Great post. I don't need to add anything else, you covered it all.

Ziva -

It is a balancing act. Maybe the dictatorship profits from remittances, but that is outweighed by the humanitarian benefits of allowing Cuban Americans to help family members on the island, especially during the current crisis. Diplomacy and foreign policy are never perfect; success often relies on striking such a balance. It does not mean you are sacrificing your larger goal; in fact, such nuance is often key to victory.

On top of the recent debate is this reality: The restrictions on remittances has not brought down the regime. Why maintain a policy that clearly hasn't worked, especially when doing so increases the suffering of the people you claim to support? Limits on remittances have not starved the regime, and they never will. And while I am in favor of other aspects of the embargo, maybe we should re-consider, since for almost 50 years, they, too, have failed to bring down the castro regime.

Underlying your comments is a very dangerous attitude among too many in the exile community, old and young, and too many with much less at stake in Cuba: What matters to them is not the welfare of the Cuban people, and what Cuban Americans should be allowed to assist their loved ones. Instead, what matters is adhering to a tired political orthodoxy that relies all on fiery rhetoric and nothing on responding to the reality on the island. I have respect for the exile community, and they should be consulted. But their views deserve no more weight than those of Cubans in Cuba — Yoani Sanchez, Marta Roque and others — who have called for a suspension of limits on remittances.

Ziva, you and others get to sound tough. Meanwhile, the suffering increases.

What good is that?

I wanted to respond to a couple other points you made:

— You seem to suggest that the interests and views of the Miami exile community are more important than the views of more recent arrivals and Cubans in the island. That is a warped perspective, but perhaps it explains your position on remittances. American policy towards Cuba must not be what is best for the exile community, it must be what is best for the United States. And that, I believe, includes doing whatever we can to help relieve a growing humanitarian crisis so near our shores.

— You seem to suggest that it should be American policy to starve, not help, Cubans on the island because then maybe they will rise up in revolt. Considering how little Cubans already have — thanks, in most part to the policies of the dictatorship — shouldn't that already have happened? Are you suggesting that all it takes is more starvation?

— Ziva, I don't think you need to worry about anyone detecting anything resembling sentiment for the Cuban people in your argument. Your anti-liberal credentials are intact.

Cry me a river, Marc. It's the same bullshit you and your leftist cronies on the blogosphere have been spewing for weeks. Your ilk has been a major reason castro has been able to continue to enslave the Cuban people. Your insistence about continued remittances, without analyzing the unintended consequences of your actions, makes you, and so many others, nothing more that enablers of fidel castro. I'm actually beginning to wonder whose side your really on.

As for your snide comments to Ziva, about "sounding tough" and about her not giving a shit about the Cuban people, Ziva cares more about Cuba and her future than a lot of Cubans do, yourself included. I'll refrain from using the two word response to you I really wanted to use.

George -

Well, that didn't take long, but I'm not surprised that you would be the first in line to brand me as a "leftist." Of course, coming from you, I'll take that to mean that I got it about right. I mean come on, have you ever read anything I have written about Cuba?

As for your aspersions about my Cubanidad, you have no idea, so I will forgive you for your ignorance.

But seriously, you want to talk about unintended consequences? How about what has happened with the limits on remittances: The dictatorship is not weakened, but the suffering of the people — the people you claim to represent — worsens, especially in the wake of two hurricanes. I don't believe that was the goal of American policy, but clearly it has been the consequence, especially during the current crisis.

Do you think limits on remittances will ever bring the dictatorship down? And more importantly, do you really think those limits will improve the lives of the Cuban people? But, George, is that really the point?

You question my motives, which I can live with, but you, Val and others get all pissy at even the slightest suggestion that you are more interested in defending an indefensible political position than in considering the slightest tweaking of a failed policy in order to help Cubans in need.

Does the truth hurt that badly?

The remittances policy has been bad for the Cuban people, and it has been bad for the United States, representing the continuation of an approach to Cuba that history will show has failed to liberate the island.

To stick with that policy and with an approach that seems to value rhetoric more than reality as vociferously as you have, George — and as Ziva did in her original post — has done more to enslave the Cuban people than anything I have ever written.

You know, Marc, I have always admired your work in bringing to light the plight of Cuba's political prisoners. And, to a certain degree, I admire your passionate pleas to help Cubans on the island after the devastation of two hurricanes. What I don't admire, however, is the way your argument regarding remittances and travel to Cuba sounds like the same arguments used by those who defend Castro and the dictatorship. I am not implying you are a member of that group, but your arguments sound just like theirs.

