Surprising expertise by a British Cuba “expert” (somebody screwed up)

Apparently Cuba experts across the big pond need more “dialogue” and “engagement” with their U.S. counterparts. The two sets of experts have their talking points oddly out of sync. To wit:

Putin’s Ria Novosti (his regime’s propaganda organ) just published this interview with Univ. of Kent’s Dr.George Conyne–and Castro’s CubaSi reprinted it. Didn’t The New York Times get the word? Somebody f*cked up seriously here. Heads will roll. To wit:

US Maintains Cuba Embargo to Secure Florida Vote…The US politicians oppose lifting the Cuban embargo in order to secure the Cuban-American vote in both Florida state and national elections…”In order to secure the Cuban-American vote that often decides state elections, these groups must oppose lifting the embargo,” Dr. George Conyne, a history professor at the University of Kent told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.

Whoops!!!….But if most Americans (and especially most Cuban-Americans) oppose the embargo–as claimed by the New York Times and their pet Cuba experts–how can this be?

“There were no real disadvantages (to maintaining the embargo) Americans have not paid attention to UN votes for many years,” he said…Besides, the professor underlined that the embargo had the advantage of never hurting the US, since Cuba doesn’t produce anything most Americans want. So, although free trade with the US would strengthen the Cuban economy, there would not be a great difference.”

Whoops!!!…But the New York Times and their pet Cuba “experts” all claim that the embargo costs U.S. businessmen mucho $billions in lost revenue and gravely damages U.S. diplomatic leverage, especially in Latin America?

“The embargo was enacted in 1960 after Cuba nationalized properties belonging to US citizens and corporations.”

Whoops!!!…but the New York Times and their pet experts always leave out this teeeeenzy little detail.