Today’s Q for O – 4/19
EmailPORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD — President Obama took a few questions from the press today after concluding his time at the Summit of the Americas.
TAPPER: Thank you, Mr. President. You have heard from a lot of Latin American leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You’ve said that you think it’s important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, "It’s failed to provide the source of raising standards of living and squeeze the innocent" and "it’s time for us to acknowledge that this policy has failed." I’m wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?
OBAMA: 2004 that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?
TAPPER: Running for Senate, sir.
OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go. Look, what I said and what I think my entire administration has acknowledged is that the policy that we’ve had in place for 50 years hasn’t worked the way we want it to. The Cuban people are not free and that’s our, our lodestone, our north star when it comes to our policy in Cuba.
It is my belief that we’re not going to change that policy overnight, and the steps that we took I think were constructive in sending a signal that we’d like to see a transformation. But I am persuaded that it is important to send a signal that issues of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy — that those continue to be important, that they’re not simply something to be brushed aside.
What was remarkable about the summit was that every leader who was participating was democratically elected. We might not be happy with the results of some elections; we might be happier with others; we might disagree with some of the leaders, but they all were conferred the legitimacy of a country speaking through democratic channels. And that is not yet there in Cuba.
Now, I think that as a starting point, it’s important for us not to think that completely ignoring Cuba is somehow going to change policy, and the fact that you had Raul Castro say he’s willing to have his government discuss with ours not just issues of lifting the embargo, but issues of human rights, political prisoners, that’s a sign of progress.
And so we’re going to explore and see if we can make some further steps. There are some things that the Cuban government could do. They could release political prisoners. They could reduce charges on remittances to match up with the policies that we have put in place to allow Cuban merican families to send remittances. It turns out that Cuba charges an awful lot, they take a lot off the top. That would be an example of cooperation where both governments are working to help Cuban families and raise standards of living in Cuba.
So there are going to be some ways that the Cuban government I think can send some signals that they’re serious about pursuing change. And I’m hopeful that over time the overwhelming trend in the hemisphere will occur in Cuba, as well. And I think that all of the governments here were encouraged by the fact that we had taken some first steps. Many of them want us to go further, but they at least see that we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
As I’ve said before, in fifty years I have never understood the purpose of the embargo–or at least I have never understood why we have persisted with it for so long.
I continue to believe that it became perceived as something that honored the fallen JFK, and that lifting it would somehow be an insult to his memory. To the extent that is true, it does not seem to me to be a sensible basis for making foreign policy.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | April 19, 2009, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm
I largely agree with Fascist Hyena that the embargo probably made no sense after the first year or so. But now that Obama has stirred up something in the Cuban psyche, shouldn’t we hope that they make some concessions before we just drop the embargo unilaterally?
Also, Jake, were you satisfied with his answer? I think he was a bit mushy in talking about his intent…probably on purpose.
Posted by: Ohio news junkie | April 19, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Fascist Hyena: For once, we agree – though I think maintaining the embargo had less to do with JFK’s memory and more to do with Soviet-era Cold War politics (to say nothing of the Cuban expat vote in Florida …).
Time to stop fighting old wars and move forward – drop the embargo!
Posted by: R Mutt | April 19, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
I think maintaining the embargo also has to do with not validating (is that the right word?) Fidel Castro. I think the US has long planned on lifting it when he died, but I don’t think he ever will die. Castro has done a remarkable job of blaming the embargo for all of Cuba’s troubles. Yet Cuba trades with everyone else, and that hasn’t been enough to turn them around.
OTOH, Obama speaks of democracy in Cuba when he’s willing to stand down on the talk of democracy in Afghanistan and the ME. The Latin American leaders will see through that, and continue to push.
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
“It’s not my fault”
“It’s not my fault”
“It’s not my fault”
“It’s not my fault”
- Obama
Posted by: drjohn | April 19, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Obama:
It’s rediculous to hold me responsible for something that happened in 2004 when I was only 42 years old.
Bush was president then.
Posted by: nick | April 19, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
In other words, he didn’t answer.
nothing to see here folks, keep it moving
Posted by: Pamela Geller | April 19, 2009, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
re the Bush interrogation memos,perhaps CIA threatened to ‘out’ the President on his U.S. citizenship status and he backed off prosecution.