You say, "the restrictions on remittances has not brought down the regime. Why maintain a policy that clearly hasn't worked, especially when doing so increases the suffering of the people you claim to support? Limits on remittances have not starved the regime, and they never will." However, you fail to say how prior to June of 2004, when there were no restrictions on remittances, all the money sent to Cubans on the island by family members also failed to bring down the regime. Why would unlimited remittances today have any different effect? I am curious to know, Marc.

Another thing you fail to mention is how the travel and remittance restrictions here in the US are largely ignored by those that want to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba. Those that want to can easily do it. There are plenty of ways to get around the seldom enforced laws. So, in essence, the restrictions you are so vehemently opposing are not sealing off the island of Cuba as tightly as you would like us all to believe.

Which brings me back to my original point; why would a change today make a difference when only four years ago, it did not? To say that "it hasn't worked, so we should do the opposite," is to ignore the fact that the opposite did not work either. That fallacious argument is used mostly by those who want to embrace the murderous regime.

If you want the restrictions on travel and remittances lifted, Marc, give me a good argument for it--don't use the same tired and false argument used by the supporters of the regime.

And one last thought I would like to share with you and others alike; if only we would spend this much time and energy on pressuring the regime to accept the millions in aid offered by the US government and to allow NGOs to enter the island and administer help, I think things would be a lot better on the island.

I'm sorry Marc, but your position only benefits the regime, not the people, regardless of the arguments you and your cronies make ad nauseum. That, in my mind makes you and them, at minimum, useful idiots; some of you may even be fellow travelers for what it's worth. Your arguments are built on nothing but lies. They don't merit a response, but here are just two:

(1) the suffering of the Cuban people is the sole, direct, unequivocal fault of the castro brothers and the regime they created. Period. The fact that they are suffering does not in any way lessen the responsibility their government has towards them. Four times they have refused aid from the United States. Four times idiots like you come out and ask for cash to be sent or the embargo lifted or some other rot. Your outrage is directed at us, not them. What the hell are we expected to think?

(2) To claim that we in exile, who want nothing less than the total freedom of people on the island from tyranny, have "done more to enslave the Cuban people than anything I have ever written" should tell everybody loud and clear where you stand. You are the typical arrogant and self-important MSM apologist for the regime. You and your colleagues have kept fidel in power for fifty years with your lies and sophistry. It was one your "colleagues" at the New York Times who created the whole myth of fidel and his benevolent revolution. Spare us your tears. You don't give a shit about anything except furthering the same tired, old line that has kept the people in Cuba in chains for decades.

Alberto, George -

My views are mine alone. I cannot help it if others choose to express their viewpoints the same as I have. That there are several of us who share the same view does not make that view illegitimate. But I guess it is easier to attack a position on such specious grounds rather than on its merits.

The current debate aside, I know we are on the same side of the struggle for Cuban liberty. But that struggle does not require unanimity on the best way to reach that goal. In fact, I believe it betters the cause to have a healthy back and forth on the best ways to restore freedom to Cuba.

What is not healthy, is when some — that would be especially you, George — choose to impugn the motives of those you disagree with. I have been called a "leftist" and an "arrogant and self-important MSM apologist," and only because you disagree with me. It doesn't hurt my feelings, and I will let others decide whether my record is deserving of such nonsense, but consider what harm it does to have the debate devolve to the level of name-calling?

Alberto, you raise several good points deserving of consideration. But I do not understand the argument that says since people know how to circumvent the current law, there is no need to change it. That kind of questionable logic is as damaging to the debate as the name-calling and the questioning of motives.

Sorry, but I don't feel like debating people whose allegedly good motives will lead to more evil. The election this year is a referendum on precisely that issue. I've had just about enough of "well-intentioned" folks and the consequences their actions, intended or otherwise, bring to the world. By the way, Marc, who are you voting for? Or is it that you just don't want to reveal where your real sympathies lie?

I am glad you are considering the "good points" I raised, Marc, but I would have preferred for you to have addressed them. Since you obviously feel so strongly about the raising of restrictions even though the lack of restrictions in the past did nothing to help the Cuban people achieve freedom and provided a healthy flow of cash to the murderous regime, I would have imagined you had that one all figured out by now.

