crowds in Belgrade, Serbia attacked the US Embassy in protest of American recognition of an independent Kosovo. Riot police eventually secured the embassy. This bears watching.

• Where have I read a story like this before?

An exiled Iranian opposition group has claimed that Tehran was speeding up a program to develop nuclear weapons.

"The Iran regime entered a new phase in its nuclear project," Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, said Wednesday.

So you have an exile group that wants to overthrow a Middle Eastern government, hyping fears about a nuclear arsenal in their home country.

And it starts with an "I".

• Oh yeah, that's it, Iraq!!! It's unclear whether or not our troops are going to be having to dodge a larger stream of bullets come Saturday, when the deadline for Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire is reached. The LA Times says that the truce may not be extended, because US forces haven't been cooperative, particularly by bombing Shiite outposts and arresting Mahdi Army members. But Reuters claims that Sadr will actually extend the truce for another six months. So we'll see.

At any rate, the fact that prospects in Iraq are so definitively tied to whether or not a militant who seeks our destruction keeps his fighters off the battlefield is ominous, to say the least. Russ Feingold says a bit more.

Since the beginning of this disastrous war, people have asked me repeatedly why we are in Iraq, instead of going after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It's clear to many Americans that this war has warped our national security priorities. And top U.S. military commanders have started to acknowledge the same thing, indirectly, as they identify the serious threat to our security in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the strain that the war in Iraq is putting on our military force.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that an attack on the U.S. will most likely come from al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. This solemn warning, from the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces, demands that we focus our energy and resources on eliminating this threat to our country. The resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a grave threat to our national security, yet our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq that we don't have enough resources to address it. As U.S. military General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, said, "The Army today is out of balance," and "We're deploying at unsustainable rates." [...]

The administration can't seem to get its national security priorities straight, even with the increasing threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. But Congress is to blame, too -- we've been sitting by and watching as the administration bungles our national security strategy. The administration has had blinders on for too long, focusing on Iraq at the expense of our overall security. We have to force them to take the blinders off and come up with a new strategy, one that focuses on going after the threats we face, not staying mired in the mistakes they've made.

I know that most Democrats in Congress have given up on changing course in Iraq, but Russ Feingold has a little more integrity than that.

The 2008 Election Just Turned

Three major developments globally have the potential to really change the dynamic in the Presidential election. Fidel Castro's resignation, the declaration of independence in Kosovo, and the resounding defeat of General-Dictator Pervez Musharraf's party in elections in Pakistan, are major, world-changing events that could be extremely positive for the world and the people in those nations, or profoundly destabilizing, over the next several years. Will Castro's exit usher in political and economic reforms? Will the counter-productive embargo finally be lifted? Or will US policy toward Cuba remain in its 50-year stasis, and will more sinister possibilities reveal themselves? Will Kosovo receive their independence and spark other democratic movements in the region, or will Serbia and Russia start another war in the Balkans? Will the opposition movements force Musharraf from power in Pakistan, or will the military render the will of the people moot, and will the society remain under martial law or worse? These are important political questions, and the next President will have an opportunity to really alter the global landscape, with smarts and savvy and the use of soft-power diplomacy.

Whether you see now as a time to stick with someone with the experience to make these tough and delicate decisions, or to go with someone with a different mindset on foreign policy, this is certainly a momentous occasion. And certainly, contrasting the two candidates we have left on the Democratic side to Bush's third term proxy John McCain, the difference is stark. Here's an example of what can be done right now, in this case with respect to Pakistan.

Now that Musharraf is for all practical purposes about to be dispensed with, the Bush administration needs to take a new approach.

A good start would be to adopt Sen. Joseph Biden's proposal to triple U.S. economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion per year. A second step should be to acknowledge that flooding military aid into the country -- to the tune of $10 billion since the beginning of the Bush presidency -- has done more harm than good. In this administration -- if possible -- and certainly in the next, the United States needs to shift from "democracy promotion" to "democracy support." Instead of trying to impose pro-U.S. regimes by force, U.S. policy should involve supporting indigenous democratic forces with non-military assistance, taking its cues from the needs of these movements rather than trying to manipulate the results.

These really are the fundamental questions. Are we going to stick with a foreign policy of the neoconservative consensus, with bullying and unilateralism and warmongering, are we going to attempt to better our position in the world through cooperation and mutual support.

When you shrug off the posturing and the day to day of the campaign, these are the stakes.

UPDATE: The initial statements of the leading candidates on Castro's resignation does not make me particularly hopeful, though there are some vague claims about reaching out and talking on the condition that Cuba takes legitimate steps to reform, particularly by releasing political prisoners. Sadly, our Cuba policy is still tied to electoral politics, particularly with respect to Florida.

Castro Steps Down

Well this is big news indeed.

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday that he will not return to lead the country as president, retiring as head of state 49 years after he seized power in an armed revolution.

Castro, 81, said in a statement to the country that he would not seek a new presidential term when the National Assembly meets on Feb. 24.

"To my dear compatriots, who gave me the immense honor in recent days of electing me a member of parliament ... I communicate to you that I will not aspire to or accept -- I repeat not aspire to or accept -- the positions of President of Council of State and Commander in Chief," Castro said in the statement published on the Web site of the Communist Party's Granma newspaper.

The National Assembly or legislature is expected to nominate his brother and designated successor Raul Castro, 76, as president in place of Castro, who has not appeared in public for almost 19 months after being stricken by an undisclosed illness.

