Cuba To Be Removed From List Of Terrorist States

Another step forward for U.S.-Cuban relations.

Cuban American Flags

Yesterday, President Obama informed Congress that he intends to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, after a review indicated that the nation had not engaged in such activity in some time:

The White House announced on Tuesday that President Obama intends to remove Cuba from the American government’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, eliminating a major obstacle to the restoration of diplomatic relations after decades of hostilities.

The decision to remove Cuba from the list is a crucial step in Mr. Obama’s effort to turn the page on a Cold War-era dispute.

It followed a much-anticipated meeting between Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas meeting in Panama over the weekend, the first such formal session between the leaders of the two countries in more than a half-century.

For more than 30 years, Cuba has been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, a designation shared only by Iran, Sudan and Syria.

Cuba’s place on the list has long snarled its access to financial markets and, more recently, emerged as a sticking point in negotiations to reopen embassies that have officially been closed for five decades.

Mr. Obama ordered a review of Cuba’s status in December, when he and Mr. Castro announced that their two nations had agreed to move toward normal relations.

White House officials said Tuesday that Mr. Obama had approved a recommendation by Secretary of State John Kerry to take Cuba off the terrorism list after what officials called a “rigorous” review of Cuba’s record and assurances from Havana that it would not support terrorism in the future.

Cuba will not come off the list until after a 45-day review period, during which a joint resolution to block its removal could be considered in the House and the Senate.

“We will continue to have differences with the Cuban government, but our concerns over a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions fall outside the criteria that is relevant to whether to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

Mr. Earnest said the president would continue to “support our interests and values through engagement with the Cuban government and people.”

The State Department determined that Cuba had not engaged in terrorist activity in the past six months — a criterion for designating a country a state sponsor of terrorism — and therefore no longer belonged on the list.

Officials declined to elaborate on the assurances they had received from Cuba, but said that in recent years Raúl and Fidel Castro denounced terrorism, most recently in January, when Raúl Castro called the terrorist attack on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo “atrocious.”

In a statement on Tuesday, the Cuban government called Mr. Obama’s act a “just decision” and said Cuba should never have been on the list in the first place. “Cuba rejects and condemns all acts of terrorism in all their forms and manifestations,” the statement said.

Not surprisingly, Republicans who have been generally critical of the opening to Cuba are being critical of this latest announcement, including Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and most of the Republican Cuban-American members of Congress from the Miami area. In the end, though, there is very little that the GOP will be able to counter this latest move by the President. Even if a bill passed Congress to attempt to place Cuba back on the list, it would obviously be subject to a Presidential veto and would not have sufficient support in either the House or the Senate to override that veto. So, much like the opening itself this is clearly something that the President will be able to move forward to relatively unimpeded by opposition, and that the American opening to Cuba will be likely be largely a fait accompli by the time President Obama leaves office regardless of who his successor happens to be. At the same time, though, we can expect this latest development to be yet another item that the Republican candidates for President will criticize and promise to reverse if they are elected in 2016. Whether they’d actually be able to accomplish that as a practical matter is, of course, an entirely different question.

Last week, Cato‘s Christopher Preble laid out some very simple reasons for why Cuba should be removed from the list:

[T]he embargo hasn’t merely failed. It denies Americans their basic rights to trade with and travel to the country. It also functions as a convenient excuse for the Castros and their cronies when they are pressed to explain why Cubans lag well behind others in the Western Hemisphere in terms of economic development and basic living standards. It says a lot about the magnanimity of the Cuban people, who have been lied to for so long about U.S. intentions, and who have been told that America is to blame for their misery, that they still retain a measure of affection for their neighbor to the north. If removing Cuba from the list hastens the process toward normalization, that might be reason enough to do so.

But the best reason for removing Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list may be because Cuba does not appear to be a state sponsor of terrorism. As a story in today’sWashington Post notes, “In many ways, the U.S. designation, first imposed in 1982, is a Cold War relic. Although the United States strongly objects to Cuba’s domestic policies, it has offered no evidence for decades that Cuba is actively involved in terrorism abroad.”

