Saudi Government Is Guilty And Donald Trump Doesn't Care

The Saudi Arabian government is starting to realize that their claims of innocence regarding the murder of a Washington Post journalist is just not believable, so they are floating a new story -- that the murder was done by rogue elements who let an interview get out of hand. But these photos from The New York Times shows that is not true either. The guilty parties had close ties to the Saudi government (especially Mohammed bin Salman). The Times writes:

One of the suspects identified by Turkey in the disappearance of the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was a frequent companion of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — seen disembarking from airplanes with him in Paris and Madrid and photographed standing guard during his visits this year to Houston, Boston and the United Nations.

Three others are linked by witnesses and other records to the Saudi crown prince’s security detail.

A fifth is a forensic doctor who holds senior positions in the Saudi Interior Ministry and medical establishment, a figure of such stature that he could be directed only by a high-ranking Saudi authority.

If, as the Turkish authorities say, these men were present at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul where Mr. Khashoggi disappeared on Oct. 2, they might provide a direct link between what happened and Prince Mohammed. That would undercut any suggestion that Mr. Khashoggi died in a rogue operation unsanctioned by the crown prince. Their connection to him could also make it more difficult for the White House and Congress to accept such an explanation.

The New York Times has confirmed independently that at least nine of 15 suspects identified by Turkish authorities worked for the Saudi security services, military or other government ministries. One of them, Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, was a diplomat assigned to the Saudi Embassy in London in 2007, according to a British diplomatic roster. He traveled extensively with the crown prince, perhaps as a bodyguard.

This doesn't matter to Donald Trump. He's trying to help the Saudi government by floating their "rogue killer" theory, even though he has to know (from his own intelligence services) that is simply not true. Why is he doing this? Does he approve of governments murdering journalists? No. The truth is he doesn't care what the Saudi's (or any other government) does.

Trump has no moral center. The only things he respects are money and power. And the diplomacy his administration follows is just like himself -- without a moral and ethical center. For the Trump administration diplomacy = dollars. If a country is feeding dollars into the U.S. Treasury (and Trump's businesses), then they can do whatever they want (including murder and torture of their own citizens or journalists).

This "dollar diplomacy" is a new and shameful position for the U.S. government. While it's true that other American presidents have supported some authoritarian regimes, there have been limits -- and those presidents have supported and tried to encourage the spread of human rights around the world (and in those authoritarian regimes).

The Trump administration is different. To it, morality and human rights have no meaning. And Trump has made sure the world understands that. In his recent speech at the U.N., he told the other countries of the world that he doesn't care what happens within their borders -- as long as the U.S. is first in monetary agreements. Evidently, the Saudi's believed him -- and I suspect other authoritarian regimes did also.

Is this what we want from our government -- an abandonment of morality and human rights in pursuit of dollars? If not, then you must go to the polls and vote Trump's protectors (Republicans) out of power.

Donald Trump Continues His Failed North Korea Policy

(This photo of Ivanka Trump, from Wikipedia, is by Michael Vadon.)

The words in the photo here are from Ivanka Trump, as she met with South Korean officials after arriving to attend the Olympic closing ceremony.  Even though North Korea has expressed a desire for face-to-face negotiations with the United States, it seems that the Trump administration is interested only in continuing its failed policy of sanctions and threats.

A few days ago, Trump announced new sanctions had been applied against North Korea -- this time against 27 entities and 28 vessels that he believes have been helping North Korea avoid previous sanctions.

Trump still seems to think that if he can levy enough sanctions (coupled with threats) against North Korea, they will finally be desperate enough to abandon their nuclear weapons program. In other words, he thinks he can starve them into compliance.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that surrender is not the only option available to a desperate North Korea. They could (and probably would) choose to attack South Korea to get the needed resources. Chinese and Russian leaders are smarter than Trump. That's why they are helping North Korea to avoid the sanctions just enough to stave off such desperation, and they will continue to do that.

