t-mobile is breaking the rules of wireless. and the samsung galaxy s6 edge is breaking the rules of design. can't get your hands on it because you're locked down by a carrier? break free t-mobile will pay every penny of your switching fees. get ahead of the curve and get your hands on the galaxy s6 edge for $0 down at t-mobile today. 6:00 eastern. you're in the "cnn newsroom." i'm poppy harlow in new york. this is our special live coverage as we await the president, president obama expected to hold a news conference any moment as he

prepares to leave the summit of the americas in panama on a very historic day for this country. it has already been full of historic firsts as the u.s. and cuba move to bury the cold war hatchet pap short time ago the two presidents sat down for an informal 12 minute, one-on-one discussion. this was raul castro's first appearance at the summit of americas and he used his time to lecture many countries and their leaders of a long list of grievances that cuba has with the united states among them he said the u.s. holds on to that naval base in guantanamo bay without any legal right. he also said 77% of the cuban population grew up under the economic hardships of the u.s.-imposed embargo on goods and trade. and he referred back to the failed cia policy at the bay of pigs in april 1961. he called the people involved bandits. but after that this is what has everyone talking, castro turned and apologized to president obama for the heated rhetoric saying he doesn't hold obama

personally responsible for what ten u.s. presidents before him did. >> the point is the united states will not be imprisoned by the past. we're looking to the future. and the policies that improve lives of the cuban people and advance the interests of cooperation in the hemisphere. now, this shift in u.s. policy represents a turning point for our entire region. >> tim acosta senior white house correspondent, is there in panama in the room where they are going to have that press conference with the president. he joins me now on the phone. jim, what has stood out to you most today? >> i think it's set up really nicely, poppy. this is history in the making, what we're watching the cold war that's existed between the two countries that lasted beyond the cold war that lasted between

the u.s. and the soviet union is essentially coming to an end. i think you saw that in that meeting today between president obama and raul castro. it got down right warm at times as you mentioned throughout this the day, the president of cuba saying he admires president obama, that he considers him to be an honest man, that he's read president obama's autobiography. he says he hasn't read all of them but he's started skimming those books. and so i think that was very surprising. i do want to tell you, though poppy, that in addition to the comments we heard from president obama and raul castro before their meeting outside of the summit today, we do have some information as to what was discussed behind closed doors. according to a senior administration official the president raul castro talked for about an hour. they discussed a range of issue, obviously noted the complex history that exists between these two nations and how they're going to try to resolve these issues. one of the issues this designation of cuba being on the

list of state sponsors of terrorism. cuba wants to be off of that list. and they've almost basically stated that that is a prerequisite of opening the embassies in washington and havana. that did come up during the conversation between president obama and raul castro. one thing we should point out, during i guess a briefing that was given by reporters to the administration official it was indicated to reporters that the president is nearing a decision on this issue and so some of the interagency reviews that have taken place after the state department recommendation that has apparently come to an end and the president is close to a decision. both men in this meeting, poppy, also talked about reopening these embassies. they both essentially pledged that they would like to do that as quickly as possible. but they have to work through a lot of these thorny issues. one issue the president raised is he'll insist u.s. diplomats have free rein when they're in cuba which is if you're not aware of this i've been down to

cuba, you know americans obviously don't have free rein when it comes to travel across cuba and certainly not u.s. diplomats. and so that is an issue that has to be resolved before they really reopen these embassies and have them up and running at 100% capacity. so a lot of issues to work through between these two leaders, but this was a very very historic and significant first step in what appears to be warming of relations between what were once cold war adversaries, poppy. >> certainly the president, though noting today, jim, as you know, that he said there are still going to be quote, deep and significant differences between our two governments. jim acosta stand by. let me bring in russell flores who also joins us in panama also with me in new york presidential historian julian dellinger and cnn political commentator, strategist and formerly with the cia, buck sexton. to you, professor, as we await remarks from the president, give us the sense of the challenges

