Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Political debate. Welcome Yahoo Message Board exiles and everybody else !!
Post Reply
User avatar
illeatyourdates2
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 35139
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:16 pm

Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Post by illeatyourdates2 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:51 am

Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?
Humberto Fontova

Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

“President Trump on Thursday pushed back on the idea that former national security adviser John Bolton was too much of a hawk — asserting that it was Bolton who was constraining him. “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

“But that’s crazy, Humberto!” respond some amigos. “I mean, isn’t Trump’s “the art of the deal” guy? Doesn’t he claim to be willing to sit down with our adversaries and try to work things out, rather than immediately sound the bugles and waste trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on pointless wars? Isn’t he a tough-nosed businessman who opposes all these Deep-State-backed foreign interventions that serve no American interests whatsoever?

Yes. Exactly. And you see, amigos: Tightening the so-called Cuba embargo amounts to a form of non-intervention in service of American interests. And that’s what The Castro regime’s agents-of-influence (on the payroll and off) who infest the U.S. media, liberal and libertarian think tanks, the Democratic Party, Academia, etc. desperately try to hide.

You see, amigos: The Castro Crime Family has gleefully fleeced taxpayers from the European Union to Canada, from Mexico to South Africa—in brief, the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government granted trade credits to these kleptocrats—in brief, to the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government refrains from “embargoing” the Castro-Crime-Family.

We’ve been spared such fleecing because on Oct. 1960—right after Castro’s gunmen stole $7 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted-- President Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against the thieving, mass-murdering Stalinists who mostly (still) run Cuba. These sanctions grew into one of the CROWN JEWELS of recent U.S. foreign policy: The Cuba embargo.

Among the main provisions of the so-called Cuba embargo is that the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. medical and agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. This cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few who've been spared fleecing by the Castro-regime.

As exhibit A, all of the following outfits have historically clamored against the so-called Cuba embargo and done everything in their power to undermine and loophole it:

The Council on Foreign Relations, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Trilateral Commission, The Davos Group, The Organization of American States, The Vatican, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Carlyle Investment Group (George Soros among its founders,) The Open Society Foundation (bankrolled by George Soros,) The CATO Institute, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, The Brookings Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Farm Lobby, The United Nations, The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The World Council of Churches., etc.

I trust that anyone that even glances at the fruits of Obama’s 16 month “engagement” with the Castro-Family- Crime-Syndicate marvels. Because never in the course of U.S. diplomacy has so much been surrendered by so many to so few for so little.

Not a penny of the $7 billion Castro stole at gunpoint from Americans (while torturing and murdering a few Americans who resisted) has been compensated—or even acknowledged. Some of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists still live like celebrities in Cuba. All this after Castro promptly got his murdering (of Americans) terrorists back as bonus to an economic lifeline from Obama—in the nick of time and much of it at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

In fact, “engagement” with Castro’s Cuba and opposition to U.S. sanctions against the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate ranks among the oldest and most treasured of the Deep State/International Elite’s pet causes.

The media mantra that Obama was courageously and innovatively “trying something new” with Cuba is beyond idiotic—for people actually familiar with U.S. history that is.

Given Donald Trump’s deep ties with south Florida he undoubtedly got the real (i.e. non-Fake News Media/Academia) scoop on U.S.–Cuba relations, and thus learned the futility of “engagement,” as defined by liberals.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Department made over 10 back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and

READ THE REST:

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbert ... p=20427508

:angel:
0 x

User avatar
brookboy123
Serene Highness
Posts: 9324
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Post by brookboy123 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:09 am

illeatyourdates2 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:51 am
Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?
Humberto Fontova

Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

“President Trump on Thursday pushed back on the idea that former national security adviser John Bolton was too much of a hawk — asserting that it was Bolton who was constraining him. “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

“But that’s crazy, Humberto!” respond some amigos. “I mean, isn’t Trump’s “the art of the deal” guy? Doesn’t he claim to be willing to sit down with our adversaries and try to work things out, rather than immediately sound the bugles and waste trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on pointless wars? Isn’t he a tough-nosed businessman who opposes all these Deep-State-backed foreign interventions that serve no American interests whatsoever?

Yes. Exactly. And you see, amigos: Tightening the so-called Cuba embargo amounts to a form of non-intervention in service of American interests. And that’s what The Castro regime’s agents-of-influence (on the payroll and off) who infest the U.S. media, liberal and libertarian think tanks, the Democratic Party, Academia, etc. desperately try to hide.

You see, amigos: The Castro Crime Family has gleefully fleeced taxpayers from the European Union to Canada, from Mexico to South Africa—in brief, the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government granted trade credits to these kleptocrats—in brief, to the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government refrains from “embargoing” the Castro-Crime-Family.