Trump though seems to relish the idea of war with North Korea. He said on Friday that if his new sanctions didn't work, he might have to go to "plan 2" (which he described as being very bad for the world). Does he think he could get away with a military strike against North Korea? If so, then he's very stupid. North Korea would retaliate -- most likely against South Korea. Hundreds of thousands would die and a new war would be started.

And he shouldn't even dream of forcing a regime change in North Korea. China would never allow that. They don't want a Western-style and Western-oriented government on their border -- and they will once again send troops into Korea to prevent it.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. That is just a fact. And they are not going to give them up -- regardless of threats and sanctions. No nation that has developed nuclear weapons has ever given them up, especially since their enemies still have them -- and North Korea is not going to be the first. North Korean leaders believe they must have those nuclear weapons to protect themselves. They have seen what happens to non-nuclear countries when the U.S. is unhappy with them (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), and they think they can avoid that same fate by having nuclear weapons.

If North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons, does that mean nothing can be done? No. They have indicated a willingness to negotiate, and we should take them up on that. At the very least, we could hopefully work out a "no first use" of nuclear weapons treaty with them -- and that would be better than the current situation.

Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to use diplomacy to make the situation better. Diplomacy and negotiating are not his strong suits. He prefers threats and heavy-handed actions (probably because he's not really very bright). North Korea is just one reason why we must vote in a Democratic Congress this year to rein in Trump -- and then vote him out of office in 2020.

Trump "Speaks Loudly And Carries A Small Stick"

(This photo of Trump and Pena Nieto at mcclatchydc.com is by Evan Vucci /AP.)

Diplomats around the world are starting to laugh at the diplomatic incompetence of Donald Trump. Consider this from the D.C. Bureau of McClatchy News (part of which is posted below):

When Jorge Guajardo, one of Mexico’s most senior and seasoned foreign policy hands, got out of bed Thursday morning, a couple of interesting messages were waiting on his cell phone.

One was a link shared by a U.S. diplomat to the leaked transcript of a phone conversation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. In the second, a former Mexican official offered the quick analysis.

“He’s the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt,” that official quipped to Guajardo about Trump. “He speaks loudly and carries a small stick.”

Seven months into the Trump administration, the world’s diplomatic community has gone from throwing its hands in the air to now leaning back in their chairs and laughing, albeit morosely, at Trump’s cringe-worthy display of diplomacy during the infancy of his presidency.

A transcript of Trump’s conversation with Mexico’s leader was one of two phone calls uncovered by the Washington Post that provide yet another glimpse into the raw conversations that have opened Trump up to charges of hypocrisy and belittling his base.

A transcript of Trump’s conversation with Mexico’s leader was one of two phone calls uncovered by the Washington Post that provide yet another glimpse into the raw conversations that have opened Trump up to charges of hypocrisy and belittling his base. . . .

The dramatic exchange brings new insight to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s uncomfortable body language when speaking with Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron long handshake with the U.S. president. These awkward moments are funny; indeed diplomats laugh privately at these displays. But it only serves to mask the serious concerns pulsing through the international community about the direction and priorities of the new administration.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article165303667.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article165303667.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article165303667.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article165303667.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article165303667.html#storylink=cpy

North Korean Threat Is Not As Simple As Trump Thinks

(This photo of a North Korean Taepodong missile is from BBC News.)

Donald Trump has a simplistic view of the problems facing the United States (both domestic and foreign). And that view that our problems are simple to solve extends to the threat of North Korea having nuclear weapons and developing ballistic missiles that can carry those nuclear bombs.

Trump thinks all we have to do is cajole and/or threaten (with economic sanctions) China into taking care of North Korea -- and if China doesn't do that, then bombing North Korea will solve the problem. That view was also expressed by the vice-president in the last couple of days. And sadly, some politicians on both the left and right who normally have sensible views (like Bernie Sanders and John McClain) are succumbing to Trump's simplistic assessment.

The problem is that most issues are complicated, and cannot be solved with simplistic solutions. And that is true of the North Korean issue. Other countries do not see the issue the same way Americans do, and some of those countries (China and North Korea) are not prone to give in to American threats.