here. this is a president who we've seen open up talks and relations with iran with burma, with cuba. what are the challenges that he faces in doing this? >> well he faces the challenges of what the outcome is. so obviously the breakthrough is just the first stem and the initial agreement or opening of discussions is good. but it doesn't deal with some of the concerns that have emerged about how far cuba will move in terms of its internal policy where we won't see the actual i e fekt for the u.s. for several years to come. and he's going to face political blowback immediately. there's no question that he and the democrats are going to take some heat including from some democrats, about what he's done. but that's the risk with diplomacy. we must remember ronald reagan in 1987 was taking heat from conservatives for dealing with the soviet union. and that became his greatest legacy. >> buck sexton we saw jeb bush tweet about this today, saying obama meets with castro but

refuses to meet with netanyahu. why legitimize a cruel dictator of a repressive le re jet stream? what is your view of this move by the president? >> it's a larger narrative. the president has a propensity to coddle tyrants. this has been the case in a number of places around the world, most notably recently with iran. we're supposed to concede whatever we have to do to get a framework for an agreement that may or may not be signed -- >> did not make every concession. >> the u.s. got almost nothing in the iran deal. we can talk about that too, but i want to focus on the cuban deal for now because we'll go off the rails a little bit. with cuba what did we get? absolutely nothing. they released somebody who was never supposed to be in prison in the first place who almost died in prison. this is a concession? look at the oppression in venezuela. rather than looking far photo-op and shaking hands with the mafia state dictators of cuba, maybe president obama could point out venezuela has said they will use lethal force against protest

protesters because that country is essentially crumbling before our very eyes largest oil reserves in the world, by the way. what have we gotten in this exchange other than undermining decades of policy meant to get concessions from the cuban regime? >> so others would point out, and julian i want you to address this that the 50 years of economic sanctions, et cetera have not worked. and they would also say don't you want cuba on your side rather than teaming up with venezuela. julian to you, the benefits? >> right. so the argument is the embargo has been used and it hasn't worked isolating cuba has been done and it doesn't work. this is an argument we've heard since the '90s already. that's where the supporters for some alternative emerge. so the idea is you integrate the country financially and economically and it will bring more changes than an embargo will. and finally, if you open up dialogue and relations you gain more leverage ultimately. >> quickly, then i want to bring russ in. >> i was going to say you could be in a worst-case scenario by

doing this. as i said there's no reason to believe congress is going to go ahead with lifting the embargo. so you may have president obama using what he can as the executive, open things up some economic liberalization opening the dialogue as well but you also then have the castro regime able to not have to deal with an all at once embargo, which -- removal of the embargo which might unset it will country. now they get an infusion of economic activity get to be legitimized in the eyes of the international community as well as the u.s. and that could be worse because they could maintain power while also getting the infusion of economic activity and cash they need to continue ruling with an iron fist. i don't see what the immediate benefit is. >> and there are some human rights concerns that hopefully we'll hear from the president about. >> more than concerns. obviously the human rights record is deplorable and they have not changed one inch on that issue. >> i want to go to rosa flores who spent a significant amount of time in cuba in the last four months since things started

changing. president obama quite popular in polling among the cuban people. what have they said to you over the time you've spent there recently, the cuban people about this? >> reporter: you know, i've spent some time not only in havana but in the town where fidel castro was born. so i've talked to people in all areas of that island poppy, and let me tell you something, people there love president obama. and they are really happy about paving the road to diplomacy with the united states. one of the reasons why they've explained to me is because of the opening the gates of economic opportunity, and, yes, while lifting the embargo requires an action by congress what president obama has been able to do is allow some economic activity from the united states. i'll give you two quick examples. first of all, air b&b now having more than 1,000 listings in

cuba. now, this puts money in the pocket of the cuban people. so americans will be staying in the homes of cubans. imagine what $500 will do to a family in cuba. that's a lot of money. the other example, idt has the contract for telecommunications and will be connecting the united states with cuba. huge pom pi because people will actually be able to communicate with the world. very significant. >> absolutely. row san jose sharks thank you for that. stand by. we'll take a quick break. we are monitoring this. as soon as the president begins talking we'll bring it to you live. i bring the gift of the name your price tool to help you find a price that fits your budget. uh-oh. the name your price tool. she's not to be trusted. kill her.

flo: it will save you money! the name your price tool isn't witchcraft! and i didn't turn your daughter into a rooster. she just looks like that. burn the witch! the name your price tool a dangerously progressive idea.

the garden is the story of our lives... told and retold. it's as old as our time on earth. and as new as tomorrow. you can have a yard. or slightly less. gardening isn't about where we choose to live. it's about how we choose to live. miracle-gro. life starts here. t-mobile is breaking the rules of wireless.