In regards to your lack of understanding of my point regarding the massive circumventing of the law that goes on in regards to Cuba, perhaps you should research just how much money is estimated to funnel into Cuba on yearly basis, both legally and illegally. Some reliable estimates put it at over $1-billion annually, which is quite a healthy sum. The point isn't that people are breaking the law--the point is that with or without restrictions, money is getting into Cuba from the exile community and it is not making them any freer or making the regime any weaker. In fact, the regime is the main profiteer of these funds when they are used to buy goods from government dollar stores.

I made sure to say that I was not implying you were part of a group that sides with the Castro regime. However, it is odd to me that you, someone who is apparently quite versed in history, would use the same false arguments used by proponents of the regime. My point being that you should have seen right through their arguments long before you ever chose to adopt the same faulty logic that ignores history and facts.

Marc first of all, my post stated up front that I was playing the devils advocate, and I highly resent your accusations, especially suggesting that I am in favor of starving Cubans on the island, which is contrary to my actions, beliefs and everything I’ve ever written.

As far as diplomacy, there is no diplomacy with Cuba, there is giving them what they want, bit by bit. History has proven that. If you think temporarily lifting the restrictions will not have unintended consequences either you are incredibly naïve or have been drinking at the kool-aid trough.

I also resent your snide unwarranted aside towards any lack of sentiment towards the Cuban people on my part. You know that is not what I wrote, and you should know better. I stand by my written word and my private actions. If you have something you want to say to me, say it upfront, not by twisting my words, or making false accusations.

I have a rhetorical question for Marc. If there have been laws on the books for centuries against murder, yet murders still occur - should we legalize murder? You will say I am mixing metaphors or somehow equating apples to oranges, but it is not so farfetched. After all, we are now at the point where we have almost completely legalized all forms of abortion, even late term. As a society, we sort of gave up trying to enforce the view that it is murder. Little by little, the forces of evil are doing the same to the embargo.

And this is coming from a hypocrite who sends the maximum allowable of $100 per month to my family in Cuba. Even though I KNOW that they only use the money on peasants selling black market food and on private individuals providing services (e.g., carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc), I still know that it helps the government. Even if only for the 20% take they get on each remittance. If the Cuban government is so worthy of the lifting of restrictions, why don't they rexcinf the 20% "tax" on remittances?

My views are mine alone. I cannot help it if others choose to express their viewpoints the same as I have.

It doesn't give you any pause that your independently arrived at POV is the same as mouthpieces of the regime?

Marc,

There once was a girl who lived with her mother. The mom decided to bring her boyfriend home. Soon the guy was living there. The boyfriend talked real nice. Then one day the boyfriend got drunk. He beat up the girl's mom and the girl herself. Once it started the drinking and the beatings continued. The house began to fall apart because there was never any money to fix it. The mother and the daughter had to whisper to each other so as not to upset the mother's boyfriend. Still the mother did not kick the boyfriend out. The mother worked harder and harder to bring money home to try to take care of the necessities. But the lousy no good boyfriend would empty her purse when she came home on payday. He used to buy booze and after he'd get hammered he'd beat the girl and her mother.

Finally, one day the girl got the guts to leave the house. It was tough at first. She needed to find shelter and work and food. But she did it. She began giving her mother some of the money she earned. But when the mom's boyfriend got wind of it, he began taking that money too.

Confronted with the dilemma of whether to continue to try to help her mother (and knowing that the money only ended up in the hands of the lousy boyfriend) the daughter sought advice. The first person she asked happened to be a no-good buddy of the no-good boyfriend who tried to lay a guilt trip on her. He had secret motives though because the no-good boyfriend always bought him drinks with the money he lifted off of the woman and her daughter.

The second person she asked for advice was a good Samaritan. And the good Samaritan, not fully understanding what the hell he was talking about, laid the same guilt trip on the daughter. The good Samaritan was a good person but he wanted to blame anyone or anything that wasn't the no-good boyfriend.

You can choose to keep enabling the abuser or not. I choose not.

I have already stated that enabling the regime at this time is an almost criminal act. They, the slavers of the Cuban people, have to step up to the plate. Ironically, the political goodwill they would generate around the world by accepting US aid escapes these morons. Can you imagine the headlines:

"Cuba makes first move to thaw relations!"

"Cuba seen as more willing to negotiate than US."

"New era of relations opening: thanks to Cuba."

"Your move now, Mr. Bush."