President Obama’s decision in December to move toward reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba and ending the embargo after more than fifty years of isolation was, despite the criticism from the right, one of the better foreign policy moves he’s made during his Presidency. To the extent it ever existed, the logic behind the diplomatic and isolation of a nation just ninety miles off of our shores ended right around the time the cold war came to an end in the early 1990s. In several important ways, the Cuba that exists today is different from the one that existed during the height of the Cold War, a fact that the rest of the world recognized long ago as nations from Europe, as well as our neighbors in Canada, have had diplomatic and economic relationships with Havana for years now. As to the specific issue of the President’s decision here, as Preble states above, there quite simply isn’t any evidence that Havana has engaged in any support for terrorism or foreign insurgency for years, so the justification for keeping them on the list was thin, and largely motivated by the general vindictiveness that has come to characterize American policy toward Cuba over the decades.

As President Obama has said several times since the first steps to thaw relations were taken in December, there is still much about Cuba that is worthy of criticism, and it’s going to take some work on those issues before full trade relations can be restored. That being said, our Cuba policy has been stuck in the past for decades and was doing nothing more than causing harm to the Cuban people and to the economic interests of the United States. This is another step forward to a more rational relationship with Havana and that’s a good thing.

FILED UNDER: Latin America, National Security, Terrorism, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. C. Clavin says:

    How shocking…Republicans want to continue a policy, that never worked in it’s 50 year history.

  2. Ron Beasley says:

    It will be worth it if for no other reason than to see the Republicans/neocons heads explode.

  3. Ron Beasley says:

    Our Cuban policy has been driven from Miami and the original batch of refugees who were the Cuban oligarchs. That original batch of Cubans is dead or dying and the 3rd and 4th generation of Cuban Americans don’t share their views. A flood of US tourists would do more to change things in Cuba than the failed policy of the last 50 years.

  4. Gromitt Gunn says:

    It does seem quite illogical that we have normalized relations with Viet Nam, but not Cuba.

  5. Dave Schuler says:

    Probably for the best since they haven’t been supporting terrorism. Not everything that we don’t like is terrorism.

  6. Franklin says:

    As far as I can tell from this link, the answer is not black-and-white, and they did probably deserve to be on that list in the past. But it does not appear that Cuba is currently doing much in the way of ‘sponsoring’ terror groups, so hopefully this whole diplomacy thing will help to continue that trend.

  7. grumpy realist says:

    @Ron Beasley: Yah you’ve got Grampa and Gramma moaning about Oh How Wonderful It Wuz Back in Cuba and Wait Until We Get The Plantation Back and the only thing the kids are thinking is Geez do I really want to move back to a place where the spiders are so big they eat birds?

  8. James P says:

    Cuba will be back on the list in 21 months.

    The next president would love the Castros and their system of governance as much as BHO does.

  9. Scott says:

    I went to view the list and was surprised that there are only four countries on the terrorism list: Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan. I don’t know what the criteria is but I can’t believe that there aren’t more countries that would be eligible.

  10. Surreal American says:

    @James P:

    The next president would love the Castros and their system of governance as much as BHO does.

    Giving up on Cruz/Rubio/Walker already?

  11. Tony W says:

    As usual it takes a Democratic presidency to restore some semblance of balance and reason in our policies. At some point the pendulum will swing and the Republican frat party will begin again, we’ll go into bigger debt, alienate our allies, attack our enemies instead of staying above the fray, all while the Right pretends deficits/poor people/voting rights don’t matter. Soon after that the Democrats will come in and clean the place up.

    Is it just me or is anybody else tired of the cycle? Can this country not conceive of a better way to do this?

  12. C. Clavin says:

    @Surreal American:
    Trump is James P’s guy. He’s sold on the Donald’s idea of taking all of Iran’s oil…because you know…it’s all in a big barrel just waiting for us to take it.

  13. Pete S says:

    As a Canadian I am not in favour of the US normalizing Cuban relations at all. Once Americans are allowed to travel to the Cuban resorts in the winter the increased demand is bound to drive the prices up and eliminate a chance at a wonderful but inexpensive vacation for me!

    Seriously this is long overdue. The opposition to it floors me. When did pretending people are terrorists when they clearly are not, become a conservative priority?