and the samsung galaxy s6 edge is breaking the rules of design. can't get your hands on it because you're locked down by a carrier? break free t-mobile will pay every penny of your switching fees. get ahead of the curve and get your hands on the galaxy s6 edge for $0 down at t-mobile today. i take prilosec otc each morning for my frequent heartburn. because it gives me... zero heartburn! prilosec otc. the number 1 doctor-recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 9 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

welcome back. we are still monitoring and awaiting the press conference from president barack obama after his historic meeting today with cuba president raul castro. we just got the two-minute

warning so we'll bring that to you. rosa flores there's also breaking news out of this summit of the americas having to do with the brazil and the united states. what do we know? >> reporter: this is very significant, poppy, because if you remember back in 2013 there was breaking news involving an nsa scandal with the allegations that the nsa was spying on millions of brazilians including the president of brazil. so the president decided not to go to the united states not to -- not to visit d.c. at that point in time. she canceled that visit and today, just about an hour ago, there was an actual meeting between she and president obama and they announced she will be visiting the white house at the end of june. very significant because she had been very vocal. she was very angry about the allegations of the nsa spying on

her, specifically and other brazilians. >> also rosa today it stood out to everyone the fact that raul castro really hammered the united states on its historical policy for the last 50 years tealing with cuba and then went on to apologize directly to president obama. >> reporter: it really stood out because he was very emotional, poppy. he started reading a script and threw the script to the side and just started pretty much giving us an outline of american history and america's involvement in cuba and in latin america and how it had impacted the cuban people and him specifically. now, after that he pivoted and said i've got to say that i need to apologize and i have apologized to president obama because this was not his fault. this involved other presidents before him, and president obama was a very honest man. we have some of that sound for you. take a listen.

>> translator: actually i apologize to president obama and to other people attending this conference for expressing myself like that. i have told president obama myself that i am very emotional when i talk about the revolution. i apologized to him because president obama had no responsibility with this. he has no responsibility with this. there were ten presidents before him him. who all of them have some kind of debt to us but president obama. >> now, president castro getting a lot of support from other leaders from the western hemisphere other presidents siding with him, saying that it was about time. and poppy, it's important to

note that some latin-american leaders had threatened not to attend the summit of the americas if cuba was not invited. that of course changed in december when president castro and president obama announced the falling of more than 50 years of cold war rivalry and that cuba was indeed going to attend the summit of the americas. poppy? >> rosa flores live in panama. thank you very much. as we await these live remarks from president obama, i want to show you this a tweet just coming from samantha power, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, tweeting "first meeting today between potus and president castro is key step in support of the engagement of human rights for the cuban people." buck sexton you think this is a bad idea. >> i think it helps the regime. people are saying it's been so long. the castro brothers will not be around forever. the regime has lost its main financial sponsor with venezuela, not entirely lost it but it's not as powerful as it once was.

if this was so obvious and president obama recognizes it as obvious, i want to know why he waited until this point in his presidency to make this move. he could have made this move the the first six months of his presidency. >> would you have been okay with it then? >> no, but clearly it's legacy building he recognizes the risks. if he did this in year two, we'd be able to see the outcome and it won't be liberalization from within cuba. it will be this regime strengthened economically with an iron fist continuing to hold that at the throats of the cuban people. we all want normalization, all want it to be a happier, better more liberal place. i don't think this achieves that goal. >> jaulian, to buck's point, you have big human rights issues here and you've got significant differences the president calling them deep and significant differences between the two governments. how does he most effectively walk that line? >> you have to remember that's true of many allies who were engaged at that point.