This does not mean the problem can't be solved -- only that the simplistic solutions of threats and military strikes are not likely to work. As past presidents have known, this is a problem requiring a diplomatic solution -- and diplomacy can be complicated and time-consuming, but it works.

These paragraphs from Mark Sumner at Daily Kos give us a glimmer of how complicated the North Korean issue is:

Kim Jong Un could be singularly reluctant to cooperate for a simple reason.

The Taliban didn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Afghanistan was bombed and taken over.

Saddam didn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Iraq was bombed and taken over.

Assad doesn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Syria was bombed and … stay tuned.

That North Korea massively accelerated nuclear ambitions after 2001 and exploded its first test blast in 2006 is no coincidence. US policy often seems to treat North Korean leaderships as unreasoning blowhards who understand that giving up the weapons will lead to being left alone. But that leadership appears to believe exactly the opposite — surrendering the weapons, or even failing to continue with development, is something they see as tantamount to handing over their nation. As futile, and even nonsensical, as North Korea’s bristling, blatant disregard for international agreements, and finger-on-the-trigger actions may seem, the leadership there could well be sincere in the belief that they’re taking the only route to secure the continued existence of the entire regime. 

That’s not a formula that leads toward easy resolution. 

China’s position is also not so easily described. On the one hand, North Korea represents a tiny part of China’s trade, and having a poor, unstable, nuclear-armed neighbor may seem like the sort of situation where helping disarm that neighbor would be a great idea. On the other hand, North Korea holds an out-sized position in China’s recent history. While America sees the Korean War as an ugly, unresolved conflict that represented only the opening act in a East-West conflict—a conflict so drowned out by what came later that it’s been called “the forgotten war”—that’s not how it’s seen in China.

For China, the Korean conflict was the first opportunity for new communist government to challenge nations that had treated it as an afterthought to that point. After being invaded, defeated, and disrespected during World War II, China places a huge amount of pride behind the idea that, just a few years later, they challenged the most powerful military in the world and fought it to a draw. Even if the Korean War didn’t end in the south being completely overrun, the Chinese version of the story treats the war as a huge victory. There are six decades of mythology behind the relationship of North Korea and China, and even if the government is ready to alter that story, it’s unlikely to happen overnight. Or over cake.

A Historic Moment For The United States And Cuba

(This photo of the president and his family arriving in Cuba is from ABC News.)

History was made yesterday, when President Obama and his family set foot in the nation of Cuba. An American president hasn't visited Cuba in nearly 9 decades (since Calvin Coolidge visited the island nation in 1928) -- and no American president has visited since the Cuban Revolution in 1959.

This is one more step in the normalization of relations between the two countries. And that normalization is long overdue. Outside of Canada and Mexico (which share borders with the United States), no other country is as geographically close to the U.S. as Cuba is (about 90 miles away).

Cuba poses no danger to the United States (far less than many other countries with which we share full diplomatic relations), we have no right to dictate to Cuba what kind of government we think they should have. That is a matter for the Cuban people alone. There is no rational reason why we shouldn't treat Cuba fairly, and give them the same respect we offer to most of the world's other countries.

It is also time to end the silly embargo we have had regarding Cuba. It has accomplished nothing, and the other nations of the world long ago stopped honoring it.

GOP Candidates Won't Admit It, But Diplomacy Works

(This photo of John Kerry and Mohammad Zarif in the Washington Post is by Craig Ruttle / AP.)

The nuclear talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif didn't just get an agreement for Iran to not develop nuclear weapons. It also established a relationship between the two men (and their countries) -- a relationship that has had other benefits (like the release of American sailors who wandered into Iranian waters, and the release of other Americans from Iranian prisons). It shows that diplomacy works. When nations talk to each other in an honest and respectful way, intractable problems can be solved -- problems that had only been made worse by threats and intimidation.