  14. grumpy realist says:

    @Pete S: Just think of a host of old geezers with long mustaches and beards flailing around with sticks and muttering something about How Things Aren’t Like The Olde Dayes.

  15. Scott says:

    @Surreal American: I thought Rubio was the candidate of the future!

  16. Gavrilo says:

    Viva La Revolución!

  17. Pete S says:

    @grumpy realist: I can sort of understand the perspective of old people who came from Cuba 50 years ago. Current US policy doesn’t do a thing to help the US or to help them, but at least they get a chance to show how bitter they are. One day soon I will be an old geezer too and when that happens I guess I will want politicians to pander to the irrational emotions of me and my buddies too. But it is not the best way to run a country.

    Sorry, I forgot the other reason I am opposed to reform. I don’t want Cuban cigars to get more expensive either.

  18. ernieyeball says:

    @Scott:..went to view the list and was surprised that there are only four countries on the terrorism list: Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan.

    Next on the list…USPS…

    Small aircraft lands on US Capitol lawn.
    The Tampa Bay Times tells the BBC the driver is Doug Hughes, a Florida post man who wanted to deliver a message about campaign finance reform to Congress.

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @Pete S:

    I’m more worried about a quality drop in Cuban cigars. I get them occasionally when I’m overseas and while I’m not part of the Cohiba Cult, I do like them. They’ll have to start importing from Honduras and Nicaragua to meet the sudden upsurge in demand.

    In any event, I’m happy with my Joya de Nicaraguas and my Macanudo 1997’s. Lately I don’t even bother with Cubans when I’m overseas – the prices at the Selfridge’s humidor are just insane.

  20. Pete S says:

    @michael reynolds: I cannot pretend to be a connoisseur. All I know is that whenever one of my friends heads to Cuba they bring back a box of cigars to share, and we enjoy them. With the cold and snow that was happening every couple of weeks this year. If the cigars get too expensive they will stop bringing them back. For that matter if we cannot get $700 all inclusive trips my friends may stop going in the first place!

  21. David M says:

    Cuba will be back on the list in 21 months.

    The next president [will not] love the Castros and their system of governance as much as BHO does.

    Viva La Revolución!

    Is it even possible for there to be less useful trolls? How could these arguments even be dumber? Maybe if they wrote “USA Good. Cuba Bad.”…but that still would be a more honest representation of their actual point, so I’m not sure it would be worse.

    It’s like they refuse to acknowledge “state sponsor of terrorism” isn’t a synonym for “random country I don’t approve of”.

  22. OzarkHillbilly says:

    So when do we get off the list?

  23. Gavrilo says:

    @David M:

    There is an actual point my Viva La Revolución! comment, though it’s completely unsurprising that you couldn’t comprehend it. The lefties around here love pointing out that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has been a failure. That’s fine. I can even see where someone could make that case. But, how about an acknowledgement that Cuba’s entire political system for the past 56 years has been a failure? How about an acknowledgement that Cuba’s autocratic ruling family still clings to a political system that has been relegated to the ash heap of history? How about an acknowledgement that Cuba still imprisons people for “counterrevolutionary activities” 56 years after the revolution was won? So, Americans can now travel to Cuba and buy Cuban cigars? That’s fantastic. Will Cubans be allowed to travel to the United States and buy American goods? Somehow, I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

  24. C. Clavin says:

    Speaking of Terrorists…Brownback is going to sign the law regulating how welfare can be spent.

    “No TANF cash assistance shall be used in any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted.”

    Now if only we could regulate how recipients of massive corporate and red-state welfare spend that money. Walmart, Koch Brothers, Louisiana, Alaska, New Mexico…I’m looking at you….

  25. Tyrell says:

    How about Cuba’s terrorism against its own people?
    I have been favorable to ending the embargo for some time now, and investing, trade, tourist travel, sports involvement, and trying to get things going down there. But that must come with requirements and expectations on Cuba’s part. This should include guarantee of basic human rights including freedom of speech and religion, right to private gun ownership, release of political prisoners, investigation of past crimes against innocent people, and a change to a free market economic system, with the communism system being renounced for the total failure that it is. It would also be required that all classified documents relating to the Cuban missiles, the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Kennedy assassination be released to the public.