We’ve been spared such fleecing because on Oct. 1960—right after Castro’s gunmen stole $7 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted-- President Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against the thieving, mass-murdering Stalinists who mostly (still) run Cuba. These sanctions grew into one of the CROWN JEWELS of recent U.S. foreign policy: The Cuba embargo.

Among the main provisions of the so-called Cuba embargo is that the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. medical and agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. This cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few who've been spared fleecing by the Castro-regime.

As exhibit A, all of the following outfits have historically clamored against the so-called Cuba embargo and done everything in their power to undermine and loophole it:

. . .

In fact, “engagement” with Castro’s Cuba and opposition to U.S. sanctions against the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate ranks among the oldest and most treasured of the Deep State/International Elite’s pet causes.

The media mantra that Obama was courageously and innovatively “trying something new” with Cuba is beyond idiotic—for people actually familiar with U.S. history that is.

Given Donald Trump’s deep ties with south Florida he undoubtedly got the real (i.e. non-Fake News Media/Academia) scoop on U.S.–Cuba relations, and thus learned the futility of “engagement,” as defined by liberals.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Department made over 10 back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and

READ THE REST:

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbert ... p=20427508

:angel:
Chine$e commie$......good.

Cuban commies......bad?

:nesaitpas:
0 x

User avatar
brookboy123
Serene Highness
Posts: 9324
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Post by brookboy123 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:08 am

illeatyourdates2 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:51 am
Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?
Humberto Fontova

Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

“President Trump on Thursday pushed back on the idea that former national security adviser John Bolton was too much of a hawk — asserting that it was Bolton who was constraining him. “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

“But that’s crazy, Humberto!” respond some amigos. “I mean, isn’t Trump’s “the art of the deal” guy? Doesn’t he claim to be willing to sit down with our adversaries and try to work things out, rather than immediately sound the bugles and waste trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on pointless wars? Isn’t he a tough-nosed businessman who opposes all these Deep-State-backed foreign interventions that serve no American interests whatsoever?

Yes. Exactly. And you see, amigos: Tightening the so-called Cuba embargo amounts to a form of non-intervention in service of American interests. And that’s what The Castro regime’s agents-of-influence (on the payroll and off) who infest the U.S. media, liberal and libertarian think tanks, the Democratic Party, Academia, etc. desperately try to hide.

You see, amigos: The Castro Crime Family has gleefully fleeced taxpayers from the European Union to Canada, from Mexico to South Africa—in brief, the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government granted trade credits to these kleptocrats—in brief, to the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government refrains from “embargoing” the Castro-Crime-Family.

We’ve been spared such fleecing because on Oct. 1960—right after Castro’s gunmen stole $7 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted-- President Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against the thieving, mass-murdering Stalinists who mostly (still) run Cuba. These sanctions grew into one of the CROWN JEWELS of recent U.S. foreign policy: The Cuba embargo.

Among the main provisions of the so-called Cuba embargo is that the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. medical and agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. This cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few who've been spared fleecing by the Castro-regime.

As exhibit A, all of the following outfits have historically clamored against the so-called Cuba embargo and done everything in their power to undermine and loophole it:

. . .

In fact, “engagement” with Castro’s Cuba and opposition to U.S. sanctions against the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate ranks among the oldest and most treasured of the Deep State/International Elite’s pet causes.

The media mantra that Obama was courageously and innovatively “trying something new” with Cuba is beyond idiotic—for people actually familiar with U.S. history that is.

Given Donald Trump’s deep ties with south Florida he undoubtedly got the real (i.e. non-Fake News Media/Academia) scoop on U.S.–Cuba relations, and thus learned the futility of “engagement,” as defined by liberals.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Department made over 10 back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and

READ THE REST:

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbert ... p=20427508

:angel:
The poor Cuban people.....they have a history of scum leaders.
0 x

User avatar
barrysoetoro
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 43039
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:55 pm

Re: Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Post by barrysoetoro » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:17 pm

brookboy123 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:09 am
illeatyourdates2 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:51 am
Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?
Humberto Fontova

Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

“President Trump on Thursday pushed back on the idea that former national security adviser John Bolton was too much of a hawk — asserting that it was Bolton who was constraining him. “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

“But that’s crazy, Humberto!” respond some amigos. “I mean, isn’t Trump’s “the art of the deal” guy? Doesn’t he claim to be willing to sit down with our adversaries and try to work things out, rather than immediately sound the bugles and waste trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on pointless wars? Isn’t he a tough-nosed businessman who opposes all these Deep-State-backed foreign interventions that serve no American interests whatsoever?

Yes. Exactly. And you see, amigos: Tightening the so-called Cuba embargo amounts to a form of non-intervention in service of American interests. And that’s what The Castro regime’s agents-of-influence (on the payroll and off) who infest the U.S. media, liberal and libertarian think tanks, the Democratic Party, Academia, etc. desperately try to hide.