Reasonable people are glad to see this slight warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran. But the current crop of Republican presidential candidates aren't reasonable, and their only solutions to our problems with Iran is threats of war. They do that because it pleases the far-right elements in the Republican base (and votes are more important to them than diplomatic accomplishments). But other traditionally conservative groups, like the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News, don't understand this hard-line attitude. Here is their recent editorial about this:

Diplomacy done right adds enormously to America’s power in the world. And when it works, politicians of any stripe ought to be bold enough to say so.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidates for president — including most prominently our own senator Ted Cruz — have played politics rather than standing behind the nation’s efforts to protect its citizens and armed forces through smart use of this power.

Twice in the past week, America’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, one of its fiercest adversaries, have produced powerful results. Both times, critics of the president were too timid to speak out in favor of the success brought by improved communications between Washington and Tehran.

It was entirely understandable that the detention last Tuesday of U.S. sailors by Iran after they had drifted into Iran’s territorial waters rang alarm bells throughout America. What wasn’t reasonable, nor helpful, was the response by Cruz and others faulting America’s “weakness” they saw revealed in the capture. Nor did it make any sense to excoriate President Barack Obama’s decision to not address the unfolding crisis during the State of the Union speech that evening.

We might have hoped when word came the next day — the very next day — that the sailors had been released unharmed, that those screaming bloody murder would have apologized for their reckless statements, or at least softened their tone. That didn’t happen.

On Wednesday night, Cruz hijacked the first question of the GOP debate to up the ante, promising that “any nation that captures our fighting men and women will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

It’s easy to say strong-sounding words, but the reality is that such statements make us weaker. His promise that, if elected, he’d bring the “full force and fury” of the nation to bear — whatever that means — is a promise to make such crises in the future worse, not better. That goes for the sailors and for the nation.

Another diplomatic breakthrough happened over the holiday weekend. Five Americans held by Iran have been released from their prison cells. The deal involved a trade, and the U.S. pardoned or dropped charges against seven Iranians who had been convicted or charged with providing economic help to Iran in violation of sanctions.

The same critics who had blasted Obama for failing to include the release of these Americans in the Iran nuclear deal could not bring themselves to support the trade. They wanted Obama to tie lifting of economic sanctions against Iran to the release of the prisoners. That was OK. But this trade, they now say, is not.

It’s inconsistent. Uncharitable. And foolish in the face of the continued need for this country to build and exercise its diplomatic strength.

Iran And United States Relations (Diplomacy Works!)

Today, the United States and Iran are generally considered to be enemies. There is good reason for this -- and both countries must accept part of the blame for that.

The roots for this troubled relationship go back to 1953. In 1951, Iran became a democracy, and they elected a prime minister named Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was extremely popular with Iranian citizens, especially after he nationalized the petroleum industry and oil reserves in that country.

This was not viewed positively by Western nations like the United States. Those nations had controlled the oil industry in Iran, and they didn't want to give up that control. They could have just negotiated to purchase that oil, but they chose another path. They (primarily the United States) engineered a coup -- ousting the Mosaddegh government, and re-installing the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) as the ruler of Iran.

The Shah ruled as a dictator for the next quarter century with the support of the United States, and democracy in Iran disappeared. It was not until early 1979, that the Shah was run out of the country and an islamic theocracy established to replace him. Later that year, hardline islamic demonstrators stormed the American embassy in Tehran, taking dozens of Americans hostage. President Carter was unable to negotiate the release of the hostages, and an ill-fated rescue attempt failed. The hostages were finally released on the last day of the Carter presidency -- thanks to an arms for hostages deal negotiated by the incoming president -- Ronald Reagan.

Since then, the two nations have been enemies, and have had no official diplomatic relations.

This did not change until the Obama administration. President Obama initiated diplomatic talks with Iran -- spurred primarily by the fear that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The United States and other Western nations began protracted talks with Iranian officials -- and those talks were successful. In 2015, an agreement was reached. Even though the agreement was opposed by many American politicians (primarily Republicans), it went into effect.