  26. C. Clavin says:


    It would also be required that all classified documents relating to the Cuban missiles, the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Kennedy assassination be released to the public.


  27. David M says:


    Everything you posted was unrelated to the issue of whether or not Cuba is currently a state sponsor of terrorism.

  28. grumpy realist says:

    @Gavrilo: The question is not so much whether Cuba is a failure, but whether it is more of a failure than it would have been had Castro left Batista and his pals the Mafia in charge.

  29. grumpy realist says:

    @Tyrell: While you’re at it, why don’t you wish for a pony as well?

  30. george says:

    @James P:

    Cuba will be back on the list in 21 months.

    The next president would love the Castros and their system of governance as much as BHO does.

    The part I never understood was how we could have normal relations with the USSR and China, but Cuba (a follower of the USSR) was somehow too evil to have relations with.

    Let’s see, the USSR had enough nukes and missiles for MAD, and a huge army, the Chinese were also communists with a huge army and nukes. But we could trade with them, and travel there. But the Cubans, now they were too dangerous to trade with or travel too, far more dangerous than the Soviets or Chinese …

    I’ve never heard a convincing explanation of why we traded with the old Soviet bloc but not Cuba, other than the obvious political one – ex-Cuban voters in Florida. It was a ridiculous policy.

  31. michael reynolds says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Well using the World Bank numbers for per capita GDP (PPP), Cuba comes in at $18,796 while Panama beats them by a hair with $19,416 and Jamaica is at a sad $8,893.

    Interesting that with all the advantages Panama has – excellent relations with the US and indeed the world, and a money machine in the form of the canal, they barely outperform the godless commies. And they lap Jamaica, another Caribbean island. Not to mention that Cuban GDP per capita is actually ten times what Haiti manages.

    Cuba also outperforms Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico and China. According to World Bank. If you use CIA numbers they don’t do as well, but still beat China and most of the Caribbean and Central America.

  32. michael reynolds says:

    For that matter, how are we cozy with Saudi Arabia but not Cuba? Cuba is a paradise of enlightenment compared with the KSA, and I don’t recall any instances of Cubans flying passenger jets into skyscrapers.

  33. reid says:

    @C. Clavin: Hey hey, New Mexico isn’t a red state! Well, the rural sections are, of course, but for the most part we swing blue these days.

  34. anjin-san says:

    @grumpy realist:

    I think Tyrell should get that pony…

  35. de stijl says:


    This should include guarantee of basic human rights including freedom of speech and religion, right to private gun ownership, release of political prisoners, investigation of past crimes against innocent people, and a change to a free market economic system, with the communism system being renounced for the total failure that it is. It would also be required that all classified documents relating to the Cuban missiles, the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Kennedy assassination be released to the public.

    You cannot be a real person. You have to a spoof, no one could possibly be this dense, but then again you’ve plugging away at this for the last three – four years. As a long con, I salute you. That’s perseverance. That’s elevation, homes. Hat tip, kudos, etc.

    And you really have the patois down pat. You’re like a Mormon missionary trying to witness in the gayest disco in Europe. Just sharing the Good News with your new friends.

    This persona of a man-child recently emerged from a bomb shelter just outside of Provo that he has called his home since 1957 now alive and well in 2015 America – stuporously blinking at all of the bright lights and Big City values whilst trying his best to make sense of it all. Priceless! The earnestness, the naivete, the endearing quality of being unaware of your naivete.

    And the cliches, my God, the cliches! You have utterly nailed it.

    When Hollywood needs that certain folksy, home-spun, corn-pone, small town, well intentioned, know-nothing Babbittry, you, my friend, will be on speed dial.

    Jack McBrayer and that Napoleon Dynamite guy will curse your name.

  36. James P says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I’m more worried about a quality drop in Cuban cigars.

    Cuban cigars are not nearly what they are cracked up to be. Americans like them because it is more of a forbidden fruit type of dynamic.