It would be a PR windfall from their own well-placed lackeys and hacks in the MSM and they're missing out on it.

Henry, your story is perfect.

Marc, you say it is wrong to impugn your motives. So why do you impugn the motives of those in the Cuban exile community who don't see it your way? Worse, why do you specify that they are in favor of starving Cubans and what matters to them is not the welfare of the Cuban people?

I am sorry. I DO impugn your motives when you make such accusations. How could I not? You sound like so many I have heard who do not blame Castro, but who would rather blame Americans. You may resent my telling you this but your accusations don't help this argument.

My views are mine alone.

Boy oh Boy, this is a very touchy subject. But I must say one thing, Marc, it seems to me that you have some kind of "Beef" with Ziva. It seems that you feel she is addressing the "whole" article towards you. It also seems to me that you have no stance at all, you have a balancing act going on in your own head and it seems to be affecting your blank judgment. You know very well and as Ziva states it clearly, the US supplies the Cuban government with food and more than any other country in the world. We send our families medicine and clothing. What else can we do to help our fellow Cubans in Cuba? By the way, Raul doesn't want to accept any help from the rest of the world. I ask you Marc, what do you suggest??

Cangrejero - I do not think you are a hypocrite. I recognize your dilemma, for it reflects my overall point about the remittances: Any benefit that your actions might bring to the regime are far outweighed by the benefits to your family. In the large portfolio of the dictatorship's financial holdings, remittances are but a fraction. But to your family, they represent survival.

Cubanology — The U.S. does not "supply" Cuba with food, it SELLS food to Cuba. Which raises another hypocrisy about American policy: American law allows U.S. ag interests to sell products to Cuba — the biggest loophole in the so-called embargo — while at the same time limiting by how much Cuban Americans can help family members on the island. Obviously, the interests of individual Cubans do not rank at the top of U.S priorities.

Honey - Perhaps I was overly harsh with my comments about the exile community, which includes members of my family. But it was borne of a frustration that sees so many of them sticking with policies that for almost 50 years have failed to bring down the Castro dictatorship, and in some instances have hurt the Cuban people. I am not suggesting unilateral capitulation, just consideration of other alternatives.

George - We are in complete agreement on that. The debate we would be having would be moot, if the dictatorship would do as you suggest. But no matter how eloquent we might be, our words have no impact in Havana, so I, for one, concentrate my attention on Washington and on what the United States can do to assuage the suffering of the Cuban people.

Henry - I have no pause, considering that among those that share my views, are some of the leading dissidents on the island with better insights than you or I on the effects of remittances.

And remind me to never call you if I ever am a victim of domestic violence.

"I am not suggesting unilateral capitulation."

Oh yes you are. And so are the rest who espouse your views.

"But it was borne of a frustration that sees so many of them sticking with policies that for almost 50 years have failed to bring down the Castro dictatorship"

You see, Marc, when you say things like this, which come right out of the pro-Castro talking points list, I shudder. Someone with your level of knowledge regarding Cuban history and issues should know better than to use the same tired and spurious rhetoric used by the advocates of the regime.

You can believe what you want to believe, Marc, but with all due respect, I expect more from someone of your caliber.

Speaking of talking points, Alberto, isn't that what you are relying on to label anyone who deviates from current policy as a Castro appeaser or worse?

Marc you said:"Diplomacy and foreign policy are never perfect; success often relies on striking such a balance. It does not mean you are sacrificing your larger goal; in fact, such nuance is often key to victory."

"The U.S. does not "supply" Cuba with food, it SELLS food to Cuba. Which raises another hypocrisy about American policy: American law allows U.S. ag interests to sell products to Cuba — the biggest loophole in the so-called embargo"

You contradict yourself. Or do you consider doing business with the tyrant a nuance on the road to victory.

Marc, you've really learned well at the feet of your masters.

Ziva - So your position is this? You would rather let Cubans suffer if helping them somehow tangentially benefits the dictatorship. In fact, the more they suffer the better, because it means the dictatorship isn't getting its cut, either.

I have repeatedly stated my opposition to U.S. farm sales to Cuba. I don't think they help the Cuban people, and I think it is hypocritical of the United States to allow such deals while at the same time enforcing such nefarious policies as wet-foot, dry-foot, and the limits on family remittances and travel. I did soften my stance last week, if only temporarily, because the U.S. has approved the sale of items that would help Cubans trying to recover from the hurricanes. The next step would be for the United States to make it easier for Cuban Americans to directly help their loved ones.