This new ability of the United States and Iran to actually talk to each other (instead of just throwing bellicose charges at each other through the media) is having some positive results. Last week, some American navy members entered Iranian waters and were taken into custody by Iran. They were released with harm within 24 hours -- something that would have been unthinkable a year or two ago.

Then yesterday, we learned than Iran and the U.S. have agreed to a prisoner swap. Iran is releasing 5 Americans they held (and allowing the Iranian wife of one of those prisoners to leave with her husband). The U.S. is dropping charges against 7 individuals accused of violating the Iranian sanctions.

Also yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran has complied with all of the terms of the agreement between it and the United States (and Western nations). Because of that, the sanctions have been removed, and the freeze on Iranian funds will soon be lifted.

The upshot of all of this is that diplomacy works. When nations actually talk with each other, amazing things can be accomplished -- and it can be done without innocent people being killed. We are not near the establishment of normal relations between the United States and Iran yet, but at least such a dream is not outside the realm of possibility someday.

Sadly though, the working relationship that has been established with Iran will depend in the future on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The Republicans (all of their presidential candidates) still consider Iran to be an enemy that cannot be trusted. They would destroy what has been established -- and we would go back to sanctions, or even a new war. But the Democratic presidential candidates (all three of them) could be counted on to further this diplomatic progress. It's a choice between going down the road to war, or taking the path to peaceful diplomacy -- and that's something voters need to seriously consider when they go to the polls in November.

Does Public Think We Still Have A Choice On Iran Deal?

The chart above shows the results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center. Between July 14th and 20th, they asked 1,672 American adults who had heard about the Iran Deal whether they approved or disapproved of that deal. The survey has a margin of error of 2.7 points.

Overall, the American public doesn't like the deal. Only 38% of then approved of it, while 48% disapproved of it. Democrats overwhelmingly approved of it (59%) and Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved of it (75%). Generally, the more educated a person was the more likely they approved of it, and the older a person was the more likely they disapproved of it.

That's OK. I understand that most Americans don't trust Iran. Relations between the two countries haven't been good for quite a while now -- and the roots of that distrust stretch all the way back to the 1950's, when the CIA overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the Shah. Iranians don't trust the American government any more than Americans trust the Iranian government.

But that is not what bothers me. I am wondering whether the dislike of this deal by the public will translate into support for Congress to kill the deal. Do Americans want the deal to be defeated? Do they think we could go back to the status quo if the deal is defeated in Congress -- with all the sanctions remaining intact?

If so, then they are as foolish as the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress who are opposing the deal. Whether they like it or not, we no longer have a choice about whether to implement the deal or not -- and that's just a fact.

We were not the only nation that helped to negotiate this deal, and the only reason the sanctions were working was because a whole host of nations had joined in the imposing of those sanctions. Those other nations want to give the deal a chance to work, and they will not re-impose the sanctions just because the American Congress defeats the deal. Russia, China, and I suspect a lot of Western nations, will then view the United States as the stumbling block to a successful deal to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.

They will lift their sanctions. They will trade with Iran. And they will begin to buy Iranian oil once again. Even if the United States re-imposed sanctions, they would be alone in doing it (and we saw how well a unilateral sanction works with our silly unilateral embargo of Cuba) -- and that would not work. The result would be that Iran, without sanctions, would be free to do whatever it wanted to do about nuclear weapons.

The only way universal sanctions could be re-imposed is if we give the deal a chance to work and Iran doesn't live up to their part of the deal -- not by a congressional rejection of the deal. In other words, we no longer have a choice about whether to go along with the deal or not. We have to do it. And the American public needs to realize that -- and stop listening to those in Congress wanting to use this issue to play political games.

U.S. And Cuba Officially Establish Diplomatic Relations

(This photo of the Cuban embassy sign is from CNN.)

This seems to be happening under the radar, with little news coverage -- but it should be a moment for celebration. On Monday, the Cuban and United States embassies opened for the first time in many years.

Cuba opened their embassy officially in Washington, DC, and raised the Cuban flag. The American embassy also opened for business in Havana -- but they are delaying the official raising of the American flag until August 14th, when Secretary of State John Kerry visits Cuba.