    The tobacco that the Fuentes are producing in the Dominican Rep (especially with the Dominican shade wrapper in the Cibao Valley) is far superior to anything in Pinar Del Rio.

    The Cuban economy has collapsed since they lost their erstwhile Soviet benefactors. They don’t have the money to properly tend to their tobacco crops. They don’t use sufficient phosphates in their soil and the quality suffers as a result. They don’t have access to the top quality cheese cloth for use in shade tobacco. As a result the quality of the tobacco leaf used for shade wrapper suffers.

    Capitalism works. Proof of this is that the quality of Dominican tobacco has been superior to its Cuban counterpart for at least 20 years. Tabacalera A Fuente has the resources to properly cultivate their crop and the quality has dramatically improved because the market had dictated that.

    Having lived abroad (regardless of what you think) I have had access to Cuban tobacco. Because it was not a forbidden fruit (I could purchase it freely in the Islamic Republic of Londonistan) after a while I realized that it simply was not as good quality wise as a Dominican Fuente.

  37. Grumpy Realist says:

    @James P: dude, I doubt you have the cash for a pack of candy cigarettes, let alone ca$h for a cigar….

    And what’s the title of your Ph. D. thesis again? You know, the one you claimed to get from the LSE?

  38. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Grumpy Realist:

    It really is sad when someone fails even at being a troll on the Internet.

  39. Surreal American says:

    @Grumpy Realist:

    dude, I doubt you have the cash for a pack of candy cigarettes, let alone ca$h for a cigar….

    In the UK, candy cigarettes are also called sugar fags, so I doubt our homophobic friend would have purchased those items with his allowance.

  40. C. Clavin says:

    @Grumpy Realist:
    You know the troll copied and pasted all that from somewhere, right?

  41. grumpy realist says:

    @C. Clavin: So not only is he a liar, but a plagiarist as well?


  42. grumpy realist says:

    @de stijl: The next thing you know he’s going to be demanding all Cubans sing in four-part harmony “A Surrey with a Fringe on Top” from Oklahoma!

  43. gVOR08 says:

    @grumpy realist: Thank you for that flash back to General Garcia’s Army choir singing A Poem As Lovely As a Tree In The In-Laws just before putting Falk and Arkin in front of them as a firing squad.

  44. James P says:

    @Grumpy Realist: Again??? I never gave the title in the first place (only the topic) so your use of the term again is inapplicable.

    You folks are hung up on this because it galls you that I, as a conservative, am more educated than you folks are.

  45. James P says:

    @grumpy realist: @C. Clavin: Plagiarist?

    The only plagiarist is Habanos SA. They are expropriating trademarks owned by the Dominicans tobacco growers. Brands like H Upmann, Partagas, Punch, Montecristo, La Gloria were trademarked well before 1959. They are internationally recognized.

    When the Castros nationalized/seized/stole the tobacco plantation of these companies, their owners fled. They reconstituted their plantations in the Dominican Republic and they are thriving today. They are generally outperforming the Cuban plantations which stole their trademarks.

    Even though they fled Cuba, they still own the trademarks of those brands. It is Habanos SA which ripped them off. In the 60s and 70s the Cuban (knock-off) brands were still better because Cuban soil was just plain superior, but sometime in the 80s economic reality caught up with them and the Dominican product surpassed it.

    If Cuba wants normalized relations one of the things it must do is cease and desist having its state-owned Habanos SA rip off trademarks which rightfully belong to private concerns in the Dominican. Yeah, I clearly know nothing about cigars.

    BTW, my favorite brand is Padron, which is Nicaraguan, even though on its label it has a map of Cuba. Yeah, I clearly know absolutely nothing about cigars. I did however, smoke a 1958 Dom Cristal in celebration when I finished my PhD dissertation. Chew on that people! 🙂

  46. grumpy realist says:

    @James P: Right….and you spent the rest of the night with a courtesan who charges a million dollars a night who was so much in awe of your six-pack and studly goodness that she in fact PAID YOU to jump in bed with her.

    Whereas we all know you’re a zit-covered adolescent wasting his time on the internet who dreads the fact that for the rest of his life he’s going to have to be saying “will you like fries with that?”