this is not unique to cuba. he's walking the line at this point rhetorically making a commitment to keep pressing on human rights issues as we deal with other allies and other countries we are engaged with at this point while trying to normalize izeize relations. this is about followthrough both from him and from the administration that continues. this is not different, though than any other diplomatic moment we've had even with countries such as china, and that's the risk and that's the bet he's taking. but this isn't simply about cuba. i think what the other stories are saying this is about the region and this is an effort to engage more deeply with the other countries in the region and move the a different direction. >> you write about -- buck i'll have you jump in but julian you write about presidents and their history and their legacy. is this legacy building for the president and if it is as buck points out, is there anything wrong with that? >> there's nothing wrong with that. everything a president does is thinking about history. i don't think he waited because of that. i think there were many other issues on the table from iraq to

the economy early in his presidency that this wasn't front and center. i actually don't think this will be the main issue we look back on with the administration. i say that for proponents and opponents of the administration. i think there's actually other bigger foreign policy and domestic questions that will loom much larger. >> buck. >> china is not cuba which is obvious to say, but it's important here. cuba is in our backyard very close to us. we have this long history of the regime's intransigence and just being difficult around the world. if you're an enemy of the united states for as long as the castros have been in power you've been able to count on the cuban regime to be your friend and ally and give you safe harbor. there's that long history that exists here. the fact we feel like at this point with the administration that we have to meet them all the way -- they're giving nothing here. they have made no changes into their laws about politics about their ability to crack down it's not eve an law, essentially authoritarianism they're giving us nothing. we're making all these concessions from the president's

point of view and for what? >> having more of a friend in cuba isn't beneficial? >> i don't think we will have a friend in cuba. i don't think that takes into account the nature of people we're dealing with here. the kascastro brothers have continued on without giving an inch changing their positions on the issues. everyone says liberalization for this island. we should have better economic ties. everyone wants that. the problem is you have an evil regime. if we took this approach to north korea, why do we've haven't sanctions? it's just with the north korean regime the problem, not the people. we but they're living in a giant prison camp. you hope you can get the regime to change its behavior. that is why sanctions and embargoes exist. there has been no change in behavior whatsoever and the focus on this and not crackdown in venezuela and not the oppression of the venezuelan people by the president at the summit of the americas shows you that he's most concerned with this issue of cuba as a legacy project for his administration. by the time we realize what's happened we'll have some other president to be criticizing.

>> jaul ianulian, obviously a lot of people will like this and a lot of people won't. jeb bush tweeted about it today saying why is he legitimizing the dictator of a repressive regime we have big presidential announcements coming up. how much does this factor into 2016? >> it will matter in that presidential candidates now have to react to it. again, i don't think on the forefront this is a main issue including for the next election but certainly republicans as we hear now on the right will attack the democrats, will attack hillary clinton for being associated with an administration that does this that deals with dictators, that is weak on defense. on its own, it's not enough to move the electorate. but it will play into that narrative which we hear. >> and we'll hear i'm sure from marco rubio about it expected to announce his candidacy on monday. stay with me. a quick break. still monitoring this.

let's listen to president obama speaking after his meeting with president raul castro. >> given its strategic location a place where cultures commerce in our hemisphere have long intersected, it's been often called the cross road of the world. with leadership our nations will come together to focus on the world, on the future and on what we can build for the 1 billion people in this country. this has been my third summit of

the americas and my eighth visit to latin america. my trip reflects as i mentioned earlier a new era of u.s. engagement in the region. over the past few days we've advanced our engagement across the board. in keeping with the inter-american democratic charter we continue to stand up strongly for democracy and human rights. this was the first summit of the americas to include a formal role for a civil society. as i said at yesterday's forum, the united states will continue to deepen our support for civil society groups across the americas and around the world. i'm pleased that there was widespread agreement among the nations here that civil society groups have a permanent role in future summits. and the united states will support this work through the new innovation center creating groups across latin america. how to promote greater opportunity for the cuban people was also a major focus of my meeting with president castro. the first between leaders of our two nations in more than half a

century. i told president castro in private what i've said in public that our governments will continue to have our differences and the united states will continue to stand firmly for universal values and human rights at the same time we agree that we can continue to take steps forward that advance our mutual interests, will continue to work toward re-establishing diplomatic relations, reopening embassies in havana and washington and encouraging greater contacts commerce and exchanges between your citizens. i'm optimistic we'll continue to make progress and that this can indeed be a turning point not just between the united states and cuba but for greater cooperation among countries across the region. second we continued our work to create more prosperity and opportunity for our people. in our meeting yesterday, leaders reaffirmed their commitment to pursue is good governance and economic and security reforms needed.