I am happy to see this happen. Now the United States Congress needs to take the final step, and end the silly 50 years long embargo of Cuba. It has not worked, is not recognized by other nations, and still serves as nothing but an embarrassment for the United States.

Cuba And U.S. To Re-Establish Embassies

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced that Cuba and the United States would be engaging in talks designed to normalize diplomatic relations between the two countries. It looks like those talks have been successful, because yesterday President Obama announced the two countries would open embassies in each country this month. A simultaneous announcement was made on Cuban television, as an announcer read a letter from Raul Castro.

The two embassies are scheduled to open on July 20th, and Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Cuba to open the U.S. embassy. This is long past due. There is absolutely no reason why the United States and Cuba shouldn't have normal diplomatic relations.

Now Congress needs to do its part, and end the silly and ineffective trade embargo that has been in effect for more than 50 years. Cuba poses no danger to the United States, and all other nations ended there part in this embargo long ago. If we can trade with nations like China, then there is no reason why we shouldn't trade with our neighbor to the South.

Americans Are Ready For Normal Relations With Cuba

(The cartoon image above is by David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times.)

A few days ago, President Obama announced he would be normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba, and easing travel restrictions a bit (although most Americans would still be forbidden to travel their). He also asked Congress to consider lifting the trade embargo that has been in effect for over 50 year (and accomplished nothing).

In Congress, Democrats applauded the president's decision and Republicans opposed it. But the real question was -- what do the American people think? Last week I showed you the results of three recent polls -- polls that showed most Americans want normal relations with Cuba (and want the embargo lifted). They were the CBS News Poll, the Rasmussen Poll, and the CNN/ORC Poll.

Now there is a fourth survey (see charts below) that verifies what the other three polls have shown. It is the YouGov Poll done between December 20th and 22nd of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with about a 4 point margin of error. It shows that half of Americans (49%) want to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba, while on 24% do not. And 55% majorities want to end the trade embargo and let all Americans travel to Cuba, while only 25% and 26% respectively do not.

And this stretches across all gender, racial, and age demographics. They all show either a majority or strong plurality in favor of the president's position (and opposed to the position taken by congressional Republicans). There is only one group that differs -- Republicans (which may be why the congressional Republicans have taken a position not supported by most Americans).

Our policy toward Cuba has long needed changing (as the rest of the world has already done). Finally, that change has been started. If Congress was smart, they would now finish the job. They won't though. They are too afraid their teabagger base would think they agree with the president on something.

Public Supports Normalizing Relations With Cuba

President Obama recently announced that he is taking steps to once again normalize relations with Cuba. That means that soon we will have an embassy in Cuba -- and the president also relaxed some rules on doing business with Cuba, is going to allow more money to be sent there by private citizens (although most citizens will still be restricted from traveling there).

These moves (and more) have needed to happen for quite a while now in my opinion. But naturally, the Republicans in Congress hit the roof when the president announced his plans. They accused the president of supporting the abuse of human rights (even though they have recently defended this country's use of torture) and complained that he us supporting a dictatorship (ignoring the many right-wing dictatorships they support themselves, like Saudi Arabia). I suspect that, as usual, their opposition springs more from the fact that it was done by President Obama, than any feeling that it was the wrong thing to do.

So, who is right? Does the public support the president's actions or the Republican's outrage over those actions? After examining several new surveys on the subject, it looks to me like the Republicans have positioned themselves in opposition to the desires of the American public. About 54% of the public supports normalizing relations with Cuba, while only 28% oppose that.

In fact, the American public would like to see our government go even further. A whopping 77% think all Americans should be able to travel to Cuba (like the people of all other nations can do), while only 17% want to keep the travel restrictions in place. And about half of the public (49%) would like to see the U.S. completely lift the embargo against Cuba (something only Congress can do), and only 28% would oppose lifting the embargo.

