Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce (and former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the Kellogg Company) took questions from the general internet- public a while back. In the introduction to the discussion, he writes this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20071024.html So, from the outset we are told Cuba is an important foreign policy matter, signifying the interest the US takes in Cuba on several levels. He then describes a "path of progress" in the context of Latin American countries, and how the lack of will to follow it will maintain the need for sanctions and embargoes. Which would not be there if it was not for Castro's oppressive regime. Further, he suggests the US will be happy to welcome Cuba into freedom, but that this is Cuba's choice, and not the US's. Is it possible to square those two statements? Is it necessary to change the meaning of "embargo" to do so? If not, how would we rationalise the statement? What if we change the meaning of "embargo" from one sentence to the next? How do we rationalise the statement then? Other questions: Cuba is an important foreign policy issue. Is it significant that the secretary of commerce says so? What does equal opportunity for everyone mean? What is the community of democracies?