You see, amigos: The Castro Crime Family has gleefully fleeced taxpayers from the European Union to Canada, from Mexico to South Africa—in brief, the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government granted trade credits to these kleptocrats—in brief, to the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government refrains from “embargoing” the Castro-Crime-Family.

We’ve been spared such fleecing because on Oct. 1960—right after Castro’s gunmen stole $7 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted-- President Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against the thieving, mass-murdering Stalinists who mostly (still) run Cuba. These sanctions grew into one of the CROWN JEWELS of recent U.S. foreign policy: The Cuba embargo.

Among the main provisions of the so-called Cuba embargo is that the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. medical and agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. This cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few who've been spared fleecing by the Castro-regime.

As exhibit A, all of the following outfits have historically clamored against the so-called Cuba embargo and done everything in their power to undermine and loophole it:

. . .

In fact, “engagement” with Castro’s Cuba and opposition to U.S. sanctions against the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate ranks among the oldest and most treasured of the Deep State/International Elite’s pet causes.

The media mantra that Obama was courageously and innovatively “trying something new” with Cuba is beyond idiotic—for people actually familiar with U.S. history that is.

Given Donald Trump’s deep ties with south Florida he undoubtedly got the real (i.e. non-Fake News Media/Academia) scoop on U.S.–Cuba relations, and thus learned the futility of “engagement,” as defined by liberals.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Department made over 10 back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and

READ THE REST:

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbert ... p=20427508

:angel:
Chine$e commie$......good.

Cuban commies......bad?

:nesaitpas:
You stupid ass, I educated you on this topic already, so quit bringing it up. China is not Cuba.
0 x
No, we DON'T need to impeach Trump when you can't even post ONE letter of text from the "Mueller Report", you pathetic 0bama suck-up

User avatar
barrysoetoro
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 43039
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:55 pm

Re: Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?

Post by barrysoetoro » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:17 pm

brookboy123 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:08 am
illeatyourdates2 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:51 am
Trump Tougher on Cuba Than was John Bolton?
Humberto Fontova

Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

“President Trump on Thursday pushed back on the idea that former national security adviser John Bolton was too much of a hawk — asserting that it was Bolton who was constraining him. “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

“But that’s crazy, Humberto!” respond some amigos. “I mean, isn’t Trump’s “the art of the deal” guy? Doesn’t he claim to be willing to sit down with our adversaries and try to work things out, rather than immediately sound the bugles and waste trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on pointless wars? Isn’t he a tough-nosed businessman who opposes all these Deep-State-backed foreign interventions that serve no American interests whatsoever?

Yes. Exactly. And you see, amigos: Tightening the so-called Cuba embargo amounts to a form of non-intervention in service of American interests. And that’s what The Castro regime’s agents-of-influence (on the payroll and off) who infest the U.S. media, liberal and libertarian think tanks, the Democratic Party, Academia, etc. desperately try to hide.

You see, amigos: The Castro Crime Family has gleefully fleeced taxpayers from the European Union to Canada, from Mexico to South Africa—in brief, the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government granted trade credits to these kleptocrats—in brief, to the taxpayers of virtually every nation whose government refrains from “embargoing” the Castro-Crime-Family.

We’ve been spared such fleecing because on Oct. 1960—right after Castro’s gunmen stole $7 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted-- President Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against the thieving, mass-murdering Stalinists who mostly (still) run Cuba. These sanctions grew into one of the CROWN JEWELS of recent U.S. foreign policy: The Cuba embargo.

Among the main provisions of the so-called Cuba embargo is that the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. medical and agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. This cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few who've been spared fleecing by the Castro-regime.

As exhibit A, all of the following outfits have historically clamored against the so-called Cuba embargo and done everything in their power to undermine and loophole it:

. . .

In fact, “engagement” with Castro’s Cuba and opposition to U.S. sanctions against the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate ranks among the oldest and most treasured of the Deep State/International Elite’s pet causes.

The media mantra that Obama was courageously and innovatively “trying something new” with Cuba is beyond idiotic—for people actually familiar with U.S. history that is.

Given Donald Trump’s deep ties with south Florida he undoubtedly got the real (i.e. non-Fake News Media/Academia) scoop on U.S.–Cuba relations, and thus learned the futility of “engagement,” as defined by liberals.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Department made over 10 back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and

READ THE REST:

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbert ... p=20427508

:angel:
The poor Cuban people.....they have a history of scum leaders.
I thought Fidel and Che Guevara were your heroes?
0 x
No, we DON'T need to impeach Trump when you can't even post ONE letter of text from the "Mueller Report", you pathetic 0bama suck-up

Post Reply