i reiterated my commitment to work with congress for our engagement with central america. yesterday's deal between boeing and copa airlines will support jobs in the united states panama and across the region and i think is representative of the commercial opportunities that allow both north and southern hemispheres -- both north and south america as well as central america to prosper if we deepen those trade ties. i was encouraged by the support of many leaders here for the wto trade facilitation agreement which would boost trade and for the trans-pacific partnership. thanks to panama's leadership this summit included a special focus on how countries can expand access to education. i want to thank your private sector partners who pledged to continue their support of our 100,000 strong in the americas initiative to encourage more exchanges between our students, the nearly there are 70 million

in investments that i've announced in jamaica will expand education and training and employment programs for young people across latin america and the caribbean including the impoverished and marginalized communities and the young leaders of the americas initiative initiative launched across the entire region access the training and connections and resources they need to start new ventures including the small businesses that create so many jobs in the region. finally, we took new steps to invest in clean energy and combat climate change. the new fund announced with our caribbean and central american partners will help investment in clean energy projects and reduce carmon e mys across the region. our new energy tatsing force will identify additional steps we can take together. a number of our countries committed to doubling our share of nonhydrogen renewable energy by 2030 i reaffirm through our

pledge to the green climate fund the united states will continue to help developing nations deal with impacts of climate change and i reiterated our commitment to ensure all countries in the hemisphere have open access to data as we meet this challenge together. so continued progress on cuba new commitments to help lift up young people in the region new partnerships to protect this beautiful land and planet. as i said this morning the united states is more deeply engaged across the region than we have been in decades, and i believe the relationship between the united states and the meshes is a good as it has ever been. we're focused on the future and what we can build and achieve together. and our engagement with the countries and peoples of the americas is going to continue throughout the remainder of my presidency. so with that let me take some questions. i'll start with jim. >> thank you, mr. president.

sir, you head back to the united states with the task of convincing the american people and congress on two major foreign policy initiatives. the framework to a nuclear deal with iran and likely soon a decision to remove cuba from a list of state sponsors of terror. recent remarks by supreme leader ayatollah khomeini have raised doubts to some as to whether that deal with occur with iraq. and senator schumer, an ally of yours, wants congress to have the right to vote on removal of sanctions. presidential politics are likely to play a part in this cuba decision inevitably. so i'm wondering if it would take a lot of political capital just to get one done let alone two. have you bitten off more than you can chew? >> no. you may be surprised by that

response jim. let me take them in turn. first of all, with respect to cuba there is majority support of our policy in the united states and there's overwhelming support for our policy in cuba. i think people recognize that if you keep on doing something for 50 years and it doesn't work you should try something new. and so the american people don't need to be persuaded that this is in fact the right thing to do. i recognize that there are still concerns and questions that congress may have. we have concerns and questions about specific activities that are taking place in cuba and human rights and reform. and there were two members of the cuban civil society that were in attendance at the meeting that i had yesterday who expressed much of what they had to go through on a day-to-day basis. they were supportive of our policy of engagement in cuba.

and so i don't think that it's so much we have to persuade anybody. the issue of the state sponsor of terrorism list as you know the state department has provided recommendation. it's gone through our interagency process. i'll be honest with you, i have been on the road and i want to make sure i have a chance to read it study it before we announce publicly what the policy outcome is going to be. but in terms of the overall direction of cuba policy i think there is a strong majority both in the united states and in cuba that says our ability to engage to open up commerce and travel and people to people exchanges is ultimately going to be good for cuban people. now, with respect to iran i have always been clear. we are not done yet. what we were able to obtain was a political framework between

the p5+1 nations and iran that provided unprecedented verification after what is taking place in iran over the next two decades. that significantly cuts back on its centrifuges. it cuts off pathways for it to obtain a nuclear weapon. and that calls for in return the rolling back of sanctions in a phased way that allows us to snap back if iran violates the agreement. that's the political framework. that was not just something that the united states and iran agreed to but iran agreed to a political framework with the other p5+1 nations. now what's always been clear is that iran has it own politics around this issue. they have their own hard-liners. they have their own

countervailing impulses in terms of whether or not to go forward with something. just as we have in our country. so it's not surprising the stream leader or a whole bunch of other people are going to try to characterize the deal in a way that protects their political position. but i know what was discussed in arriving at the political agreement. what i've always said is there's the possibility of backsliding. there's the possibility that it doesn't get memorialized in a way that satisfies us that we're able to verify that in fact iran is not getting a nuclear weapon and that we are preserving the capacity to snap back sanctions in the event that they are breaking any deal. and that's why the work is going to be so important between now and the end of june to

