Some logic on US-Cuba policy
Capitol Hill Cubans straighten out Senator Kerry's twisted thinking:
How can Senator Kerry boldly state that U.S policy has "manifestly failed" for nearly 50 years, then qualify the Clinton Administration's travel and engagement initiatives as "successful"?
Wasn't Bill Clinton's presidency within the last 50 years?
Wasn't Jimmy Carter's presidency -- when tourism and all other travel transactions between the U.S. and Cuba were completely authorized without limitation -- also within the last 50 years?
Under this premise, shouldn't travel and engagement also be classified as a "failure"?Think about it, in the aftermath to the fall of the Soviet Union, during the most politically and economically vulnerable time for the Castro regime in recent history, the Clinton Administration chose the path of travel and engagement -- to no avail.
Read the whole wonderful rebuttal to a twisted liberal mind here.
If I recall correctly, Senator Kerry was all in favor of sanctions and restrictions back when he was his party's nominee for President. Furthermore, Cuba is not "small." Cuba is the 16th largest island in the world.
Kerry's swinishness towards hero Felix Rodriguez during the Iran-Contra hearings will also live in infamy:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/20/111902.shtml
Unreal
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the (Reagan) administration's policy (towards South Africa), known as "constructive engagement,' (because South Africa's was NOT a totalitarian regime) "a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE form of trickle-down civil rights".
Kerry was a major champion of the COMPREHENSIVE Anti-Apartheid act of 1986 and all its amendments that, among other sanctions, prohibited any U.S. chartered airliner from even landing in South Africa.
Unreal