Of course, I guess you might prefer that there just be another hurricane.

George - If you think I have "masters," then you really don't know me.

It is indeed a balancing act.

No nation hoping to avoid directly supporting regimes the likes of those installed in Cuba, Burma or Pinochet’s Chile can engage in normal diplomatic relations with all its trappings – unrestricted trade and financial transactions being perhaps the most relevant – without endangering its moral stance. That said, the Cuban community does have a tendency to sometimes take things a bit too far.

There are those who believe that no aid via remittances to family should be permitted. There are yet others who believe that aid should be limited to a few hundred dollars and even then, only delivered to a parent or sibling, re-structuring the human genome to exclude aunts, uncles and cousins. While the intent – starving a morally bankrupt regime – is noble, it can also be self-defeating.

I think it can be honestly said that everyone on this blog – at the end of the day – believes that blood trumps politics. We’ll never be able to help alleviate a bit of the financial hardships imposed on our families by the regime without lamentably giving a share of our economic assistance to those maintaining a stranglehold on power. It’s the nature of the beast and there simply is no way around it. So, either we use our families as unwitting pawns in the fight to starve Castro or we open our eyes to certain realities. That said, there is a reason to take heart in the use of remittances to help loved ones however.

The vast majority of dollars sent to families in Cuba are in fact used for transactions in the black market. Concrete, wood, nails and other items necessary to carry out repairs on homes devastated by these most recent hurricanes are stolen from government-run (hell, in Cuba, every legal enterprise is “government-run”) construction sites. The items are then sold to civilians at drastically reduced prices. So, in a very real way, the Cuban regime is subsidizing – without its knowledge – those individuals it has worked so hard to repress all these years. Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it, Fidel?

I’ve never been of the belief that the free world should pack it in, shake hands and enjoy full diplomatic nations with the overseers of Cuba however, I do believe we need to respect the idea of limited, common sense interactions. No government has the authority to prevent human beings from sending financial assistance to loved ones anywhere in the world. The United States government may “say” it possesses that authority but, frankly, that’s a hollow bit of saber rattling. When it comes to my family. I, as a human being, am entitled to do as a I please – whether it be helping to support them financially or visiting them from time-to-time. It’s been several years since my brother has been able to see our family on the island. Why? Because a year after his last visit, the current administration – as I said above – altered the human genome in order to prevent him from visiting his own flesh and blood. Our aunts, uncles and other relatives no longer belong to the Blanco family. The audacity necessary to issue a decree of that sort just boggles my mind. I am luckier than my older brother. As a journalist I am permitted to travel to the island unimpeded . . . almost. My ability to visit family is directly tied to there being a story on the island I need to cover. No story, no family.

I’m not saying we should all begin sending $20K a month to our relatives in Cuba and thus allow the same government to proceed unimpeded for another 50 years. What I am saying is that our policies sometimes go too far. The intention I understand but, I don’t believe it to be reflective of reality. Just because Fidel Castro thinks it’s OK to keep my family mired in poverty doesn’t mean I need to follow suit. Obviously, those of you supporting the methods I am taking aim at don’t mean to follow in Fidel’s footsteps but that is, in a way, what our community sometimes does – unintentionally. There is such a thing as a humane embargo and I believe that’s what we’ve got to start steering the boat towards.

You need to tune down your sensitivity meter, Marc. I have not labeled you at all. In fact, I have gone out of my way to quantify my remarks with the fact that I believe you have the best interest of the Cuban people in mind. Where you and I part company is in the tactics and arguments you are using--which is at a minimum, spurious--to advocate your position. Remember that it has been you who has been labeling anyone who disagrees with your position as someone who does not care about Cubans.

What I find perplexing is how you have yet to offer any explanation as to how a policy of unlimited remittances that did not work in the past and served only to enrich the regime will suddenly work wonders today. You also have yet to explain how the billion dollars that is remitted annually today, with the restrictions in place and equal to the income generated annually by tourism to the island, has not had one iota of negative effect on the regime. You just continue repeating the same mantra: "it hasn't worked in the past, so we must do the opposite."

This is a sensitive subject, and as I mentioned before, I expected more from you than baseless rhetoric and accusations. We can agree to disagree, but do not dare to call into question anyone's devotion to the Cuban people without backing up your claims with something other than slogans.