memorialize this so we can all examine it. and we don't have to speculate on what the meaning of a deal is going to be. either there's going to be a document that iran agrees with the world community about and a series of actions that have to be taken, or there's not. part of the challenge in this whole process has been opponents of basically any deal with iran have constantly tried to characterize what the deal is without seeing it. now, if we are able to obtain a final deal that comports with the political agreement -- and i say "if" because that's not yet final -- then i'm absolutely positive that that is the best way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and that's not my opinion. that's the opinion of people like moniz, my secretary of energy who is a physicist from

m.i.t. and actually knows something about this stuff. that's the opinion of a whole bunch of nuclear experts who examined the deal. very rarely do you see a consensus -- too strong a word -- a large majority of people who are experts in the field saying this is actually a realistic, plausible, meaningful approach to cut off the pathways for iran getting a nuclear weapon and that it is more likely to succeed not only then maintaining current sanctions or additional sanctions but more likely to succeed than if we took a military approach to solving the problem. again, that's not uniquely my opinion. that is talk to people who are not affiliated with the administration some of whom were skeptical about our capacity to get a deal done and have now looked at it and said if we're able to actually get what was discussed in the

political framework it's absolutely the right thing to do. now, there's politics and political pressure inside of the united states. we all know that. the prime minister of israel is deeply opposed it to. i think he's made that very clear. i have repeatedly asked what is the alternative that you present that you think makes it less likely for iran to get a nuclear weapon, and i have yet to obtain a good answer on that. and the narrow question that will be presented next week when congress comes back is what's congress' appropriate role in looking at a final deal? and, you know, i've talked to not only bob corker but i've talked to ben cardin the ranking member on the democratic side and i want to work with them so that congress can look at this deal when it's done. what i'm concerned about is making sure we don't prejudge it or those who are opposed to any

deal whatsoever try to use a procedural argument essentially to screw up the possibility of a deal. last comment i'm going to make on this when i hear some like senator mccain recently suggest that our secretary of state, john kerry, who served in the united states senate a vietnam veteran, who's provied exemplary service to this nation is somehow less trustworthy of the interpretation of what's in a political agreement than the supreme leader of iran, that's an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries. we're seeing this again and again. we saw it by a let by the 47 senators who communicate directly to the supreme leader of iran, the person they said

can't be trusted at all, warning him not to trust the united states government. we have mitch mcconnell trying to tell the world, oh don't have confidence in the u.s. government's abilities to fulfill any climate change pledge that we might make. and now we have a senator suggesting that our secretary of state is purposely misinterpreting the deal and given the supreme leader of iran the benefit of the doubt in the interpretations. you know that's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy. regardless of who's president or secretary of state. we can have arguments and there are legitimate arguments to be had. i understand why people might be mistrustful of iran. i understand why people might oppose the deal although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se but they just don't trust any deal with iran

and may prefer to take a military approach to it. but when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the united states government and our secretary of state is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one that you say is your enemy, that's a problem. it needs to stop. jim acosta. i'm sorry. where's jim? >> right here. >> there you are. >> thank you very much mr. president. i was wondering if you were struck by raul castro's warm words for you today. he said he admires you, said he had read some of your autobiographies, described you as an honest man. i'm just curious what you thought about that and teufeldo you

feel that raul castro is an honest man and can be trusted. and i would be remiss if i didn't can ask you about another secretary of state, hillary clinton, who is expected to announce her campaign for the presidency tomorrow. do you foresee being involved in her campaign and do you hope that she runs on your record? thank you very much. >> it was a candid and fruitful conversation between me and raul castro. i can tell you that in the conversations i've had so far with him, two on the phone and most recently face-to-face that we are able to speak honestly about our differences and our concerns in ways that i think offer the possibility of moving the relationship between our two countries in a different and better direction. we have very different views of

how society should be organized. and i was very direct with him that we are not going to stop talking about issues like democracy and human rights and freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, not because we think we are perfect and that every country has to mimic us exactly, but because there are a set of universal principles for which we stand. and one of the goals of my administration is to have some consistency in speaking out on behalf of those who oftentimes don't have a voice. and i think during his speech in the plenary session he was pretty clear about areas of u.s. policy he doesn't like and i suspect he's going to continue to speak out on those. what's been clear from this entire summit though is the unanimity with which regardless of their ideological predispositions, the leaders of