If the Republicans think they will win support by opposing the president on Cuba, they are sadly mistaken. Americans are ready to end the diplomatic and economic war on that island nation. And the charts below show us why that is. About three-quarters (74%) of the American people no longer see Cuba as a threat to the United States. And that includes those over 50, many of whom are old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis.

I doubt that the Republican Congress will lift the embargo against Cuba. They wouldn't want their teabagger base to think they agree with the president on anything -- even something that makes sense and is wanted by most Americans. But they should do it.

The top two charts above are made from a CBS News Poll -- done between December 18th and 21st of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

The third (bottom) chart above is from a Rasmussen Poll -- done on December 19th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

The two charts below were made from a CNN/ORC Poll -- done between December 18th and 21st of a random national sample of 1,011 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Republican Whining Over Cuba Makes No Sense

(This image of Cuba is from the website cubaninsider.)

As expected, the congressional Republicans have gone ballistic over President Obama's effort to restore normal diplomatic relations with Cuba (and ask for an end to the embargo that has lasted for over 50 years). They have accused the president of everything from surrendering to supporting dictatorships -- and some are even trying to come up with some way to keep the failed American policy in effect.

Some want to vote to keep the embargo in effect (which they could do, since it would take an act of Congress to end it). Others want to refuse to fund the building of a U.S. embassy in Cuba, or block the appointment of an ambassador to that country. But they had better tread carefully on this issue, since polls show most Americans are tired of the failed Cuba policy this country has been following -- and the GOP doesn't need another issue where they are out-of-step with most Americans.

They should consider the following points before doing something really stupid:

* The policy, designed to force the Cuban government to fall, has been an abject failure.

* Most other countries in the world have established normal diplomatic relations with Cuba, and now ignore the U.S. embargo.

* Most nations in the Americas, especially the Latin American nations, no longer want to treat Cuba as a pariah, and this has caused a lack of respect for the U.S. among those countries.

* The United States already has full diplomatic relations (and no embargo) with many other dictatorial countries (Saudi Arabia, China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Uganda, etc.) -- and a lot of those countries have a worse human rights record than Cuba does.

* Restoring diplomatic relations and ending the embargo would benefit both nations economically.

* The U.S. government would not stand for another country interfering in our internal politics, so it is wrong for us to try to do that with Cuba.

* Cuba poses no danger to the United States.

* Most Americans support normalizing relations with Cuba and ending the embargo.

I know it offends the extremist congressional Republicans to agree with the president about anything, but the president has just done what needed to be done a long time ago. They will not win any new political friends by opposing his action.

U.S. Public Unsure Of Response To Invasion Of Crimea

The Russians have now poured over 16,000 soldiers into the Crimea (a province of Ukraine). It's starting to look like they are going to use the political crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to expand their own territory. They have told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that they only entered the Crimea as the request of Viktor Yanukovych, saying he had told them the country was in "chaos and anarchy" and "on the brink of civil war".

That's a rather lame excuse. Yanukovych was not overthrown by a civil war, but legally removed by the Unkranian parliament. And if they were really trying to prevent civil war in Ukraine, then why have they only sent troops to the Crimea? Other parts of Ukraine were experiencing more unrest that the Crimea. This is not an attempt to "help" Ukraine, but a territorial grab by Russia. I think U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power put it well when she said:

"Russian military action is not a human rights protection mission. It is a violation of international law."

President Obama has said the United States will take some diplomatic (including economic) measures against Russia, and other Western nations are doing the same. Canada has even withdrawn its ambassador from Moscow. Unfortunately, it looks like the President will have to act without the full support of the American people. And that's a shame, since we cannot allow Russia to resume its old expansionist ways.

The chart above shows this unfortunate view of the American public. It is from a survey taken by the Rasmussen Poll on February 28th and March 1st of 1,000 likely voters nationwide (and has a margin of error of 3 points). Note that only 37% support diplomatic action against Russia, while 36% oppose that. Another 27% don't know what should be done.

Americans Want To Normalize Relations With Cuba

In 1959, the corrupt Bautista regime was overthrown in Cuba. The dictator Bautista had sold out his own people for corporate (and Mafia) dollars from the United States, and his overthrow was badly needed. While it can be debated what kind of government and economic system the country should have adopted after Bautista's overthrow, it cannot be debated that the Cuban people (as a whole) are better off now than they were before the overthrow. They have universal education with one of the highest literacy rates in the world. They have an excellent system of medical care that provides free care to all citizens (and even exports doctors to help other nations). And Cuban citizens no longer must starve because of government inaction.

When that revolution in Cuba happened, the government of the United States unfortunately overreacted. They broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba, and established an embargo of that nation that cut off business with or travel to Cuba. While most other Western nations initially abided with that embargo, they have long since abandoned it -- and they have re-established normal diplomatic relations and are now doing business with Cuba (and allowing travel there). But the United States has not. It still clings to those failed policies.

I have advocated on this blog that the United States should end this silly embargo and normalize relations with Cuba. I do so for the following reasons:
1. The embargo has failed, and the U.S. is the only nation still trying to enforce it.
2. The embargo hurts both countries.
3. The lack of diplomatic relations hinders cooperation that would benefit all of the America's.
4. The choice of government and an economic system is the business of Cuban citizens -- not the United States government.
5. Cuba poses no danger to the United States.

The feeling in this country in recent years is that most Americans support the stance of the United States government -- that the embargo and the lack of diplomatic relations should continue. But that is simply not true. A significant majority of Americans now want to normalize relations with Cuba -- and equally significant majorities want to allow travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens, and to allow U.S. businesses to do business with Cuba. Americans know these policies have failed, and they are ready to dump them.

Note that this is not only the majority opinion of all adults, but also most groups (including Republicans). Only one group lacks a majority supporting the normalization of relations -- those with a high school education or less (and that group has a plurality supporting it).

This information is from a nonpartisan the Atlantic Council Poll (conducted by Republican pollster Glen Bolger and Democratic pollster Paul Maslin). It was done of 1,024 randomly chosen nationwide adults between January 7th and 22nd, and has a margin of error of 3.1 points.

Public Ready For Normal Relations W/Cuba

In 1959, the two gentlemen pictured at the left (along with their comrades) overthrew the corrupt regime of Bautista in Cuba. Then they decided it was not in the best interests of the people of that island nation to continue to allow American corporations  to rape their nation.

This prompted an over-reaction by the United States government. The government helped organize and fund a pitiful and ill-fated invasion of Cuba, and when that failed, it broke off diplomatic relations and organized an embargo of Cuba (blocking travel to and trade with Cuba).

Fifty-four years later we still do not have any diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the embargo continues (even though most of the rest of the world long ago stopped honoring it). It is now time to stop the failed embargo, and to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. I say that for the following reasons:

1. Both the embargo and the denial of a diplomatic relationship have failed. They were meant to force the failure and overthrow of the Cuban government, but that has not happened -- and will not happen due to any action by the U.S. government.

2. No country, including the United States, has the right to feel another country what kind of government (or society or economic system) they must have. That is something that must be decided by the people of the country in question. When and if they decide to change things in their country, they will do so (just as happened in Poland, the Philippines, and the Soviet Union).

3. The Cuban government poses no danger to the United States in any way.

4. The United States maintains diplomatic relations with many other countries that are not friendly (and have an even worse record of human rights violations).

5. The Cuban government would like to normalize relations between the two countries.

6. If we were really worried about human rights in Cuba, we could have much more influence with that if we have a normal diplomatic relationship with them (that allowed talk, trade, and travel to and from Cuba).

7. The reputation of the United States continues to be damaged, both in this hemisphere and throughout the world, by our government's insistence on continuing these failed policies.

And I am not alone in the belief that it is time to normalize relations with Cuba. This is shown by a recent YouGov Poll (conducted on December 11th and 12th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults). As the chart shows below, a plurality of Americans are ready for that -- and those wanting to normalize relations far exceed the number of those who oppose it (except for Republicans, the only group where opposition exceeds support).