Do they have in their possession a copy of his mother’s passport that proves she was out of the country on August 4, 1961?
Posted by: J House | April 19, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
“Obama speaks of democracy in Cuba when he’s willing to stand down on the talk of democracy in Afghanistan and the ME.”
Cuba is at least a stable environment and Western culture. Af/Pak/Iraq is basically in civil war (if Bush hadn’t taken his eye off the ball …) – I think Obama is just being practical at this point.
As far as Latin American leaders pushing – what would you expect? Who doesn’t push?
Besides, now’s the time – whenever there’s a change in leadership, there’s a chance to renegotiate relationships. It’s good for everyone (Obama included) to push right now.
Posted by: R Mutt | April 19, 2009, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
“perhaps CIA threatened to ‘out’ the President on his U.S. citizenship status”
Perhaps space aliens built the pyramids!
Perhaps fluoridated water will make everyone Communist!!
Perhaps!!!
Posted by: R Mutt | April 19, 2009, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
“OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go.”
Thus Obama is saying that statements he makes during campaigns have no validity.
That’s pretty much what I have believed…
Posted by: drjohn | April 19, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
Uh, Jake, didn’t Obama also hold very significant his opposition to the war in Iraq during that campaign?
Is that also “inoperative” now as well?
Posted by: drjohn | April 19, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
drjohn:”"OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go.”
Thus Obama is saying that statements he makes during campaigns have no validity.
That’s pretty much what I have believed…”
Or you could read like a rational person and take it to mean his opinion changes over time. He’s not like the Great Decider who goes with his gut and stays the course regardless of developing circumstances or additional information.
He’s president now, and if he believes the embargo has failed it would be foolish to end it over night. It’ll take some time to extract the most concessions out of Cuba in return. This is just good strategy and I’m glad to see it back in the Whitehouse (and while the last Republican administration was appallingly inept in this area, this isn’t a partisan thing – Bush Sr. was very good at it, as was Clinton and Reagan and…).
Posted by: jhw539 | April 19, 2009, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
“Or you could read like a rational person and take it to mean his opinion changes over time.”
It’s not what he said. It would be a better argument to assert that he didn’t know what he was talking about, which now that I think about it is just about what you said.
He also promised to reduce spending and deficits. He seems to have changed his mind about that too, eh?
Posted by: drjohn | April 19, 2009, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
“Or you could read like a rational person and take it to mean his opinion changes over time.”
It’s not what he said. It would be a better argument to assert that he didn’t know what he was talking about, which now that I think about it is just about what you said.
=============
That’s precisely why it’s a bad idea to judge candidates based solely on what they say. And more important to judge candidates on what they actually have done.
It’s very easy to have an opinion when you have absolutely no responsibility for the consequences that will result.
It’s why a primary concern for very many voters about Obama was that he had never had much responsibility for anything besides himself.
2004 was not eons ago. The two credentials upon which he based his campaign (Harvard Law review, anti-war speech) were longer ago than that.
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
The real reasons the policy has been in place for fifty yrs are right there in B&W-
-Every administration since Eisenhower preferred not to have a Communist Cuba in their backyard and banning trade with nation-states has always been used as ‘punishment’…until now?
-The Cuban lobby is a powerful constituency in the U.S..They have been effective in their efforts to keep the ban in place
-The Castro regime itself can be implicated, big time.There are a number of things Castro could have done to make the thaw earlier, and he missed every opportunity.(remember, he didn’t need to when the Soviet Union was around..he got free oil and lots of other goodies)
The guy is like Yassir Arafat…better to keep the revolution alive than solve real problems.Way easier to govern that way when you ‘keep hope alive’.
-
Posted by: J House | April 19, 2009, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm
‘R Mutt’, that was in jest…
The real reason the President won’t prosecute is he knows that if he does, a flood of requests will come for more docs, even those he may considered ‘priviledged’.
He is thinking about his future self-interest and that of the office of the Presidency, in the event of a future wave of lawsuits.
The irony is, the President is deciding by fiat to determine what is a crime or not, or, whether to prosecute. He is acting above the law himself.
If it is true crimes were commited by Bush admin officials, by all means, justice should be carried forward.
NO ONE, including this and past Presidents, should be held above the law, even in war time.
That is why I advocated prosecuting Clinton for lying under oath in a deposition in front of a federal judge, obstructing justice by coaching witnesses, hiding evidence and assisting in the creation of an affidavit he knew was false.