latin america think this is the right thing to do because what they see is the possibility of a more constructive dialogue that ultimately benefits the cuban people and removes what too often has been a distraction or an excuse from the hemisphere acting on important challenges that we face. so, you know i am cautiously optimistic that over the coming months and coming years that the process that we've initiated at first announced in december reaffirmed here at the summit of the americas will lead to a different future for the cuban people and a different relationship between the united states and cuba. with respect to hillary clinton, i'll make my comments very

brief. she was a formidable candidate in 2008. she was a great supporter of mine in the general election. she was an outstanding secretary of state. she is my friend. i think she would be an excellent president. and i'm not on the ballot. so, you know i'm not going to step on her lines. when she makes a decision to announce i'm confident that she will be very clear about her vision for the country moving forward, if she announces, and, you know in terms of her relationship with my administration she was focused and working on really important foreign policy initiatives and, you know the one thing i can say is she's going to be able to handle herself very well in any

conversations or debates around foreign policy. and her track record with respect to domestic policies is i think one that cares about working families. if she decides to run and makes an announcement she's going to have some strong messages to deliver. jim avila. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, on cuba if i could, two questions. cuban government has frequently said kit not allow more political or personal freedoms or press freedoms because the united states has used both covert and otherwise actions to try to overthrow the castros. does your new era, in fact end regime change efforts by the united states and should the cubans then respond by allowing free elections and tolerance at

the secnav because of the change in policy? second on the issue of hillary clinton, vice president biden says the race is wide open the polls seem to say otherwise. what is your opinion on that? is the race wide open? >> not only have i run my last election but i am not in the business of prognosticating future elections. that is your job. and there's no shortage of people who are happy to pineopine on that. i will not be one of them. on cuba we are not in the business of regime change. we are in the business of making sure the cuban people have freedom and the ability to participate and shape their own destiny and their own lives and supporting civil society. and there's going to be an evolution regardless of what we do inside of cuba. partly it's going to be

generational. you know if you've listened to president castro's comments earlier this morning, a lot of the points he made reference actions that took place before i was born. and part of my message here is the cold war is over. there's still a whole lot of challenges that we face and a lot of issues around the world, and we're still going to have serious issues with cuba on not just the cuban government's approach to its own people but also regional issues and concerns. there are going to be areas where we cooperate as well. you know cuban doctors deployed during the ebola crisis made a difference. cuban activity in haiti in the

wake of the earthquake made a difference. so there may be arias of collaboration as well. what i said to president castro is the same thing that i've said to leaders throughout the region. we have a point of view and we won't be shy about expressing it. but i'm confident that the way to lift up the values that we care about is through persuasion. and that's going to be the primary approach that we take on a whole host of these issues. primarily because they don't implicate our national security in a direct way. and i think that we have to be very clear, cuba is not a threat to the united states. that doesn't mean we don't have differences with it. but on the list of threats that i'm concerned about, i think it's fair to say that between

isil and iran getting nuclear weapon and activities in yemen and libya and boko haram, russian aggression in ukraine and the impact on our allies there you know, i could go down a pretty long list climate change, you know so i think our approach ha to be one of trying to work with the region and other countries and be very clear about what we believe and what we stand for and what we think works and what doesn't. and so often when we insert ourselves in ways that go beyond persuasion it's counterproductive. it backfires. you know that's been part of our history, which is why

countries keep on trying to use us as an excuse for their own governance failures. take away the excuse. and let's be clear that we're prepared to partner and engage with everybody to try to lift up opportunity and prosperity and security for people in the region. major garrett. >> good afternoon, mr. president. allow me, if you will to correct -- to quote the supreme leader directly. >> yes. >> united states activities since the announcement of the framework has been deceptive, it is lying, it is devilish and on two particular points he said direct quotes iran's military sites cannot bement inned under the excuse of nuclear supervision, and all sanctions should be removed when the deal is signed. is it europe opinion,your opinion, mr. president, that this is pure posturing and should be disregarded by your government and by you and your secretary of state? and if so could you help me