Castro, of course, is one of the remaining boogeymen for the right, so they'll have to transfer that energy to Chavez or somebody else. I do hope Cuba can modernize and reform their economy and their human rights situation. But I also hope that a new, preferably Democratic President, with Castro out of the way, can take another look at the embargo and how it has been painful for both sides. Rationing in Cuba has had some paradoxical benefits (they can't afford junk food so they're generally healthier), but overall the people have suffered. And Raul is in power for now, but there really is no credible replacement after Fidel's 46-year reign. So this could turn messy.

I'm not entirely qualified to comment further on this, but promise to link to someone who is!

And of course, the real question here is, will he retire to Gitmo, and all that delicious food?

Terrorist Released By American Justice System

If I were Michelle Malkin, I'd be all "where is the MSM outrage???!1!?? Dhimmis!!11!" about the fact that a known international terrorist responsible for airplane bombings and the deaths of hundreds has been released by the U.S. criminal justice system. But of course, he's the wrong KIND of terrorist.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone threw out immigration charges against Posada Carriles, and ordered his electronic tracking bracelet removed. He had been free on bail, pending an immigration trial that was scheduled to begin this week.

According to CNN, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security are “reviewing Cardone’s decision”, and it is not clear at this point whether or not the judge’s ruling will be appealed.

What is clear, beyond all reasonable doubt, is that Posada Carriles is an international terrorist who was trained and financed by the U.S. government. Whether he was operating as a freelancer, or at the behest of his CIA handlers when he carried out his terrorist acts is completely beside the point. Documents from the U.S. government make it clear that the man plotted the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people, and he has admitted being involved in hotel bombings in Havana. In fact, he’s quite proud of his curriculum vitae as a terrorist.

The Cuban airliner bombing happened with the knowledge of the CIA, and it occurred when a guy named George Bush was CIA Director. You might know him as the President's father.

By the way, why were these immigration charges tossed out?

Cardone threw out the interview with immigration authorities that was the basis of the charges against Posada. The interview was poorly translated for him, she found, and "No effective communication existed between defendant and the interviewers."

"In light of the fact that the indictment in this case is based upon statements made during the naturalization interview, this court finds that the interpretation is so inaccurate as to render it unreliable as evidence of defendant's actual statements," she wrote.

In addition, Cardone condemned what she called government manipulation in the case, noting that Posada's naturalization interview was unusual in that it stretched eight hours over two days, as opposed to the usual maximum of 30 minutes.

Cardone called the interview a "pretext for a criminal investigation."

Although "warnings" were provided to Posada at the beginning of the interview, she wrote, they were read to him in English without any translation, and his attorney continually was told that if Posada exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it would result in termination of the interview.

"More importantly," she wrote, "defendant did not receive an explanation of the true import of the government's inquiry."

Wow, it was so mismanaged, it was almost like the Justice Department wanted to see him set free...

(not to mention the fact that the judge had no choice but to toss the case out of respect for the - wait for it - great writ of habeas corpus)

It's incredible that we hear so much in this country about the need to capture terrorists, and yet when a terrorist is bombing places we want bombed - trying to kill Castro, for example - we will allow him to go free. The hypocrisy is sickening.

Viva Mitt

Here's a sure way to lose the Republican nomination: associate your campaign with the President of Cuba.

People chuckled when presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon raised in Michigan and elected in Massachusetts, bungled the names of Cuban-American politicians during a recent speech in Miami.

But when he mistakenly associated Fidel Castro's trademark speech-ending slogan -- Patria o muerte, venceremos! -- with a free Cuba, listeners didn't laugh. They winced.

Castro has closed his speeches with the phrase -- in English, ''Fatherland or death, we shall overcome'' -- for decades.

''Clearly, that's something he was ill-advised on or didn't do his homework on,'' said Hialeah City Council President Esteban Bovo. "When you get cute with slogans, you get yourself into a trap.''

This is one of those superficial things that always annoys me with modern campaigns - that moment when the white guy has to start talking in a language he doesn't know or understand to vote-pander. It doesn't impress anyone anymore, and it inevitably leads to awkwardness like this. This is like saying "white power!" at an NAACP meeting, I would imagine.

But that's not the only recent Romney item that raised an eyebrow:

The primary funder of an independent group that raised questions about the résumé of Sen. John F. Kerry during the 2004 presidential election has signed on to raise money for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's GOP presidential campaign.

Bob Perry, a Houston home builder, is named as a member of Romney's Texas Leadership Team in an invite for a fundraising event in Dallas on March 26.

Perry has earned a reputation for his willingness to finance "527" groups. He gained notoriety for the $4.5 million he donated to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam War veterans who questioned Kerry's military credentials. He funded similar pro-GOP groups in 2006, including the Economic Freedom Fund, which ran ads attacking Democrats in Georgia, Iowa and West Virginia, and A Stronger America, which financed ads attacking Democrat Mike Hatch in his Minnesota gubernatorial bid last year.

In 2006, Perry was the largest political donor in Texas, doling out nearly $400,000 to GOP Gov. Rick Perry's campaign alone (the two are not related).

I guess Mitt's going for an Administration filled with honesty, right?

One thing that has come out of 2004 is that anyone associated with the Swift Boaters is immediately demonized by a substantial segment of the population. Votes are hard enough to come by without something like this anchoring you down. Good job, Mitt: Tone deaf on multiple counts!