    (Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.)

  47. James P says:

    @grumpy realist: I honestly don’t know if it is more sad or amusing that liberals engage is such adhominems. I discuss the impact of six decades of Communist mismanagement on the quality of Cuban tobacco and you retort with a completely unrelated personal attack on me.

    I made (an entirely valid) contention that the quality of Cuban tobacco has declined under six decades of Communist rule. You can’t refute that so you alternately accuse me of either engaging in prostitution or being a prostitute. You don’t insult me when you do this – you only reveal the paucity of your own arguments. It’s sad.

    Way to keep it classy.

  48. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Dude you can’t lie about your credentials, and keep hanging around when asked to leave by the overly tolerant proprietors, and then expect anyone to take anything you have to say seriously.
    You have worked hard at establishing your bonafides as a troll. No going back now.

  49. grumpy realist says:

    @James P: No, I accuse you of being a Walter Mitty fantasist who likes to pretend he’s a big shot on the internets but can’t back up a single one of his assertions.

    If you’re as half as accomplished as you claim you are, give us an outline of your doctoral research: what you did, what you measured, what the error bars were, how you gathered the data, what your conclusion were, how you came to them, etc. etc. and so forth. Something along the lines of what I did the other day, both for my doctoral work and my master’s work. I was able do it. Other people commenting on the thread were able to do it as well for their own work.

    But you can’t and you won’t. You’ll come up with some other delay, excuse, or derailment. You’ll never provide us with an abstract of your supposed doctoral work because you can’t. It doesn’t exist. It never did.

  50. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: OH, good, then I’m in the clear. I have never lied about my credentials and the only person who has ever asked me to leave was the liar who claimed to have attended Harvard.

    Good to know I am in the clear on both counts.

  51. James P says:

    @grumpy realist: I understand you don’t like having your contentions debunked by a conservative and that you revert to nastiness when that happens. I get it, liberals are who they are.

  52. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    When you are in a hole, stop digging.
    Or put another way…leave…as you were asked to.

  53. grumpy realist says:

    See? As said–delay, divert, does not answer. I predicted this.

    Can’t give any specifics about his supposed doctoral thesis to save his life. Can’t even give us the TITLE, for god’s sake.

    What evidence do we have that this individual actually has a Ph.D. and isn’t just making up everything?

    None. Zilch. Nada. He hasn’t said a single thing that indicates knowledge of economics, knowledge of finance, or the ability to do research.

    What a blowhard.

  54. grumpy realist says:

    I think I know who our trollz is….

    (Go down until you read the stuff about this Eric Schiffer dude and you’ll see what I mean.)

    Self-adulatory blather? Check.
    Nothing to back up claims but self-assertions? Check
    Extreme exaggerations? Check.
    Thinks he’s better than anyone around him? Check.
    Looks like a prat? Check.

    Oh, and read the Wonketters’ comments as well, they’re hysterical.

    P.S. That’s one of the reasons I’m convinced our local social disease is in his teens–he hasn’t yet claimed to be a member of Mensa yet. That’s the one thing that we’re missing.

  55. An Interested Party says:

    My employer knows my resume is accurate…

    Who knew they had such high standards at a Burger King franchise…

  56. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Guy…verify your credentials and make HL the fool.
    Easy to do.

  57. Grumpy Realist says:

    @C. Clavin: he won’t, because he can’t. Notice how he never provides proof of anything he claims, just flails around muttering about “my employer believes me!” And calls us all liars and fools?

    Oh, and I forgot the most important link of all between our local troll and this Eric Schiffer dude: they both think Donald Trump is A Great Man.

    The prosecution rests, m’lord.

  58. James P says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Trump is James P’s guy

    Nope. I’m leaning Walker.

    I do not believe Trump will run although I do appreciate the fact that he is not afraid to attack B Hussein Obama.

  59. gVOR08 says:

    @grumpy realist: @C. Clavin: I know it’s hard to let nonsense pass unchallenged, and it’s probably too late in the thread for it to do any harm, but please DFTFT.

  60. grumpy realist says:

    @gVOR08: I think we’ve gotten all the amusement we can out of this one, anyway.