understand to whom the supreme leader would be posturing? because under my limited understanding of iran politics, that's not a job description usually applied to the stream leader. >> a well-crafted question major. and let me suggest that even a guy with the title supreme leader has to be concerned about his own constituencies. and the issue is not whether i have to take his word for whether that's his understanding because we've got work until the end of june to see if we've got a document that works. and if that is his understanding and his position in ways that can't be squared with our concern about being able to embark on vigorous inspections to assure that iran isn't cheating under any program and that we don't have the capacity

to snap back sanctions when we see a potential violation, then we're probably not going to get a deal. so, you know part of the concern that i have in this debate here major, is i don't understand why it is that everybody's working so hard to anticipate failure. the opponents of the deal don't seem to be focussed on how do we get to a good deal as much as they're focussed on how can we show that it's not possible to get a good deal. and my simple point is let's wait and see what the deal is. and we'll be able to look. and if in fact we're not satisfied that it cuts off the pathways for iran obtaining a nuclear weapon then we won't sign it. if on the other hand it does then i will strongly argue --

and i believe the american people will support and the international community will support -- that it's far preferable to the other alternatives. now, major, it's not going to be perfect in the sense that, you know if you asked prime minister netanyahu or some members of the republican caucus or even some democrats, if you asked me would i prefer that iran never did have, will never have even a single nut, bolt anything related to nuclear power, don't have any nuclear scientists don't have any capacity to develop it that would be great. but that's not possible. that's not achievable. that's not achievable through sanctions. it's not achievable through military means. they're going to have some form of peaceful nuclear power. and that will then pose a challenge for the international

community, which is why the political agreement calls for unprecedented framework of inspections that allows us to assure that it's not being used or diverted in ways that could be weaponized. but we're going to have to see whether or not we can get a deal or not. my only question is why do we keep on trying to short circuit the actual negotiations? nobody's -- we're not disarming. we're not getting rid of our nuclear weapons. we're not getting rid of our navy. we're not giving anything up. we are simply waiting to see what it is that the negotiators come up with and if in fact we are able to come up with something that works, then we'll know. and, you know, with respect to the supreme leader yes, that's a pretty important title. seems a little more clear cut

than president. on the other hand there may be ways of structuring a final deal that satisfy their pride, their optics their politics but meet our core practical objectives. and that's what we've got to give the negotiators room to determine. last question. karen deyoung. where's karen? there she is. >> thank you. just to belabor the point on that question mr. president, your people have said that the framework agreement, that what's in it stand that they are not renegotiable points although the implementation of them can be renegotiated in some way. and i wonder how within that framework that's already been

agreed how we can come up with something that satisfies the kinds of concerns that he raised. no inspection of military sites. immediate lifting of all sapgs sanctions the day that the thing is signed. also on cuba i wanted to ask, as you discussed the state sponsor of terrorism list with president castro the cubans have raised some issues about the 45-day waiting period. i wonder if that came up. i know that your government isis eager, assuming that the recommendation is approved is to remove it and is approved by you that we move ahead quickly with embassyies. cubans have raised concerns about that 45 days and how something could go wrong in those 45 days and it really doesn't give them access to the kinds of things they can have once -- if and when they're removed from the list. did that come up and is it your belief that once they're removed from the list then there is no impediment to go ahead with

opening embassies? once you approve their removal from the list. >> okay. so ireel make one last rubn at iran here. there's a political framework the outlines of which were established between iran and the p5+1. in some cases there was great specificity around, for example, the reductions that kneed to take place in the number of sentrysent ri sentry fujsentrycentrifuges or the conversion into a facility that does not permit the potential production of weapons-grade uranium. and in other cases there were -- there was language of intent but the details matter. and how those details are interpreted are going to be subject to negotiation. so it's not accurate to suggest

that -- and i don't think my team has ever suggested that somehow everything's all done and it's just a matter of writing it up. this is a situation in which we have a framework that is if implemented, powerful and will achieve our goal of making sure that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. but the details make a big difference. how they're structured. and i guarantee you there will be some tough negotiations around that. and that's what i said the first day when we announced that we had an agreement. and that's what we've continued to say. so there's really no contradiction here. and keep in mind that when we started this process off, even with the interim agreement, when we signed the jpoa way back at the beginning of this whole thing, there was a similar back and forth in terms of interpretation of how this was