Marc, I know, I know, you're a totally objective journalist with no political agenda. Forgive me for thinking otherwise.

Anatasio, "[p]ayback’s a bitch, isn’t it, Fidel?" Are you kidding? What payback? We already are the largest supplier of food to the island. (Yes, for cash, Marc, since we are not in the business of giving away our producers goods.) We're their 6th largest trading partner! Who's kidding whom here? This is the regime's move. They can choose to accept the aid we've offered, or not. The fact they want conditions on what is being freely given speaks volumes. This is all agenda driven and some of you guys have fallen hook, line and sinker into their trap.

George - -

You're absolutely right on the aid package refusal. I can't think of a more perfect example of what is essentially the regime's hatred of its own people. On that we agree 100 percent.

When I say "payback's a bitch," I'm referring to the black market. When you see the way these guys operate - how much is being swindled and stolen from the "government" - quite frankly, it warms the heart.

"Ziva - So your position is this? You would rather let Cubans suffer if helping them somehow tangentially benefits the dictatorship. In fact, the more they suffer the better, because it means the dictatorship isn't getting its cut, either."

No Marc, that is not my position, and not what my post was about, but instead of thinking about what I wrote, and giving some real thought to the possible consequences of what at first glance seems simply a humanitarian response you chose to respond with a knee jerk reaction, insult and attack me.

What I want is an end to the suffering of the Cuban people and an end to regime. For you to suggest otherwise is despicable. I support the embargo, not because I'm enamored of all its provisions, but because in the political reality of the post 9/11 world, ending it will not be beneficial to Cubans, whether on the island or in exile. The alternative we are facing is an end to any special treatment for Cuban refugees, and full diplomatic recognition of the regime. Is that what you want? And, as Alberto pointed out, you still have not provided any logical explanation as to how unlimited remittances will change anything. I thought you were better than this. I wash my hands of you.

The road to solutions always goes through principled compromise. In my perfectly biased view, it's the United States who has been willing to modify their initial stance in reference to providing post-hurricane aid. Cuba, on the other hand, hasn't budged an inch despite the extreme suffering of their people. I truly respect the opinion of Marc and others who think that the U.S. hasn't gone far enough and should put a temporary break in the sanctions, but unless Cuba is also willing to give up something, why should the U.S. act blindly and in my view irresponsibly by sending money to the corrupt government?

We can go back and forth on the pros and cons of embargo and no-embargo, but these arguments often fail to mention who's truly right and wrong here. Yes, there is a right and wrong, and it's always been the U.S. who has insisted that sanctions would be lifted only when Cuba starts taking steps to promote greater freedom for their people. That's what I mean by principled compromise, it advances the greater good.

BTW, it's VERY disappointing to see this disrespectful back and forth between contributors and collaborators. We can certainly disagree, but can't we do it with a modicum of respect from BOTH sides?

Robert, he started this whole back-and-forth by dissing Ziva. I won't put up with that. Period. If he dissed you, I'd be just as pissed. And he's lucky I've exercised self-control over my fury and not written what I really wanted to write.

George,

I know Marc's initial comments to Ziva were uncalled for, and I certainly appreciate your willingness to stick up for us. Still, I have to say it was equally unfair for you to insinuate that Marc is on "their" side, because that couldn't be farther from the truth. Calling him out for needlessly attacking Ziva is one thing, questioning his work and his values is another.

Robert, this is not the first time this has happened. Do a little research in the archives and you'll see him taking a stand that echoes that of the regime and its apologists. I stand by every word I wrote.

Robert:

Although I was willing to give Marc the benefit of the doubt, I can certainly understand George's concerns. Marc has chosen to use the same rhetoric and baseless arguments used by the apologists of the Castro regime. Considering that we are all supposedly on the same team, I would have expected, at a minimum, an explanation from Marc as to why he has chosen to articulate his position in a way that mimics that of the supporters of the regime.

I am not trying to imply that Marc is aligned with regime advocates, but when he uses the same language and the same fallacious arguments that they use, and offers no explanation except to question our motives, you can understand how that would not sit well with many of us. I have asked Marc on several occasions to explain his reasoning, but my requests have been so far ignored.

I would much rather spend this time and energy finding a way to pressure the regime than to sit here and question the motives of those we disagree with. But I refuse to let someone who does not back up their claims to impugn the devotion and the motives of those he simply disagrees with.

Robert, dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.