If Bush has committed a crime he needs to held account for it.
In my view, it seems he sought legal opinions that gave him justification for it.He also notified Congress. He wrote authorizations for CIA to conduct these types of interrogations.
From a read of the memos, if the facts stated are true, they really may have prevented another attack…KSM’s information ‘take’ from the interrogation rolled up Hambali, responsible for murdering over 200 people in Bali in 2002. He was hardcore and admitted himself he would have done it again if he wasn’t captured.
They also rolled up the ‘Garuba cell’, which also may have prevented another attack.
Personally, I thin Bush would gladly go to jail than have another bloody day like 9/11 on his watch.
Posted by: J House | April 19, 2009, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
Obama is right again! Smart president..the likes of which we have not seen in decades.
Posted by: Stanley | April 19, 2009, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm
OBAMA: 2004 that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?
TAPPER: Running for Senate, sir.
OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go.
There you go, i was campaigning, therefore nothing i said meant diddly. Just like when I ran for President, a mere THREE years later.
Posted by: sarainitaly | April 19, 2009, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm
J House: oops – so hard to seperate intentional parody and unintentional parody these days, with the tea bag crowd and all.
On the torture non-prosecution, though, I think Obama is playing very shrewd politics. He himself will not pursue prosecution, but he lets everyone see just how bad the torture was – doesn’t mean that prosecution can’t be pursued by others …
Posted by: R Mutt | April 19, 2009, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
We have LESS to fear from Castro than we do from Obama
Posted by: Breaking News | April 19, 2009, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm
The days of COW BOY diplomacy are over.
Posted by: keith | April 19, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
a non-answer, and of course no follow-up.
Posted by: karen | April 19, 2009, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Too awesome. This was a great answer, essentially: The Embargo Is Doomed.
Posted by: Tungsten | April 20, 2009, 12:38 am 12:38 am
OBAMA: 2004 that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?
TAPPER: Running for Senate, sir.
OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go.
********************
There we go. He was running for office and when we run for office we say things and we all know that and “there we go.” And, when we get into office some of the things that we said to get into office because they sounded good and hit a chord with the faithful but turn out to be at best impractical and at worst flat out dangerous have to be changed.
Sometimes this “there we go” business happens in office as we know – but, mostly, it is the “flip flop” stuff between the campaign trail and the messy business of governing.
Its odd that we are so tolerant of this practice. It is not like these guys are whispering to the guy next to them when they say this stuff – they are stage center with microphone in hand belting it out like the Mormon Tabernacle choir. We have them on tape and can call it up by time and date. We can split the screen and hear the promise and the broken promise all at the same time. I suspect we all seem to get the “there we go” part of this process.
There was a faint possibility that this President was somehow going to do what he said he was going to do and maybe start to bridge the gap between the “there ya go” and the “way it is.” He lost me at the Stimulus package and everything since then has been one more chorus of “there ya go” is different than “the way it is.” Turns out that if a candidate would have done some research on some of these “failed policies” of the past there were good reasons for them after all.
The governing principle in all this is “if everything was different it wouldn’t be the same.”
Thats the way it is.
Posted by: Lone Star Rules | April 20, 2009, 7:17 am 7:17 am
Mr. Tapper, an observation– NOT a criticism: I can’t help but notice that while you ask tough questions of the president, you are not nearly so dogged and determined to insist on a real answer as you are when you deal with Gibby.
I mean, really, he basically begins by saying, “gee, that was so long ago.” And that is a terrible thing to say, because it reminds us that just 5 years ago, the man was running for the Senate. And now he’s President, with a thin record of past accomplishments/votes.
But I do not see that he actually answered why he isn’t lifting the embargo. And to tell you the truth, this Republican here would not mind terribly if he did. It’s rather like the assault weapons ban he is not pursuing– it is getting really weird that the campaign statements he made that I could swallow, albeit with some reluctance, seem to be the statements now rendered inoperative by his election. What gives?
Posted by: moderate | April 20, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Maybe we could change the name to Naval Quarantine.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | April 20, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am
Eon’s ago? My God, what are we in for? That’s really interesting, because he remembered that Hugo Chavez was a good guy according to Ayers and he claims that was eon’s ago too.
Posted by: Deborah C | April 22, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm