Freetalk about USA culture: 19 new messages in 16 topics

The culture of the United States of America.

03/19/06 / 03/20/06 / 03/21/06 / 03/22/06 / 03/23/06 / 03/24/06 / 03/25/06 / 03/26/06 / 03/27/06 / 03/28/06 / 03/29/06 / 03/30/06 / 03/31/06 / 04/01/06 / 04/02/06 / 04/03/06 / 04/04/06 / 04/05/06 /

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

19 new messages in 16 topics - digest ==>Read...

soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* The Memos: Bush's Paper Trail Grows - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9247b4b27a0b51d3
* Kerry Has a Plan to Get Iraq on Its Own Feet - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/77fe7d66da1e2fb7
* Receiving Hu Jintao is a grave insult to ALL CHINESE inside China, and
elsewhere too - (update of 2 April 2006 for {HRI 20051120-V2.4.1}) - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/349142a63115dc4
* Misleading Public Statements by Dick Cheney - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6841b6351a742301
* Misleading Public Statements by George W Bush - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1a02aec3867d4231
* Misleading Public Statements by Colin Powell - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/680fe2224e21915f
* Misleading Public Statements by Donald Rumsfeld - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/75017f3d7d8e1057
* Misleading Public Statements by Condoleezza Rice - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9b0ac9dd531755ee
* QUE DICEN A ESTO EDDA Y LOS DEFENSORES DEL CASTRISMO? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ff587f28183b4b0
* INDONESIA: IS ISLAMIC NUKES ARE READY FOR AUSTRALIA? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a57fd90c18d2c12c
* GINEBRA / V FORO PARALELO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS SE DIRIGE AL RECIÉN CREADO - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/361f062fce332db4
* Comunicado de Cubaeuropa: Castro reconoce la miseria moral de Cuba y culpa
al turismo italiano - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/13eb117f40223c96
* Immigration: Wake Up And Smell The Salsa - a Warning for Repubs - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b8ddb803c0596529
* The Hispanic Challenge to America - Long, Important Read - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/289ffe88311ee4fb
* SECURING THE KIKE REALM - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8dd1ed5cdcb29a1b
* Where is Elizabeth Taylor? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c6dd30793b95678

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Memos: Bush's Paper Trail Grows
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9247b4b27a0b51d3
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 4:50 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The Memos: Bush's Paper Trail Grows

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

AlterNet - Apr 4, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/34421/

Bush's Paper Trail Grows

By John Prados, TomPaine.com

On March 27, The New York Times published an article based on access to the
full British record of the Iraq policy conversation that President George W.
Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair held on January 31, 2003, as recorded by
Blair's then-national security adviser David Manning.

British legal scholar Philippe Sands had already revealed this discussion in
his book Lawless World, and the British television network Channel 4 had --
two months ago -- printed many of the same excerpts of Manning's memo, but
the Times coverage focused new attention on the memo, previously ignored by
the U.S. media.

The memo reveals that the two leaders agreed that military action against
Iraq would begin on a stipulated date in March 2003 -- despite the fact that
no weapons of mass destruction had been found there. The memo reveals how
the two leaders mulled over ways to supply legal justification for the
invasion. Indeed this record supplies additional evidence for the view that
Bush planned all along to unleash this war.

Suddenly, the media descended upon the Bush White House demanding
explanations. Spokesman Scott McClellan answered that "we were preparing in
case it was necessary, but we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic
solution." McClellan tried to turn the question around by insisting that the
press had been covering Bush at the time chronicled in the memo, implying
that if the truth were different the press should have known better.

He referred repeatedly to a December report from U.N. weapons inspector Hans
Blix to back his assertion that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the
inspections. Evidently that cowed the reporters, for there has been little
follow-up. But White House damage control should not be allowed to cover up
this evidence that the president knew his case for war was based on faulty
evidence.

First, the evidence is overwhelming that Bush hosted the January 31 meeting
to manage his move to war, not as an occasion to review progress toward
disarming Iraq. The record of the session shows this -- with talk of the war
plan, the starting date, the justification and the securing of a second U.N.
resolution as a legal cover, but there is more than that. Consider the
context: the day the memo was taken U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
began the extensive review at the CIA of the allegations he would use to
make his Security Council "briefing" -- already scheduled -- supposedly
"bulletproof." It was also that same day that the codebreaking National
Security Agency issued a directive to spy on the friendly nations who were
members of the U.N. Security Council to divine their attitudes on the move
to war.

The day before, according to Bob Woodward's account, Bush had told Italian
prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, "We will kick ass." By his account,
Berlusconi tried to dissuade Bush from war. Woodward duly notes the
president resorting to his standard line that no decision had yet been made
on military action. The Manning memo suggests otherwise, with Bush revealing
March 10 as the projected date for beginning bombing -- a campaign to hit
1,500 targets in four days, the "shock and awe" which U.S. officials bragged
about at the time. Moreover, on January 24, the U.S. military commander,
General Tommy Franks, had sent his final war plan up through Rumsfeld to the
president. Bush's comment to Blair on January 31, that "he was not itching
to go to war," is belied by the entire surrounding structure of events.

The other significant finding in the Manning memo concerns Tony Blair's
intentions. The press reporting at the time -- regardless of what Scott
McClellan says today -- was that the purpose of the Blair-Bush meeting was
to decide whether there needed to be a second U.N. resolution. Postwar
investigations in London show that in late January Blair received official
advice from his attorney general Lord Goldsmith that such a resolution was
necessary to fulfill the terms of the existing resolution 1441. At the
meeting with Bush, however, the record shows Blair presented the project as
a convenience. "If anything goes wrong... a second resolution would give us
international cover, especially with the Arabs," Blair said, according to
Manning's memo.

Bush went along with Blair's talk of a resolution, but his own propositions
on justifications for war revealed his true lack of interest in U.N. action.
Bush speculated about deceiving Saddam into shooting at U.S. aircraft
phonied up to look like U.N. planes, or getting an Iraqi scientist to assert
that WMD were being concealed. The most widely reported aspect of the
Bush-Blair meeting was these speculations (talk of a Saddam assassination
was less justification than opportunity).

Bush told Blair he would "twist arms" to get a U.N. resolution,
corresponding exactly to the NSA spy directive, which would track the
success of Bush arm-twisting through U.N. members' own communications.
Regardless of the outcome, Bush told Blair, "military action would follow
anyway." Blair's assurance at that point that Britain stood with the U.S.
put him squarely in the box with Bush of seeking to initiate an aggressive
war.

Finally, on the matter of U.N. inspections, David Manning appears to have
engaged in some policy advocacy, as opposed to strictly confining himself to
recording the proceedings of this meeting in his memorandum to Tony Blair.
Manning's paper notes the conversation among the leaders on the urgency of
action if Bush's timeline was to be met. Blair's adviser argued that, "We
therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, [and] do all we can to help
the inspectors make a significant find." But Manning's view did not reflect
the realities of -- at least -- U.S. intelligence cooperation with the
inspections. Rather, the CIA had been parsimonious in its help, taking weeks
to begin providing tips, and then holding back many of its target folders,
while national security adviser Condi Rice had put pressure on Blix to
declare Iraq in violation.

Immediately upon finishing their talk, at 4:12 p.m. Bush and Blair appeared
before newsmen, where Bush declared, "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is
a danger to the world." Bush then added archly, "This issue will come to a
head in a matter of weeks, not months," an almost exact repetition of
Blair's comment at their secret meeting, as recorded by Manning, that "we
should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

President Bush asserted, inaccurately, that Resolution 1441 "gives us the
authority to move without any second resolution," a position the Attorney
General of Great Britain had rejected only days before. Blair followed up,
insisting that Dr. Blix had told the Security Council that Saddam was not
cooperating with UN inspectors. In fact, what Blix had said when he reported
to the U.N. on January 27 was that there had been difficulties with the
Iraqi government but the situation was improving, and he added that his
inspectors had made 300 visits to 230 different sites without finding any
evidence of WMD. Nuclear inspector Mohammed ElBaradei had agreed, "We have
to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons
program." Hans Blix's own take on the Bush-Blair conversation rings true:
"The U.S. government did not want to raise the hope that there was any way
out but war."

On balance the newly revealed record of President Bush's secret meeting of
January 31, 2003, confirms that by that date Bush's Iraq war was certain.
The Manning memo supplies an explicit picture of Bush not merely
cherrypicking only the intelligence he wanted to use, but scheming to
overcome the consequences of not finding weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq.

In all likelihood the debate over the Iraq war will come to center on the
question of how much sooner than January 2003 was Bush's war policy cast in
stone. Was it September 2002, when Bush blurted out "I don't know what more
evidence we need" and set up the White House Iraq Group to sell the war? Was
it April at a previous Bush-Blair summit in Crawford or December 2001 when
General Franks presented the first war plan to the president? Was it on or
immediately after 9/11 or was it the day George W. Bush took the oath of
office as President of the United States?

[John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive in
Washington, D.C., and author of Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How
Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).]

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENJ3Siz2i76ou9wQRApSJAJ4m8ZocjAsMu45z6MItJbiDV06R1wCgj+rs
hklkWGBUxq/6eCN77vruCA0=
=8T8O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kerry Has a Plan to Get Iraq on Its Own Feet
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/77fe7d66da1e2fb7
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 4:50 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kerry Has a Plan to Get Iraq on Its Own Feet

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

The Huffington Post - Apr 5, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/a-plan-for-getting-iraq-u_b_18502.html

A Plan for Getting Iraq Up on Its Own Two Feet

by John Kerry

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was
against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction.
The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it
was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in
the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died
after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was
immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same
delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much
as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's
leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that
democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must
be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because
Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political
differences.

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines -- a deadline
to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to
hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq
up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put
together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw
our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in
the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to
build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have
no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we
must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American
combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi
leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country
and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large
measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.
Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces
should remain.

For this transition to work, we must finally begin to engage in
genuine diplomacy. We must immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi
factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit meeting. In a
neutral setting, Iraqis, working with our allies, the Arab League and
the United Nations, would be compelled to reach a political agreement
that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and
shared goals for reconstruction.

To increase the pressure on Iraq's leaders, we must redeploy American
forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security
backup, training and emergency response; we should leave routine
patrols to Iraqi forces. Special operations against Al Qaeda and other
foreign terrorists in Iraq should be initiated only on hard
intelligence leads.

We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best
recruitment tool. Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign
jihadists on their soil, and the United States will be able to
maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence with rapid response
capacity. An exit from Iraq will also strengthen our hand in dealing
with the Iranian nuclear threat, and allow us to repair the damage of
repeated deployments, which flag officers believe has strained
military readiness and morale.

For three years now, the administration has told us that terrible
things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis. In fact, terrible
things are happening now because we haven't gotten tough enough. With
two deadlines, we can change all that. We can put the American
leadership on the side of our soldiers and push the Iraqi leadership
to do what only it can do: build a democracy.

Copyright 2006 HuffingtonPost.com,LLC

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENJ3Siz2i76ou9wQRAmRcAKCndw4QPAbd12fcvWuwC75Hi/taJwCgjTjT
7CM6UIiUWmli0ydsMKeL+Wg=
=pZJ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Receiving Hu Jintao is a grave insult to ALL CHINESE inside China, and
elsewhere too - (update of 2 April 2006 for {HRI 20051120-V2.4.1})
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/349142a63115dc4
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:00 pm
From: max.esson@caramail.com

> Alors, mes enfants! Vous êtes même impressionnantes. Je crois, que nous devons ensemble affronter les agents agitateurs, qui condamnent toujours la Chine.
> J.

En général, des gens qui parlent comme des imbéciles resteront
imbéciles dans leur vie; car ils ne sont pas capables de faire la
différence entre le moment propice et inopportun. Ils souffrent d'un
complexe d'infériorité. L'ascension de la Chine économique a crée
beaucoup de jalousie même au niveau personnel; et çà se voit dans
ces forums; Que peut-ils en faire à part que du charabia verbal,,,Un
phénomène que je vois n'est pas que des non-Chinois qui font du
baratin, mais un certain nombre de Chinois aussi s'en mèlent aussi.
Votre français est excellent; J. Venning.

Max

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading Public Statements by Dick Cheney
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6841b6351a742301
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:02 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Misleading Public Statements by Dick Cheney

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Bush on Iraq
http://www.bushoniraq.com/cheney1.html

Analysis of Public Statements made by Vice President Richard Cheney

Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements
Compiled from Public Sources

The format of each entry is as follows:
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"

SOURCE: Date and source information.

EXPLANATION: The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or
misleading at the time the statement was made.

- -----

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior
to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile
biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have
such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we
believe were, in fact, part of that program."

SOURCE: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of
the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that
engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers
concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery
weather balloons.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was
a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered
since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a
part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he
arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe
harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had
an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for
terrorists.... I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of
terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there
was an established relationship there."

SOURCE: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His
regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had
built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."

SOURCE: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing
Museum, White House (1/15/2004).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

SOURCE: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs
Council, White House (1/14/2004).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[T]he reporting that we had prior to the war this time around was all
consistent with that -- basically said that he had a chemical, biological
and nuclear program, and estimated that if he could acquire fissile
material, he could have a nuclear weapon within a year or two."

SOURCE: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky
Mountain News (1/9/2004).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention
weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which
United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to
resume its nuclear program. In addition, it failed to acknowledge the
Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information
on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq
has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production
facilities."

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they
were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought
Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You've repeatedly cited such links....
I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those
soldiers misled at all?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY:.... With respect to... the general relationship....
One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the
Weekly Standard... That goes through and lays out in some detail, based on
an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to
the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of
information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World
Trade Center bombing in 1993.

QUESTION: Yes, sir....

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The main perpetrator was a man named Ramzi Yousef.
He's now in prison in Colorado. His sidekick in the exercise was a man named
Abdul Rahman Yasin... Ahman Rahman... Yasin is his last name anyway. I can't
remember his earlier first names. He fled the United States after the
attack, the 1993 attack, went to Iraq, and we know now based on documents
that we've captured since we took Baghdad, that they put him on the payroll,
gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary, in
effect, in Iraq, in the aftermath of nine-ele (sic)... the 93' attack on the
World Trade Center.

QUESTION: So you stand by the statements?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And you can look at Zarkawi,
(Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi... Who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in
Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the
Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called
poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq.... We'll find
ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will
between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked
together on a number of occasions."

SOURCE: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky
Mountain News (1/9/2004).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11
attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a
meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named
al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence
official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11
attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more
information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to
9/11."

SOURCE: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky
Mountain News (1/9/2004).

EXPLANATION: This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech
government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence
official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that
there hasn't been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech
intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence
had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating
Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I.
had concluded the meeting probably didn't occur.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He
cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting
terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also
had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al
Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built,
possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."

SOURCE: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III,
Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization,
supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in
Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing
training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making
conventional bombs."

SOURCE: Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation,
White House (10/10/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"[Since September 11] We learned more and more that there was a relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of
the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that
al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are
involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the
al-Qaeda organization."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"Al Qaida had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they
ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces."

SOURCE: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at a Bush-Cheney 2004
Fund-Raiser, White House (10/5/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community
had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether
there was an operational relationship. The statement also refers to al Qaeda
in Northeastern Iraq without acknowledging that this area was not controlled
by Saddam Hussein.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that
link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the
place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because
in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst
dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the
past... but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda
organization...."

SOURCE: Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim
Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"If we had had that information and ignored it, if we'd been told, as we
were, by the intelligence community that he was capable of producing a
nuclear weapon within a year if he could acquire fissile material and
ignored it... we would have been derelict in our duties and
responsibilities."

SOURCE: Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim
Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the
context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably
would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"Al Qaida had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they
ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces."

SOURCE: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at a Bush-Cheney '04 Fund-Raiser,
White House (10/3/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"[I]f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being
hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and
cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as
in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties
and responsibilities."

SOURCE: Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim
Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative
government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a
threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing
weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists,
now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you
will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault
now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement is misleading because it states that Iraq is the
"heart" of the geographic base for terrorists who assaulted the United
States on September 11, despite the fact that intelligence officials do not
have evidence that Iraq was linked to the September 11 attack.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Same on biological weapons--we believe he'd developed the capacity to go
mobile with his BW production capability because, again, in reaction to what
we had done to him in '91. We had intelligence reporting before the war that
there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and
acquired. We've, since the war, found two of them. They're in our possession
today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or
smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing
the capacity for an attack."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out
there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in
Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the
attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in
terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"QUESTION: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to
war with Iraq? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I think I've just given it, Tim,
in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons,
his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted
to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false because the intelligence community did
not believe that Iraq actually possessed nuclear weapons.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire
such weapons fairly soon."

SOURCE: Vice President Honors Veterans of Korean War, White House
(8/29/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[T]hey continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program."

SOURCE: Vice President Honors Veterans of Korean War, White House
(8/29/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: "The imminence of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves,
the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility
of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action."
If the United States could have preempted 9/11, we would have, no question.
Should we be able to prevent another, much more devastating attack, we will,
no question. This nation will not live at the mercy of terrorists or terror
regimes."

SOURCE: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House
(8/26/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because by referencing the
September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in
Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In
fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had
no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." The
statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing
terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Urgent Threat:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us."

SOURCE: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House
(8/26/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear
weapons."

SOURCE: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House
(8/26/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil wealth, with his
inventory that he already has of biological and chemical weapons... is, I
think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about it."

SOURCE: Face the Nation, CBS (3/24/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The issue is that he has chemical weapons and he's used them."

SOURCE: Late Edition (CNN), CNN (3/24/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he is actively
pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."

SOURCE: Late Edition (CNN), CNN (3/24/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And [Arab nations] are as concerned as we are when they see... his pursuit
of nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Remarks by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
at a Photo Opportunity following their breakfast meeting., White House
(3/21/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[W]e know they are pursuing nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: The Vice President Participates in a Media Availability with Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, White House (3/19/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his
past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds
of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons... We know that he has a
long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the
al-Qaeda organization."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community
had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether
there was an operational relationship. In addition, the statement failed to
acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no
reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical
weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent
production facilities."

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons...."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention
weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which
United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to
resume its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt
the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have
to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated
with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a
devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a
rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly
capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He
could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists
for use against us."

SOURCE: Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White
House (1/30/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was
providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had
conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there
was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because
it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq
appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks"
against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join
with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy,
the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by
Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror."

SOURCE: Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior
Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of
Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the
National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low
confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short
of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of
providing cause for war.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade
and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists."

SOURCE: Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior
Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but
it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have
been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this
particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a
centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and
enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in
order to build a bomb."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to
mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S.
Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this
purpose.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[H]e is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear
weapons."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement
system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build
a nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say
this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow
responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand,... new
information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that
relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on
the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a
number of contacts over the years.... There is -- again, I want to separate
out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda
organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.
And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since
the operations in Afghanistan -- we've seen al-Qaeda members operating
physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq....

QUESTION: But no direct link?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I can't -- I'll leave it right where it's at. I don't
want to go beyond that. I've tried to be cautious and restrained in my
comments."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"QUESTION: So Saddam's more dangerous than North Korea or Iran? VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think so because of his past practice and because we
believe that he is a danger, a fundamental danger, not only for the region
but potentially the United States, as well. And I say, a lot of that is
based on the evidence that's now available, that he is working actively to
improve his... nuclear weapons program."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Now, the more recent developments have to do with our now being able to
conclude, based on intelligence that's becoming available... that he has
reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there
are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: And what we've seen recently that has raised our
level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put
it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement
network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to
make the bombs.

QUESTION: Aluminum tubes.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"What we know now, from various sources, is that he has continued to improve
the, if you can put it in those terms, the capabilities of his nuclear...
and he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: VP Speaks to Commonwealth Club of California, White House
(8/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We have already found confirmation that the al-Qaeda terrorists are
seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological
and chemical agents. At the same time, there is a danger of terror groups
joining together with regimes that have or are seeking to build weapons of
mass destruction. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we have a dictator who is
clearly pursuing these capabilities -- and has used them, both in his war
against Iran and against his own people."

SOURCE: Vice President makes remarks at an event for Representative Saxby
Chambliss, White House (7/19/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda
network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and
in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any
possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of
mass destruction. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we have a dictator who is
clearly pursuing these deadly capabilities."

SOURCE: Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home
Builders, White House (6/6/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We know he's got chemicals and biological [weapons]..."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (5/19/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[W]e know he's working on nuclear."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (5/19/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The issue is that he's pursuing nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Late Edition (CNN), CNN (3/24/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We know that they have chemical weapons."

SOURCE: The Vice President Participates in a Media Availability with Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, White House (3/19/2002).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We know they have biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Press Conference by Vice President Cheney and his Highness Salam bin
Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain, White House (3/17/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty
when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to
CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate.
Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute
proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense
Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on
whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has
- -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENJ/niz2i76ou9wQRArK8AJ9UKwH4L5nacanQSWvkcr3hs8Jx2wCffPYv
Jw1KsYu45M9XByq2TGfgAFs=
=tfp3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading Public Statements by George W Bush
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1a02aec3867d4231
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:02 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Misleading Public Statements by George W Bush

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Bush on Iraq
http://www.bushoniraq.com/index.html#about

Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements
Compiled from Public Sources

The format of each entry is as follows:
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"

SOURCE: Date and source information.

EXPLANATION: The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or
misleading at the time the statement was made.

- -----

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons
program."

SOURCE: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White
House (7/17/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention
weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which
United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to
resume its nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were
capable of producing biological agents."

SOURCE: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that
Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N.
resolutions."

SOURCE: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White
House (6/1/2003).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.
You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said,
Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're
illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far
discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those
who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons,
they're wrong, we found them."

SOURCE: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil
men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the
civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of
one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of
America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and
their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and
force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

SOURCE: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,
White House (5/1/2003).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror.
We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist
funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of
mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

SOURCE: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,
White House (5/1/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had
conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there
was an operational relationship.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"The regime... has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including
operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or,
one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists
could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of
thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

SOURCE: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White
House (3/17/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community
had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether
there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading
because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda
and other terrorist organizations."

SOURCE: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference,
White House (3/6/2003).

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country
being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction
far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

SOURCE: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House
(2/25/2003).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction
might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons.
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist
networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least
eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document
forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with
chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent
to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and
gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a
senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

SOURCE: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was
providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had
conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there
was an operational relationship. The statement also was misleading because
it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist
networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at
least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and
document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al
Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq
is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist
planner."

SOURCE: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House
(2/6/2003).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a
fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has
developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with
ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched
from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."

SOURCE: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House
(2/6/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq's
UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the
United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most
knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force's
National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the
"U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily
intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is
resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm
the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what
terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait
to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House
(2/6/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because by referencing the
September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in
Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In
fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged "We've had no
evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." This
statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing
terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq
appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks"
against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

SOURCE: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein
could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy
terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with
other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It
would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to
bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

SOURCE: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of
Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of
mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq
appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks"
against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This
statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11
attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left
the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President
Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements
by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help develop their own."

SOURCE: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of
Iraq providing weapons to al Qaeda. According to the National Intelligence
Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

SOURCE: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts
about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House,
including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA
Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone
call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that
State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was
"highly dubious."

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since
1998, including:... attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it."

SOURCE: Letter to Cheney/Senate, White House (1/20/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
sought to acquire uranium despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts
about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House,
including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA
Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone
call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that
State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was
"highly dubious."

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat
posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his
own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will
not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love
freedom."

SOURCE: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech
I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an
Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and
leave not one fingerprint."

SOURCE: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House
(11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al
Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a
place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates
to come and attack people he hates."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House
(11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House
(11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a
scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for
shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not
leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House
(11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used
chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist
network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam
Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave
no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."

SOURCE: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We not only know he's got chemical weapons, but incredibly enough he's used
chemical weapons."

SOURCE: President Talks Tax Cuts and Homeland Security in Iowa, White House
(11/4/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass
destruction, but he's got them.... And not only that, [he would] like
nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks
like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do
his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his
action."

SOURCE: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House
(11/3/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of
Iraq providing Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the
National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low
confidence" in that scenario, and the intelligence community believed that
Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks"
against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"[Saddam Hussein is] a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he has
used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors."

SOURCE: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House
(11/3/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda
and Saddam Hussein."

SOURCE: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The Iraqi regime... is seeking nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities
that it had used to produced chemical and biological weapons. Yet Saddam
Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international
sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is
exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United
States."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq's
UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons,
including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S.
government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential
applications, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center,
had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is
developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and
biological (CBW) agents."

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a
decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These
include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in
Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical
and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members
in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other
equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for
nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam
Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his
capabilities to make more."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Saddam Hussein... is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of
Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced
to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other
deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had
likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile
of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of
killing millions."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked a lethal threat
to millions of individuals from Iraq's biological weapons but failed to
acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community had reported on Iraq's
biological weapons capabilities with qualifiers and lack of specificity. For
example, the October 2002 NIE estimated simply that Iraq had "some" BW
agents that were lethal and incapacitating, "including anthrax."

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly
enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a
nuclear weapon in less than one year."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

SOURCE: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on
Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a
threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the
intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing
its nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and
chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of
those weapons."

SOURCE: President: Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing",
White House (10/5/2002).

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency....
it has developed weapons of mass death."

SOURCE: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House
(10/2/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We know the designs of the Iraqi regime. In defiance of pledges to the
U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House
(10/2/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and
is seeking the materials needed to do so."

SOURCE: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House
(10/2/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and
there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq."

SOURCE: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House
(9/28/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House
(9/28/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could
build one within a year."

SOURCE: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White
House (9/26/2002).

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White
House (9/26/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear
weapon within a year."

SOURCE: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House
(9/12/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The first time we may be completely certain he has a --nuclear weapon is
when, God forbids, he uses one."

SOURCE: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House
(9/12/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a
threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when the intelligence community was
deeply divided on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its
nuclear program.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the
most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow.
And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist
allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far
greater horrors."

SOURCE: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House
(9/12/2002).

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to
enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House
(9/12/2002).

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam
Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to
hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the
lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this
is a risk we must not take."

SOURCE: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House
(9/12/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community
had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in
February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important
aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the
Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENJ/niz2i76ou9wQRAqXrAKClU5JuKMPhTxdJQ+R23LZhGMyRzQCZASfd
k7DJW3gUEUwOerQx0reBl3s=
=PUSL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading Public Statements by Colin Powell
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/680fe2224e21915f
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:02 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Misleading Public Statements by Colin Powell

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Bush on Iraq
http://www.bushoniraq.com/powell1.html

Analysis of Public Statements made by Secretary of State Colin Powell

Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements
Compiled from Public Sources

The format of each entry is as follows:
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"

SOURCE: Date and source information.

EXPLANATION: The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or
misleading at the time the statement was made.

-----

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"It isn't a figment of anyone's imagination that just 15 years ago they
gassed and killed 5,000 people with sarin and VX at a place called Halabja I
visited just a few weeks ago. They never lost that capability."

SOURCE: Remarks After Meeting with Hungarian Foreign Minister Laszlo Kovacs,
State Dept (10/3/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"One item I showed was cartoons of the mobile biological van. They were
cartoons, artist's renderings, because we had never seen one of these
things, but we had good sourcing on it, excellent sourcing on it. And we
knew what it would look like when we found it, so we made those pictures.
And I can assure you I didn't just throw those pictures up without having
quite a bit of confidence in the information that I had been provided and
that Director Tenet had been provided and was now supporting me in the
presentation on, sitting right behind me. And we waited. And it took a
couple of months, and it took until after the war, until we found a van and
another van that pretty much matched what we said it would look like. And I
think that's a pretty good indication that we were not cooking the books."

SOURCE: Press Briefing, State Dept (7/10/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Take the mobile vans that we've been talking about, the biological vans. I
can assure you, Sean, that when I presented those vans to the world on the
5th of February and described them, all I could put up were pictures or
cartoons that we made of them. And later, we actually found them and showed
them to the world."

SOURCE: Interview on the Sean Hannity Show, ABC Radio Network (7/2/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We have uncovered the mobile vans and we are continuing to search."

SOURCE: Remarks at Stakeout Following Fox News Interview, Fox News
(6/8/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And I think the mobile labs are what I think is a good indication of the
kind of thing they are doing."

SOURCE: Remarks at Stakeout Following Fox News Interview, Fox News
(6/8/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We have found the mobile biological weapons labs that I could only show
cartoons of that day."

SOURCE: Interview on NBC's Today Show with Katie Couric, NBC (6/30/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The imminent threat is that suddenly, this biological warfare lab, for
example, could have been put to use."

SOURCE: Interview on NPR's All Things Considered, NPR (6/27/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The mobile biological laboratories that were found and presented to the
world, I think, is a further evidence of this, and so, at the same time that
we continue our efforts to uncover those weapons programs."

SOURCE: Interview with Al Arabiyya Television, Al Arabiyya (6/23/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"I think that we will be able to demonstrate convincingly through the mobile
labs, through documentation, through interviews, through what we find, that
we knew what we were speaking about."

SOURCE: Interview by the Associated Press, State Dept (6/12/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons
labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that
give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce
biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a
biological weapons inventory."

SOURCE: Interview by the Associated Press, State Dept (6/12/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"One element that I presented at that time, these biological vans, all I
could show was a cartoon drawing of these vans, and everybody said, "Are the
vans really there?" And, voila, the vans showed up a few months later. We
found them."

SOURCE: Interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (6/8/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"I can assure you that if those biological vans were not biological vans
when I said they were on the 5th of February, on the 6th of February Iraq
would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of a press conference,
gave them to the UNMOVIC inspectors to try to drive a stake in the heart of
my presentation. They did not. The reason they did not is they knew what
they were."

SOURCE: Interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (6/8/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we
have found."

SOURCE: Interview on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow, Fox News (6/8/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Now we found some mobile labs, we're interviewing people, we have a lot of
documents that have come into our possession and we'll be examining that."

SOURCE: Interview on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, State Dept
(6/2/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And we made a case, I made the case to the United Nations just in February
as to what we knew, and I showed drawings of a biological laboratory. We
found that biological laboratory, now everybody can see it."

SOURCE: Ineterveiw with Italian TV Canale 5, Italian TV Canale 5 (6/2/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The biological weapons facilities, the mobile one that the DIA and CIA put
a paper out on the other day, I think make it clear that there is such a
capability that's existed over the years."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle, State Dept (5/30/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The presentation I made on the 5th of February, where I put up the cartoons
of those biological vans, we didn't just make them up one night. Those were
eyewitness accounts of people who had worked in the program and knew what
was going on, multiple accounts. We have examined those vans repeatedly for
the last several weeks, and we are confident that's what they are. Now there
will be other theories that come from time to time -- oh, it was a hydrogen
making thing for balloons. No. But, there's not question in the mind of the
intelligence community as to what it was designed for. And so that is a case
of clear solid evidence."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle, State Dept (5/30/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"So far, we have found the biological weapons vans that I spoke about when I
presented the case to the United Nations on the 5th of February, and there
is no doubt in our minds now that those vans were designed for only one
purpose, and that was to make biological weapons."

SOURCE: Interview with French Television 1, TF-1 (5/22/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The mobile vans that you may have been reading about, it is becoming clear
that these vans can have no other purpose than the production of biological
weapons."

SOURCE: Press Conference at the French American Press Club, State Dept
(5/22/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The intelligence community has really looked hard at these vans, and we can
find no other purpose for them. Although you can't find actual germs on
them, they have been cleaned and we don't know whether they have been used
for that purpose or not, but they were certainly designed and contructed for
that purpose. And we have taken our time on this one because we wanted to
make sure we got it right. And the intelligence community, I think, is
convinced now that that's the purpose they served."

SOURCE: Remarks with Bahrain's Crown Prince Shaikh salman bin Hamad
Al-Khalifa After Meeting, State Dept (5/21/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"QUESTION: Do you think they will find any (WMDs)?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I am quite sure. And, in fact, we have found a couple
of items of equipment, some mobile vans, so that with each passing day the
evidence is clearer to us that they were used for biological weapons
purposes."

SOURCE: Interview with ZDF Morgenmagazin, ZDF German Television (5/16/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We know they have chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Interview on NPR with Juan Williams, NPR (3/25/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: Another rationale provided by the administration for action
against Saddam is his connection to al Qaida. Tom Friedman, in the New York
Times, wrote this: "I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have
tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Usama
bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time
I hear them repeat it, I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution from the
Vietnam times. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie."

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think it's a lie. I think there is information and
evidence that there are connections. We have talked about Mr. al-Zarqawi and
some of the people who are in Baghdad who are linked with al-Qaida and Usama
bin Laden and who were there with the certain knowledge of the Iraqi regime.
We have seen connections and we are continuing to pursue those
connections.... And the fact that there is also an al-Qaida connection, I
think certainly adds to the case."

SOURCE: Interview on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, NBC (3/9/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look
at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four
chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that
the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to aquire high-specification
aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.
These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because
they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about
everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences
of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US
experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to
enrich uranium."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100
and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000
battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable
Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of
territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked a lethal threat
to millions of individuals from Iraq's chemical weapons but failed to
acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community had reported on Iraq's
chemical wapons capabilities with qualifiers and lack of specificity. In
addition, the statement failed to acknowledge a 2002 Defense Intelligence
Agency report that concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether
Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or
will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Now, umanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. Iraq has been working on a variety of
UAVs for more than a decade. This is just illustrative of what a UAV would
look like. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight
the MiG-21 and, with greater success, an aircraft called the L-29. However,
Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes but on developing and
testing smaller UAVs such as this. UAVs are well suited for dispensing
chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence that Iraq has
dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be
adapted for UAVs."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq's
UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, but
failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about
UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force's National Air and
Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does
not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery
platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much
more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus
that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder.
Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida
lieutenants.... From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his
network in the Middle East and beyond.... We are not surprised that Iraq is
harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on
decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.... A
detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist
al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies.... Some believe, some
claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's
secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not
comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and
al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more
sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that
al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of
mass destruction."

SOURCE: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).

EXPLANATION: This presentation was misleading because it heavily emphasized
reports supporting the assertion that a relationship between Iraq and Al
Qaeda existed that posed a real threat to the United States, when in fact
the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and
was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. While
Secretary Powell, unlike several other top administration officials,
included a reference to the fact that "some believe" that the contacts
"don't amount to much," he did not make clear that this was a view within
the U.S. intelligence community, and further he was dismissive of this
position.

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"And, perhaps most critically, the President confirmed that Iraq has open
channels and ties to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda."

SOURCE: "We Will Not Shrink From War", Wall Street Journal (2/3/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"I hope that you will understand, as we believe we understand, that this is
a danger, a danger to the world, for this kind of regime and this kind of
man, Saddam Hussein, to continue to develop weapons of mass
destruction--chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Interview by RAI Television of Italy, RAI (1/29/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And we will also put forward additional information that will substantiate
the claim that they do have programs to develop chemical and biological
weapons, as well as nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Interview by RAI Television of Italy, RAI (1/29/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: What have you got on the other front linking Iraq with al Qaida
and Usama bin Laden?

POWELL: We do have information that suggests that there have been links over
the years, and continue to be links, between the Iraqi Government and al
Qaida. And the more we look at this the more we are able to look back in
time and connect things with people who have come into our custody and other
information has become available to us. It's clear that there is a link."

SOURCE: Interveiw by ITN Television of Great Britain, ITN (1/29/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you have spoken, in Davos most recently, about a
connection between Iraq and terrorist groups, including al Qaida. Are you
saying there is evidence that that has happened in the past, or is there
evidence currently that there's still a connection?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think we have said consistently all along, through last
fall and into this year, that we have seen contacts and connections between
the Iraqi regime and terrorist organizations, to include al Qaida. As we
have been able to focus on this more and look back in time, I think we're
more confident of that assessment and we see no reason not to believe that
such contacts and the presence of al Qaida elements or individuals in Iraq
is a reasonable assumption, and we have some basis for that assumption."

SOURCE: Briefing on the Iraq Weapons Inspectors' 60-Day Report: Iraqi
Non-cooperation and Defiance of the UN, State Dept (1/27/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment
needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

SOURCE: Remarks at the World Economic Forum, State Dept (1/26/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: You referred in your speech to the links between al-Qaida and
Iraq. Now, even some of our secret service chiefs say publicly there is no
evidence of that.

SECRETARY POWELL: We do have evidence of it. We are not suggesting that
there is a 9/11 link, but we are suggesting -- we do have evidence -- of
connections over the years between Iraq and al-Qaida and other terrorist
organizations."

SOURCE: Interview with European Editors, State Dept (1/26/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Al-Qaeda:

"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear
ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a
weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again."

SOURCE: Remarks at the World Economic Forum, State Dept (1/26/2003).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes
which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons
program."

SOURCE: Press Conference on Iraq Declaration, State Dept (12/19/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"During the four years since inspectors have been barred from Iraq, Hussein
has done everything he can to acquire and develop more weapons of mass
destruction -- whether biological, chemical or nuclear. He has no scruples
about using the weapons that he possesses or about providing them to
terrorists should that suit his interests."

SOURCE: Baghdad's Moment of Truth, Washington Post (11/10/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Urgent Threat:

"But the President also believes that this problem has to be dealt with, and
if the United Nations won't deal with it, then the United States, with other
likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that
route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having
weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of
such weapons, that it is time for the international community to act, and if
it doesn't act, the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations."

SOURCE: Interview by Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, Talk Radio News
(10/30/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"They have chemical weapons; they have biological weapons; they're trying to
acquire nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show, ABC (10/22/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[T]hey're trying to acquire nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show, ABC (10/22/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We do know that he has stocks of biological weapons, chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Interview on CNN's "Larry King Live", CNN (10/9/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks."

SOURCE: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News
(9/8/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We destroyed some after the Gulf War with the inspection regime, but there
is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks and he has
the capacity to produce more chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News
(9/8/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues
to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear
weapon."

SOURCE: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News
(9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"SECRETARY POWELL: We know that he has been working hard on developing a
means to disseminate those [chemical and biological] weapons. He had
artillery, he had rockets, and I'm sure he is looking at other technologies.
We have evidence that he has been looking at aerial vehicles.

QUESTION: Drones?

SECRETARY POWELL: Drones."

SOURCE: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News
(9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it evoked a threat of
Iraq using UAVs to spread biological and chemical agents, but failed to
mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and
their potential applications, the Air Force's National Air and Space
Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not
agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery
platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"QUESTION: I want to get to all that, but still a couple more questions on
his capabilities. If he were able to deploy right now his chemical and
biological stocks, how many people could he kill?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know. It depends on how he deployed them, where he
deployed them. Chemical weapons are different from biological weapons. And
let's just recognize the fact that he has them, he has used them before, and
he has killed thousands of people in their use."

SOURCE: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News
(9/8/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"People should be nervous about the fact that there is a country such as
Iraq with all that wealth available to it through oil, that is using that
wealth to develop chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, if they
could get their hands on them, in order to threaten innocent people
throughout the Persian Gulf region, and in due course perhaps even threaten
us here, this far away."

SOURCE: CTV News Interview, CTV (6/13/2002).

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Nuclear Capabilities:

"What we have said to our Arab friends is you may not see Saddam Hussein the
same way we do, but you ought to, because those weapons of mass destruction
that he is developing
- -- chemical, biological, nuclear -- they're more likely than not directed at
one of you than us."

SOURCE: Interview by Scott Pelley on CBS's 60 Minutes II (as aired), CBS
(4/3/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. In addition, it failed to acknowledge
the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable
information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or
where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production
facilities."

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENKCLiz2i76ou9wQRAj4zAKCUmBVHA9opMt9kUE3dxzoo6wqLCgCfZ2tr
WqwOLsbg/2vhOhxlYDqtjZU=
=ERS+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading Public Statements by Donald Rumsfeld
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/75017f3d7d8e1057
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:02 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Misleading Public Statements by Donald Rumsfeld

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Bush on Iraq
http://www.bushoniraq.com/rumsfeld1.html

Analysis of Public Statements made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements
Compiled from Public Sources

The format of each entry is as follows:
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"

SOURCE: Date and source information.

EXPLANATION: The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or
misleading at the time the statement was made.

-----

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"We said from the outset that there are several terrorist networks that have
global reach and that there were several countries that were harboring
terrorists that have global reach. We weren't going into Iraq when we were
hit on September 11. And the question is: Well, what do you do about that?
If you know there are terrorists and you know there's terrorist states --
Iraq's been a terrorist state for decades -- and you know there are
countries harboring terrorists, we believe, correctly, I think, that the
only way to deal with it is -- you can't just hunker down and hope they
won't hit you again. You simply have to take the battle to them. And we have
been consistently working on the Al Qaeda network. We've captured a large
number of those folks -- captured or killed -- just as we've now captured or
killed a large number of the top 55 Saddam Hussein loyalists."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (11/2/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC (7/13/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false because there were deep divisions
within the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively
pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of
intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United
Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume
its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Now people are saying, "Well, why haven't we found anything?" And I would
respond by saying, A, it's going take some time, and B, we have found
things. The CIA very recently, I believe, issued a declassified document on
their website, where someone can actually go and find photographs and data
that discusses these mobile laboratories, which are precisely what Secretary
Powell talked about to the United Nations."

SOURCE: Town Hall Meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Infinity-CBS Radio (5/29/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in
custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the
United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories. We have people who
are telling that they worked in these vehicles. And they look at panels and
say, "That was my work station in that panel, and that's what it's for."

SOURCE: Town Hall Meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Infinity-CBS Radio (5/29/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We believed then, and we believe now, that the Iraqis... had a program to
develop nuclear weapons, but did not have nuclear weapons. That is what the
United Kingdom's intelligence suggested as well. We still believe that."

SOURCE: Town Hall Meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Infinity-CBS Radio (5/29/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention
that weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in
which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by
Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons,
including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"Well, there's no question but that Iraq has relationships with countries
that are on the terrorist list. They also have relations with terrorist
networks. They also have al Qaeda currently in the country, among other --
Abu Nidal just, they say, committed suicide with four or five slugs to the
head; that's a hard thing to do -- but he was in Iraq. So there's no
question about those relationships."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"But I can say obviously that they have had an enormous appetite for
weapons, biological and chemical weapons. They've taken these capabilities
and weaponized them. They are continuing to do so today."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And he is agressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The region knows that."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"And he has biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"His regime has an active program to aquire nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"Iraq is part of the global war on terror. Stopping terrorist regimes from
acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a key objective of that war, and we
can fight the various elements of the global war on terror simultaneously,
as General Myers will indicate in his remarks. A principle goal in the war
on terror is to prevent another September 11th or a weapons of mass
destruction attack that could make September 11th seem modest by comparison,
and to do it before it happens."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[W]e do know they're currently pursuing nuclear weapons, that they have a
proven willingness to use those weapons at their disposal."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We do know that the Iraqi regime currently has chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin and mustard gas."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"He... is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We do know that the Iraqi regime... they're pursuing nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of
mass destruction."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"My personal view is we're going to find them, just as we found these two
mobile laboratories."

SOURCE: Town Hall Meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Infinity-CBS Radio (5/29/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"QUESTION: Weapons of mass destruction, we are still searching. No
conclusive evidence as of yet, I'm sure you've heard the criticism. Were, as
perhaps Senator Byrd suggested, were we misled about the weapons of mass
destruction?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Oh I don't believe so, I think the intelligence
community provided the best intelligence available and that we will find
additional substantiating evidence of that. Colin Powell if you may recall
at the UN mentioned the existence of these mobile biological laboratories
and two of those are now in our custody and they seem to look very much like
precisely what Colin Powell said would exist."

SOURCE: Secretary Interview with WNYW-TV, Fox News (5/27/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces
control is, is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of
mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area
around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. Second,
the kernel facilities, there are dozens of them, it is a large geographic
area... I would also add that we saw from the air there were dozens of
trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public
in the press, and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them
away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon
to know. The exploration is just starting."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (3/30/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We have seen... intelligence over--over months, over many months that they
have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and
that they're weaponized...."

SOURCE: Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discusses the war in Iraq, CBS
(3/23/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

"With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed
to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on
September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."

SOURCE: Donald H. Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to American Troops, Defense
Department (3/20/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
posed an imminent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence
community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George
Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several
important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in
the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know that he
continues to hide biological or chemical weapons, moving them to different
locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential
neighborhoods."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Department of Defense
Briefing, Defense Department (3/11/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"QUESTION: There've been a lot of reports... In regard to these... very
small aircraft, that potentially could deliver biological things...

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: They come in a variety of sizes and shapes and
capabilities. They are perfectly capable of being equipped with spraying and
aerosol-type capabilities. Today with global position systems, GPS, and the
kinds of maps that one can buy readily, these types of things can be
purchased and used and guided and directed with great precision and capable
of dispensing those kinds of weapons. They do exist. We know that Iraq has a
number of so-called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, of different types, that
they train with them and exercise them."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to the Hoover Institute Meeting,
State Dept (2/25/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it implied that Iraq's
UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, but
failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about
UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force's National Air and
Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does
not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery
platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, today in a broadcast interview Saddam Hussein
said: "There is only one truth, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction
whatsoever." And he went on to say, "I would like to tell you directly we
have no relationship with Al Qaida."

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: And Abraham Lincoln was short."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Holds Defense Department Briefing, Defense
Department (2/4/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"You have a country that is out in the world buying things that are
necessary for the development and progress in their... nuclear programs."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Defense Department
Briefing, Defense Department (1/29/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"The regime plays host to terrorists, including Al Qaida, as the president
indicated."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Defense Department
Briefing, Defense Department (1/29/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several
different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Defense Department
Briefing, Defense Department (1/29/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq
sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA had expressed
doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House,
including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet also had warned against using
the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the
statement failed to mention that State Department intelligence officials had
concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several
different methods of enriching uranium...."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Defense Department
Briefing, Defense Department (1/29/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger to
its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the
international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators,
Defense Department (1/20/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

"Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of
the world that is distinct from any other."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators,
Defense Department (1/20/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators,
Defense Department (1/20/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators,
Defense Department (1/20/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"The problem with Iraq is chemical or biological weapons today...."

SOURCE: Donald Rumsfeld Holds Defense Department Briefing, Defense
Department (1/7/2003).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the United States has categorically said that Iraq
has an active... nuclear weapons program.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Because they do."

SOURCE: DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, Defense
Department (12/3/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"[T]here is no question but that there have been interactions between the
Iraqi government, Iraqi officials, and al-Qaeda operatives. They have
occurred over a span of some eight or ten years to our knowledge. There are
currently al-Qaeda in Iraq."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio,
Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio,
Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month,
and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and
transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda, and
somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an
attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not
talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or
100,000... human beings."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio,
Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because, by evoking the specter
of thousands of deaths in a time frame as short as "a week, or a month," it
suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat. The U.S. intelligence community,
however, had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. Further, according to the National Intelligence
Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" regarding whether
Iraq would provide al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And we know that he has an active program for the development of nuclear
weapons."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio,
Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Second, they question... what is the proof that Iraq has nuclear weapons?
Where's the smoking gun?... But if you think about it, the last thing we
should want is a smoking gun. A gun doesn't smoke until it has been fired
and the goal has to be to stop such an attack before it starts. As the
President told the United Nations, 'The first time we may be completely
certain that a terrorist has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid,' he said,
'they use one.'"

SOURCE: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons
including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

SOURCE: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the
presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in
Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of
senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and
biological-agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and
al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We
have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have
discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression
discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda
leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of
- -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have
- -- I believe it's one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified
training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda
members. There is, I'm told, also some other information of varying degrees
of reliability that supoprts that conclusion of their cooperation."

SOURCE: Defense Department Regular Briefing, Defense Department (9/26/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the
security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate
Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

SOURCE: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the
House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Al-Qaeda:

"It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and other terrorist
network and a terrorist state like Saddam Hussein who has that weapons of
mass destruction. As we sit here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They
are there."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Jim Lehrer, PBS (9/18/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to
whether a dicatator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses
it, and that's a little late."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld's Interview on Face the Nation, CBS (9/8/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"[T]hey have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that."

SOURCE: Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability at Kuwait City International
Airport, Department of Defense (6/10/2002).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[M]ost of them or some of them have very aggressive programs to develop
nuclear weapons; certainly Iran does, certainly Iraq does, and there are
others including North Korea."

SOURCE: News Hour, PBS (5/22/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENKCLiz2i76ou9wQRAi3vAKCpJP3LfahEFM1R35boOqJWiwtqHACfRv+c
VVab5vFMwA5u9wfCg8wJDMo=
=S3uY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading Public Statements by Condoleezza Rice
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9b0ac9dd531755ee
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:02 am
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Misleading Public Statements by Condoleezza Rice

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Bush on Iraq
http://www.bushoniraq.com/rice1.html

Analysis of Public Statements made by former National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice (now Secretary of State)

The format of each entry is as follows:
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"

SOURCE: Date and source information.

EXPLANATION: The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or
misleading at the time the statement was made.

- -----

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"On nuclear there was dissent on the extent of the program and how far along
the program might be. How much had he gone to reconstitute? But the judgment
of the intelligence community was that he had kept in place his
infrastructure, that he was trying to procure items. For instance, there's
been a lot of talk about the aluminum tubes but they were prohibited on the
list of the nuclear suppliers group for a reason."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/28/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein -- no one has said that there is evidence that Saddam
Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to
al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (9/28/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: Do you believe, because this is continually a subject of debate,
that there was a link between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein
before the war?

MS. RICE: Absolutely.... But we know that there was training of al Qaeda in
chemical and perhaps biological warfare. We know that the Zarqawi was
network out of there, this poisons network that was trying to spread poisons
throughout.... And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to
be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there."

SOURCE: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/7/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been
in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases
that I've seen, key judments by our intelligence community that Saddam
Hussein... had biological and chemical weapons...."

SOURCE: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Interview with ZDF German
Television, ZDF German Television (7/31/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable
information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or
where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production
facilities."

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been
in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases
that I've seen, key judgments by our intelligence community that Saddam
Hussein could have a nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, if left
unchecked... that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program."

SOURCE: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Interview with ZDF German
Television, ZDF German Television (7/31/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention
weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which
United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to
resume its nuclear program.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[H]e had... an active procurement network to procure items, many of which,
by the way, were on the prohibited list of the nuclear suppliers group.
There's a reason that they were on the prohibited list of the nuclear
supplies group: Magnets, balancing machines, yes, aluminum tubes, about
which the consensus view was that they were suitable for use in centrifuges
to spin material for nuclear weapons."

SOURCE: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS (7/30/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"My only point is that, in retrospect, knowing that some of the documents
underneath may have been--were, indeed, forgeries, and knowing that
apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that
at the time, we would not have put it in.... And had there been even a peep
that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not
want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not
want it in, it would have been gone."

SOURCE: Face the Nation, CBS (7/13/2003).

EXPLANATION: Ms. Rice was responding to questions regarding how the claim
that Iraq sought uranium in Africa made it into the President's January 28,
2003, State of the Union address. The statement that the Director of Central
Intelligence and the CIA did not object to the claim was false. In October
2002, the CIA expressed doubts about the claim in two memos to the White
House, including one addressed to Ms. Rice. Director of Central Intelligence
George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms.
Rice's deputy in October 2002.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"So the process is an NIE that is the basis of this, and then if the Agency
had reservations about information that was in the NIE, then the DCI -- and
I think he will tell you that if he had reservations, he did not make those
known to the President, to the Vice President, or to me -- if he had
reservations."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleezza Rice En Route
Entebbe, Uganda, White House (7/11/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false. Ms. Rice was claiming in this
statement that the doubts intelligence officials had regarding the claim in
the National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq sought uranium in Africa were
not communicated to her. In fact, following the issuance of the National
Intelligence Estimate, the CIA expressed doubts about the uranium claim in
two memos to the White House, including one addressed to Ms. Rice. In
addition, shortly after the issuance of the NIE, Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet warned against using the claim in a telephone call
to Ms. Rice's deputy.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The only thing that was there in the NIE was a kind of a standard INR
footnote, which is kind of 59 pages away from the bulk of the NIE. That's
the only thing that's there. And you have footnotes all the time in CIA - I
mean, in NIEs. So if there was a concern about the underlying intelligence
there, the President was unaware of that concern and as was I."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleezza Rice En Route
Entebbe, Uganda, White House (7/11/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had
said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without
question. What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that
some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put
this in the President's speech - but that's knowing what we know now."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleezza Rice En Route
Entebbe, Uganda, White House (7/11/2003).

EXPLANATION: The statement that the CIA did not object to the uranium claim
is false. In October 2002, the CIA sent two memos to the White House,
including one addressed to Ms. Rice, that raised concerns about the claim.
In addition, in October 2002, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet
warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[T]he NIE, which, by the way, the Agency was standing by at the time of
the... State of the Union, and was standing by at the time of the
Secretary's speech, has the yellow cake story in it.... Now, if there were
doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not
communicated to the President, to the Vice President, or to me."

SOURCE: Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleezza Rice En Route
Entebbe, Uganda, White House (7/11/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false. Ms. Rice made this statement in
response to a question about why Secretary Powell had decided against using
in his February 5, 2003, remarks the claim that Iraq sought to acquire
uranium whereas the President had used the claim just a week earlier in his
State of the Union address. The October 1, 2002, National Intelligence
Estimate Ms. Rice referenced in her statement did contain the uranium claim.
However, subsequent to the issuance of the NIE, the CIA expressed doubts
about the claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to
Ms. Rice. Shortly after the issuance of the NIE, Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone
call to Ms. Rice's deputy.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"QUESTION: [T]his is what appeared in the Washington Post: "A key piece of
evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been
fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said in a report
that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret
nuclear ambitions.... " In light of that, should the president retract those
comments?...

MS. RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time
- -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the
bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts
and suspicions that this might be a forgery."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (6/8/2003).

EXPLANATION: The statement that "no one knew" about the doubts regarding the
uranium claim was false. The statement contradicts the fact that the CIA in
October 2002 had expressed doubts about the uranium claim in two memos to
the White House, including one addressed to Ms. Rice. Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet in October 2002 also had warned against using the
claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement
contradicts the fact that State Department intelligence officials had stated
that this claim was "highly dubious" in the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate that had been provided to top White House officials.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"And there were other attempts to, to get yellow cake from Africa."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"At the time that the State of the Union address was prepared, there were
also other sources that said that they were, the Iraqis were seeking yellow
cake, uranium oxide from Africa."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The intelligence community did not know at that time or at levels that got
to us that this, that there was serious questions about this report."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false. Ms. Rice made this statement in
response to the question of how the claim "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa" made it into the President's January 28, 2003, State of
the Union address. Her statement contradicted the fact that the CIA in
October 2002 had expressed doubts about the claim in two memos to the White
House, including one addressed to Ms. Rice. Director of Central Intelligence
George Tenet also in October 2002 had warned against using the claim in a
telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, Ms. Rice's statement
contradicted the fact that State Department intelligence officials had
stated that this claim was "highly dubious" in the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate that had been provided to top White House officials.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"Already, we've discovered, uh, uh, trailers, uh, that look remarkably
similar to what Colin Powell described in his February 5th speech,
biological weapons production facilities."

SOURCE: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"QUESTION: You are confident you will find weapons of mass destruction.

MS. RICE: We are confident that we -- I believe that we will find them. I
think that we have already found important clues like the biological weapons
laboratories that look surprisingly like what Colin Powell described in his
speech."

SOURCE: Meet the Press, NBC (6/8/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"But let's remember what we've already found. Secretary Powell on February
5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been
found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of
agent that -- dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people.
So we are finding these pieces that were described."

SOURCE: Capital Report, CNBC (6/3/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"QUESTION: OK. Let's be careful and precise here, because that's what this
whole argument going on right now is about. Do we know that those trailers
were used for developing biological weapons?

MS. RICE: We know that these trailers look exactly like what was described
to us by multiple sources as the capabilities for building or for making
biological agents. We know that we have from multiple sources who told us
that then and sources who have confirmed it now. Now the Iraqis were not
stupid about this. They were able to conceal a lot. They've been able to
scrub things down. But I think when the whole picture comes out, we will see
that this was an active program."

SOURCE: Capital Report, CNBC (6/3/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Chemical and Biological
Weapons:

"We have found, in Iraq, biological weapons laboratories that look precisely
like what Secretary Powell described in his February 5th report to the
United Nations."

SOURCE: Dr. Rice Previews the President's Trip to Europe and the Middle
East, White House (5/28/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite disbursed and --and quite
widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not
to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not
want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing
with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, "containment,"
enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by
transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a
terrorist for blackmail or for worse."

SOURCE: Face the Nation, CBS (3/9/2003).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq
was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community
had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether
there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading
because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass
destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the
intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"Well, we are, of course, continually learning more about these links
between Iraq and al Qaeda, and there is evidence that Secretary Powell did
not have the time to talk about. But the core of the story is there in what
Secretary Powell talked about. This poisons network with at least two dozen
of its operatives operating in Baghdad, a man who is spreading poisons now
throughout Europe and into Russia, a man who got medical care in Baghdad
despite the fact that the Iraqis were asked to turn him over, training in
biological and chemical weapons."

SOURCE: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (2/16/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"QUESTION: Is there any question in your mind about the al Qaeda connection?
Did Powell totally convince people today in that area?

RICE: There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection. It is a
connection that has unfolded, that we're learning more about as we are able
to take the testimony of detainees, people who were high up in the al Qaeda
organization. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who became
impressed with what al Qaeda did after it bombed our embassies in 1998 in
Kenya and Tanzania, began to give them assistance in chemical and biological
weapons, something that they were having trouble achieving on their own,
that harbored a terrorist network under this man Zarqawi, despite the fact
that Saddam Hussein was told that Zarqawi was there."

SOURCE: Larry King Live, CNN (2/5/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts
to get uranium from abroad..."

SOURCE: Why We Know Iraq Is Lying, NYT (1/23/2003).

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda:

"MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to
9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism.

QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just
want to be certain.

MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes."

SOURCE: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was
linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting
evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an
operational relationship.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We do know that there have been shipments going... into Iraq... of aluminum
tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic]
that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge
programs."

SOURCE: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was false. The government's most experienced
technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes
were "poorly suited" for this purpose, and intelligence officials at the
State Department concurred in this view.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a
nuclear weapon."

SOURCE: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge
the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was
actively pursuing its nuclear program.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how
quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to
be a mushroom cloud."

SOURCE: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).

EXPLANATION: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a
threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when the intelligence community was
deeply divided regarding whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear
weapons program.

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENKCLiz2i76ou9wQRAtwnAJwKuX03eby2VmjqgKnNchsEImj2ugCfemlf
X06+rlTJ5QK9JwxpFHSvbt0=
=SXTn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

==============================================================================
TOPIC: QUE DICEN A ESTO EDDA Y LOS DEFENSORES DEL CASTRISMO?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ff587f28183b4b0
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 12:50 am
From: "PM"

.... esto es el colmo del cinismo de la parte de ese sangriento traidor
que ha destruido a toda Cuba !!!!!

Comunicado de Cubaeuropa
Castro reconoce la miseria moral de Cuba y culpa
al turismo italiano
Por Luz Modroño
Miembro de la dirección de Cubaeurtopa

Tras largos años negando la miseria moral en que la dictadura ha
hundido al pueblo cubano, Castro reconoce finalmente la degradación que
anida en su país-territorio. El pasado viernes y en el marco del Congreso
para la promoción del turismo en Cuba, Castro reconoció los altos índices de
droga y prostitución existentes en un país que tenía como una de sus enseñas
socio-culturales la abolición de tales "lacras propias del capitalismo".
Pero incapaz de reconocer las causas últimas que producen tal estado de
cosas, arremete contra empresas de turismo italianas y, en un alarde de
cinismo provoca un grave incidente diplomático al acusar de ello al turismo
italiano. Castro, sin sombra alguna de culpa, incapaz de reconocer sus
propias responsabilidades, y en su nepotismo totalitario, esconde la mano y
acusa.

Italia, junto con otros países europeos como España, mueve cantidades
ingentes de divisas a través del turismo. Cuba, hoy un país con una economía
desvastada, donde las exportaciones de productos autóctonos antaño prósperas
pasaron a la historia, se alimenta básicamente de las ayudas proporcionadas
por su hermana Venezuela y de las inversiones de empresas extranjeras
europeas basadas fundamentalmente en el sector turístico, inmobiliario y
minero. Pero nada parece importarle a un gobernante absolutista que,
escondido tras un aparato propagandístico único y a su servicio, niega
realidades y omite responsabilidades. Contra viento y marea, y mientras ha
sido posible, el gobierno castrista ha negado la existencia de la
prostitución o las drogas. Cuando tal realidad se ha impuesto y ha sido
difundida fuera de sus fronteras por los propios turistas que cada año
acuden a la llamada de un "paraíso" caribeño, Castro elige un país, podría
haber sido cualquier otro quizás España o la propia Unión Europea en su
conjunto, para responsabilizarle de lo que sólo a su sistema político y
económico incumbe. Profunda ironía con la que se pretende ocultar las graves
grietas físicas y morales que hoy asolan el país.

Muchos son, hombres y mujeres, los que para sobrevivir en un país
donde el sueldo medio no alcanza los 10 euros mensuales, se ven obligados a
recurrir al viejo oficio de la prostitución que se enseñorea por las calles
habaneras. Una realidad con la que cualquier turista se topa, y de la que yo
misma fui testigo, ya sea de día o de noche, y con abrumadora cotidianidad
le asalta en sus paseos por calles desvastadas en las que la ruina se ha
entronizado. En hoteles, restaurantes, cines o teatros, a la puerta de
cualquier local o en cualquier parque o esquina, el jinetero o la jinetera
se acerca al turista en busca de unos cuantos dólares que alivien su hambre
o su deseo de poseer bienes que les son negados. La prostitución en Cuba ha
terminado convirtiéndose en una triste seña de identidad del país.

Pero ni la droga ni la prostitución han sido provocadas por los miles
de turistas que visitan el país, muchos de ellos familias con hijos, sino
por la existencia de una economía controlada por el Estado, incapaz de
producir riqueza y que ha terminado por arruinarle. La cesta de
racionamiento, que consiste básicamente en arroz, frijoles, ocho huevos al
mes, un cacillo de aceite y yogures de soja, apenas llega a cubrir, y aún
así precariamente, las necesidades básicas de la población para diez días.
Tanto la adquisición de los restantes productos no subvencionados, como la
satisfacción de necesidades básicas del resto de los días del mes, han de
ser adquirirlos pagando en unos pesos de los que carece. Ello le obliga a
recurrir a cualquier actividad o fuente de ingresos que le ayude a sacar
esos pesos inexistentes ya sea recurriendo al robo, el timo o la
prostitución. Prácticas habituales y ampliamente extendidas entre la
población, como cualquier turista tiene la oportunidad de comprobar.

El modelo social cubano hunde sus raíces en el discurso estalinista
que pretendía la creación de un hombre nuevo, libre de las "desviaciones
morales o ideológicas de los países imperialistas" y que ha desembocado en
la construcción de un hombre y una mujer que se ven obligados a recurrir a
lo que su ingenio o sus posibilidades de supervivencia les permite. Aunque
sea la venta de su propio cuerpo a los únicos que pueden pagar, esto es a
los turistas. Turistas que son testigos de una realidad que Castro ha negado
hasta que la contumacia de la misma lo ha hecho imposible ya.

Castro, en un alarde de prepotencia y demostración de su poder
absoluto sobre los propios intereses y la dignidad de una nación y libre de
tener que dar explicaciones de sus palabras o actos a Parlamento alguno o de
tener que someterse a sesión alguna de control parlamentario, insulta a un
país tildando a sus miembros de Al Capones y culpándole de la miseria moral
que sólo él ha provocado, generando un conflicto internacional que puede
tener consecuencias de hondo alcance. Por el momento, Italia ha respondido
con no vender ningún paquete turístico más y con iniciar una campaña
mediática destinada a que el pueblo italiano conozca lo ocurrido. Y que, sin
duda, tendrá consecuencias directas sobre las ya precarias condiciones de
vida de los trabajadores cubanos, primeras víctimas que la merma de ingresos
derivadas de las divisas que dejarán de entrar en el país.

La serie de insultos que sobre Italia han llovido puede ser, por otra
parte, el primer eslabón de una larga cadena de provocaciones contra los
países inversores en la isla. Sin embargo, más allá de la economía antártica
y autosuficiente que el dictador, amparado en los potentes servicios
propagandísticos en los que históricamente ha basado su política, la
realidad es que empresas provenientes de diversos países europeos llevan a
cabo en la isla fuertes inversiones en sectores como los ya indicados:
España, Italia, Francia... en cuyas empresas trabajan una gran parte de la
población cubana y supone, para el gobierno, una fuente elevada de ingresos.
La ingente ayuda proveniente de Venezuela puede ser la causa explicativa a
la situación creada pero no es posible ignorar o pretender ignorar que, por
muy elevada que sea la ayuda proveniente de su socio venezolano, no es
suficiente para cubrir las alarmantes necesidades de toda índole que el país
necesita. La economía cubana ha encontrado, por otro lado y a lo largo de
estos cuarenta y siete años de dictadura, una elevada fuente de ingresos en
sectores controlados básicamente por empresas extranjeras que realizan sus
inversiones en el sector turístico.

Por un lado, un porcentaje muy elevado de trabajadores está empleado
en hoteles cuya titularidad no es cubana. Por otro, las divisas que los
turistas y los tours operadores dejan en la isla cada año no son baladíes.
Y, aunque las condiciones laborales de dichos trabajadores se rigen por
imposiciones legislativas cubanas e incumplen los acuerdos de la
Organización Internacional del Trabajo -véase la ley Marrero- no es tampoco
desconocido que los mejores sueldos, las mayores ventajas son las recibidas
por los trabajadores de este sector, considerados, a pesar de todo,
privilegiados por el resto de empleados en empresas estatales.

Las agresiones verbales contra el turismo italiano y las reacciones
consiguientes de los agredidos pueden provocar que cientos de trabajadores
pierdan sus empleos, incluidos aquellos que lo hacen en empresas
subsidiarias Pero, además, el hecho supone un atentado contra la dignidad de
las empresas acusadas tanto como de los propios ciudadanos italianos.

Es necesario alertar de las graves consecuencias que, de seguir por
esta vía de provocación hoy contra Italia, mañana otros, podría tener tanto
para las empresas inversoras como para los propios gobiernos o instituciones
políticas o sociales hechos semejantes. Y también para la maltrecha economía
cubana, ya que la situación socio-laboral y económica de Cuba, a pesar de
las fanfarronadas de Castro y de los alardes propagandísticos
gubernamentales no podría absorber los costes humanos y financieros de
semejante actitud. Y, el mayor sufrimiento recaerá, una vez más y de manera
inmediata sobre el castigado pueblo cubano.

Es de temer que, el nuevo camino iniciado por Castro contra las
inversiones extranjeras, no quede ahí. Sin duda cabe la posibilidad de que
sea el principio de una cadena de ataques contra otros países. Los gobiernos
europeos deberán proteger los intereses de sus inversionistas estando,
además, en la obligación de emprender las acciones pertinentes para ello.
Castro, con el sentido de la oportunidad que le caracteriza, ha elegido para
atacar a Italia el momento en que sus principales objetivos se centran en el
proceso de elecciones, mermando así el impacto que, en otras circunstancias,
hubieran tenido semejantes declaraciones. Por ello, y desde estas páginas,
queremos mostrar nuestra solidaridad tanto para con el pueblo cubano,
víctima de las iniquidades de su gobernante, como para las empresas
italianas víctimas de tales atropellos

--
CALLES DE LA HABANA: (ESTE WEBSITE ES UNA JOYA)

Calle http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/calle23/index.htm 23
Quinta http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/quinta/index.htm
Avenida
Línea <http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/linea/index.htm
Almendares
http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/almendares/index.htm

Calle http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/calle26/index.htm 26
Avenida http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/ave26/index.htm 26
Avenida http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/ave11/index.htm 11
Avenida
http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/presidentes/index.htm
de los Presidentes
Rancho http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/rancho/index.htm
Boyeros
Monserrate
http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/monserrate/index.htm
Empedrado http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/empedrado/index.htm
Avenida http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/puerto/index.htm del
Puerto
Calle Cuba http://www.guije.com/pueblo/habana/calles/cuba/ind

==============================================================================
TOPIC: INDONESIA: IS ISLAMIC NUKES ARE READY FOR AUSTRALIA?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a57fd90c18d2c12c
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:05 pm
From: "KANGAROOISTAN"

Don Smith wrote:
> All Indonesia needs to do is to encourge its population to take the short
> sampan boat ride to Australia all armed with life jackets and Asutralia will
> have a hard time trying to stamp the tide.
> <ben11_england@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144164435.583054.323160@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Pakistan military is visiting Indonesia to prepare Indonesia
> > for nuclear attack on Australia using Islamic nukes.
> >
> > Australian are fools to miss calculate the danger. Australian
> > are not producing enough children as well to remain a nation.

ITS FUNNY TO HEAR THE MILITARY PEOPLE BOASTING HOW GOOD THEY ARE

AS LONG AS YOU DONT REMIND THEM OF GALLIPOLI DEFEAT

AND THEY SQUIRM WHEN YOU REMIND THEM ABOUT SING APORE FALLING IN 1942

MOST AUSSIES DONT KNOW HOW MUCH THEIR MILITARY LEADERS FELL ON THEIR
OVERCONFIDENT FACES OVER SINGAPORE

AND VIETNAM SWA THE WEST THRASHED TO DEATH BUT STILL THEY THINK THE
WEST WILL AUTOMATICALLY WIN IN ANY MILITARY CONFLICT

THE WEST FAILS THE FIRST LESSON

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY

AND IF ALLIED FORCES CAN EVACUATE DUNKIRK AND REINVADE ON D DAY

UNDER FIRE FROM A WELL PREPARED GERMAN WAR MACHINE ALONG A COAST A FEW
KILOMETERS LONG WITH VERY FEW CASUALTIES

WOT MAKES THE AUSSIES SO SURE THEY COULD STOP 100,000 SMALL WOODEN
FISHING BOATS FROM ROCKING UP ALL AT ONE WITH ONE MILLION INDONESIANS
IN ONE DAY EACH WITH A LIFE JACKET

ONLY FOOLS THINK THEY COULD DEFEND perhaps 10,000 KMS OF NORTHERN
COASTLINE

BUT INDONESIANS ARE MOSTLY MUSLIMS

SO THEY WILL NEVER INVADE AUSTRALIA COS THEY ARE NOT BLOODTHIRSTY
MURDERS WHO LIKE WARS FOR ALMOST ANY REASON

AND REAL CLEVER AUSTRALIANS KNOW THAT AUSTRALIA WOULD LOSE ANY WAR WITH
INDONESIA

ITS REALLY FUNNY TO HEAR THE TOY SOLDIERS TALKING ABOUT THEIR LATEST
MILITARY TOYS

SHOWING THEM OFF TO EACH OTHER

THEY NEVER GREW UP

THEY STILL BEHAVE LIKE LITTLE BOYS PLAYING COWBOYS AND INDIANS OR WAR
GAMES

MY GUN IS BIGGER THAN YOUR GUN

WHEN THE DYING STARTS THEY VANISH AND LEAVE IT TO THE ORDINARY PEOPLE
TO FIX UP THEIR BLOODY MESS

THE ONLY GOOD THING IS THE WARMONGERS AND HAWKS ARE REMOVING THEMSELVES
FROM THE GENE POOL

EVERY GENERATION OF SOLDIERS IS SMALLER AS THEY SLOWLY SELF SELECT
THEMSELVES FOR REMOVAL FROM THE GENE POOL

WHEN YOU SEE HOW SHALLOW THEIR THINKING IS ITS NOT SURPRISING

THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEIR OWN PROPAGANDA

THEY THINK THEY CAN DEFEND AUSTRALIA

THEY THINK ASIANS ARE STUPID AS THEY ARE

POOR SILLY OLD FOOLS

YOU WATCH THEM SCREAM ABUE AT ME FOR SAYING WOT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH

THEY CAN NOT EVEN ADMIT THE TRUTH TO THEMSELVES

HOW DARE I SAY IT IN PUBLIC

AND THEY CALL ME A TRAITOR

WELL MATE ITS YOU WHO ARE TRAITORS FOR DESTROYING ANY HOPE OF THE
WESTERNERS LIVING IN PEACE WITH THE NIEGHBOURS

YOU DONT THREATEN TO NUKE YOUR NIEGHBOURS THEN COMPLAIN IF THEY DONT
LIKE YOU

> >
> >
> >
> > England
> >

==============================================================================
TOPIC: GINEBRA / V FORO PARALELO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS SE DIRIGE AL RECIÉN
CREADO
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/361f062fce332db4
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 12:58 am
From: "PM"

CONSEJO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DE NACIONES UNIDAS Y DENUNCIA LAS VIOLACIONES
SISTEMÁTICAS A LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS
Date: 5 avril, 2006 23:42

M.A.R. POR CUBA

CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA

V FORO PARALELO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS
SE DIRIGE AL RECIÉN CREADO CONSEJO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DE NACIONES UNIDAS Y
DENUNCIA LAS VIOLACIONES SISTEMÁTICAS A LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS

Ginebra, Suiza, abril 4 de 2006. Varias Organizaciones No Gubernamentales
(ONG), activistas de derechos humanos y víctimas de represión realizarán una
Conferencia de Prensa este jueves 6 de abril a las 7:00 P.M. en el Hotel
Presidente Wilson de esta ciudad, para concluir el V Foro Paralelo de
Derechos Humanos, patrocinado por la organización Madres Anti Represión
(M.A.R.).

Contrastando el silencio en los pasillos de lo que hasta ahora había sido la
sede de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas, se levantarán
las voces fuera del Palacio de las Naciones para denunciar el lúgubre
historial de abusos y violaciones a los derechos humanos por parte de
regímenes como los de Cuba, China, Sudán y Zimbagüe, para nombrar solamente
algunos. Estos gobiernos, a pesar de ser reconocidos como violadores
sistemáticos de los derechos humanos de sus pueblos, se encuentran ya
enfrascados, en el seno de la Asamblea General, en la búsqueda de los votos
necesarios para obtener sus membresías en el nuevo Consejo de Derechos
Humanos.

FECHA: Jueves 6 de abril de 2006
LUGAR: Hotel Presidente Wilson
47 Quai Wilson
Ginebra, Suiza
HORA: 7:00 P.M.

Activistas y víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos de diferentes
países brindarán sus testimonios y puntos de vista en el evento.

Representantes de los medios de prensa están invitados a la recepción que se
realizará inmediatamente después de la Conferencia de Prensa.

Para mayor información:

Sylvia Iriondo: 305-934-7302
Janisset Rivero: 786-208-6056
Ángel De Fana: 305-269-1812

************************************************************
NET ALERT!

LLAMADO URGENTE POR LA VIDA DEL DOCTOR GUILLERMO FARIÑAS EN CUBA

Puente Informativo Cuba Miami y Net for Cuba International, alertan:

Guillermo Fariñas Hernández, Psicólogo y Director de la Agencia
Independiente Cubanacán Press, se declaró en huelga de hambre y sed el
pasado
31 de enero del presente año, en la ciudad de Santa Clara, Cuba,
demandando a que el gobierno de Castro le instale libre acceso a Internet
desde su hogar. Hasta el momento, el régimen se ha negado a cumplir esta
demanda y el Dr. Fariñas, está a punto de morir. Apelamos a la
conciencia de todas las personas de buena voluntad que reciban este llamado
urgente, para que se exija al régimen de Fidel Castro, se le permita al Dr.
Fariñas acceso libre a Internet. ¡No queremos otro mártir más por la
libertad y la justicia en Cuba! ¡Ya suman decenas de miles! ¡Basta ya!

Por la vida del Dr. Guillermo Fariñas y su justo reclamo,
dirija su comunicación a:

Fidel Castro Ruz
Presidente de los Consejos de Estados y de Ministros,
La Habana, Cuba.
Fax: + 53 7 8333085 (a través del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores)
Contacto a través del sitio oficial del gobierno cubano:
webmaster@one.gov.cu

* URL para foto de Fariñas:
http://www.netforcuba.org/farinas.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Solo la opresión debe temer al pleno ejercicio de la libertad. Libertad es
el derecho que todo hombre tiene a ser honrado, y a pensar y a hablar sin
hipocresía. Un hombre que oculta lo que piensa, o no se atreve a decir lo
que piensa, no es un hombre honrado. Un hombre que obedece a un mal
gobierno, sin trabajar para que el gobierno sea bueno, no es un hombre
honrado.

José Martí

NetforCuba.org athorize the reproduction and distribution of this E-Mail as
long as the source is credited. /
NetforCuba.org autoriza la reproduccion y redistribucion de este correo,
mientras nuestra fuente (www.netforcuba.org) sea citada.

NetforCuba International
http://www.netforcuba.org/

Para NetforCuba en español, favor de visitar:
http://www.netforcubaenespanol.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to be removed from our mailing list,
please E-mail us at the following address:
loupagani@netforcuba.org or News@NetforCuba.org and
simply write, "Remove from list" in the subject area.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Comunicado de Cubaeuropa: Castro reconoce la miseria moral de Cuba y
culpa al turismo italiano
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/13eb117f40223c96
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 1:00 am
From: "PM"

: Date: 5 avril, 2006 18:02

Comunicado de Cubaeuropa al turismo italiano

Comunicado de Cubaeuropa: Castro reconoce la miseria moral de Cuba y culpa
al turismo italiano

Por Luz Modroño
Miembro de la dirección de Cubaeurtopa

Tras largos años negando la miseria moral en que la dictadura ha hundido al
pueblo cubano, Castro reconoce finalmente la degradación que anida en su
país-territorio. El pasado viernes y en el marco del Congreso para la
promoción del turismo en Cuba, Castro reconoció los altos índices de droga y
prostitución existentes en un país que tenía como una de sus enseñas
socio-culturales la abolición de tales "lacras propias del capitalismo".
Pero incapaz de reconocer las causas últimas que producen tal estado de
cosas, arremete contra empresas de turismo italianas y, en un alarde de
cinismo provoca un grave incidente diplomático al acusar de ello al turismo
italiano. Castro, sin sombra alguna de culpa, incapaz de reconocer sus
propias responsabilidades, y en su nepotismo totalitario, esconde la mano y
acusa.

Muchos son, hombres y mujeres, los que para sobrevivir en un país donde el
sueldo medio no alcanza los 10 euros mensuales, se ven obligados a recurrir
al viejo oficio de la prostitución que se enseñorea por las calles
habaneras. Una realidad con la que cualquier turista se topa, y de la que yo
misma fui testigo, ya sea de día o de noche, y con abrumadora cotidianidad
le asalta en sus paseos por calles desvastadas en las que la ruina se ha
entronizado. En hoteles, restaurantes, cines o teatros, a la puerta de
cualquier local o en cualquier parque o esquina, el jinetero o la jinetera
se acerca al turista en busca de unos cuantos dólares que alivien su hambre
o su deseo de poseer bienes que les son negados. La prostitución en Cuba ha
terminado convirtiéndose en una triste seña de identidad del país.

Pero ni la droga ni la prostitución han sido provocadas por los miles de
turistas que visitan el país, muchos de ellos familias con hijos, sino por
la existencia de una economía controlada por el Estado, incapaz de producir
riqueza y que ha terminado por arruinarle. La cesta de racionamiento, que
consiste básicamente en arroz, frijoles, ocho huevos al mes, un cacillo de
aceite y yogures de soja, apenas llega a cubrir, y aún así precariamente,
las necesidades básicas de la población para diez días. Tanto la adquisición
de los restantes productos no subvencionados, como la satisfacción de
necesidades básicas del resto de los días del mes, han de ser adquirirlos
pagando en unos pesos de los que carece. Ello le obliga a recurrir a
cualquier actividad o fuente de ingresos que le ayude a sacar esos pesos
inexistentes ya sea recurriendo al robo, el timo o la prostitución.
Prácticas habituales y ampliamente extendidas entre la población, como
cualquier turista tiene la oportunidad de comprobar.

El modelo social cubano hunde sus raíces en el discurso estalinista que
pretendía la creación de un hombre nuevo, libre de las "desviaciones morales
o ideológicas de los países imperialistas" y que ha desembocado en la
construcción de un hombre y una mujer que se ven obligados a recurrir a lo
que su ingenio o sus posibilidades de supervivencia les permite. Aunque sea
la venta de su propio cuerpo a los únicos que pueden pagar, esto es a los
turistas. Turistas que son testigos de una realidad que Castro ha negado
hasta que la contumacia de la misma lo ha hecho imposible ya.

Castro, en un alarde de prepotencia y demostración de su poder absoluto
sobre los propios intereses y la dignidad de una nación y libre de tener que
dar explicaciones de sus palabras o actos a Parlamento alguno o de tener que
someterse a sesión alguna de control parlamentario, insulta a un país
tildando a sus miembros de Al Capones y culpándole de la miseria moral que
sólo él ha provocado, generando un conflicto internacional que puede tener
consecuencias de hondo alcance. Por el momento, Italia ha respondido con no
vender ningún paquete turístico más y con iniciar una campaña mediática
destinada a que el pueblo italiano conozca lo ocurrido. Y que, sin duda,
tendrá consecuencias directas sobre las ya precarias condiciones de vida de
los trabajadores cubanos, primeras víctimas que la merma de ingresos
derivadas de las divisas que dejarán de entrar en el país.

La serie de insultos que sobre Italia han llovido puede ser, por otra parte,
el primer eslabón de una larga cadena de provocaciones contra los países
inversores en la isla. Sin embargo, más allá de la economía antártica y
autosuficiente que el dictador, amparado en los potentes servicios
propagandísticos en los que históricamente ha basado su política, la
realidad es que empresas provenientes de diversos países europeos llevan a
cabo en la isla fuertes inversiones en sectores como los ya indicados:
España, Italia, Francia... en cuyas empresas trabajan una gran parte de la
población cubana y supone, para el gobierno, una fuente elevada de ingresos.
La ingente ayuda proveniente de Venezuela puede ser la causa explicativa a
la situación creada pero no es posible ignorar o pretender ignorar que, por
muy elevada que sea la ayuda proveniente de su socio venezolano, no es
suficiente para cubrir las alarmantes necesidades de toda índole que el país
necesita. La economía cubana ha encontrado, por otro lado y a lo largo de
estos cuarenta y siete años de dictadura, una elevada fuente de ingresos en
sectores controlados básicamente por empresas extranjeras que realizan sus
inversiones en el sector turístico.

Por un lado, un porcentaje muy elevado de trabajadores está empleado en
hoteles cuya titularidad no es cubana. Por otro, las divisas que los
turistas y los tours operadores dejan en la isla cada año no son baladíes.
Y, aunque las condiciones laborales de dichos trabajadores se rigen por
imposiciones legislativas cubanas e incumplen los acuerdos de la
Organización Internacional del Trabajo -véase la ley Marrero- no es tampoco
desconocido que los mejores sueldos, las mayores ventajas son las recibidas
por los trabajadores de este sector, considerados, a pesar de todo,
privilegiados por el resto de empleados en empresas estatales.

Es necesario alertar de las graves consecuencias que, de seguir por esta vía
de provocación hoy contra Italia, mañana otros, podría tener tanto para las
empresas inversoras como para los propios gobiernos o instituciones
políticas o sociales hechos semejantes. Y también para la maltrecha economía
cubana, ya que la situación socio-laboral y económica de Cuba, a pesar de
las fanfarronadas de Castro y de los alardes propagandísticos
gubernamentales no podría absorber los costes humanos y financieros de
semejante actitud. Y, el mayor sufrimiento recaerá, una vez más y de manera
inmediata sobre el castigado pueblo cubano.

Es de temer que, el nuevo camino iniciado por Castro contra las inversiones
extranjeras, no quede ahí. Sin duda cabe la posibilidad de que sea el
principio de una cadena de ataques contra otros países. Los gobiernos
europeos deberán proteger los intereses de sus inversionistas estando,
además, en la obligación de emprender las acciones pertinentes para ello.
Castro, con el sentido de la oportunidad que le caracteriza, ha elegido para
atacar a Italia el momento en que sus principales objetivos se centran en el
proceso de elecciones, mermando así el impacto que, en otras circunstancias,
hubieran tenido semejantes declaraciones. Por ello, y desde estas páginas,
queremos mostrar nuestra solidaridad tanto para con el pueblo cubano,
víctima de las iniquidades de su gobernante, como para las empresas
italianas víctimas de tales atropellos.

www.cubaeuropa.com

************************************************************
NET ALERT!

LLAMADO URGENTE POR LA VIDA DEL DOCTOR GUILLERMO FARIÑAS EN CUBA

Puente Informativo Cuba Miami y Net for Cuba International, alertan:

Por la vida del Dr. Guillermo Fariñas y su justo reclamo,
dirija su comunicación a:

* URL para foto de Fariñas:
http://www.netforcuba.org/farinas.jpg

José Martí

NetforCuba International
http://www.netforcuba.org/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Immigration: Wake Up And Smell The Salsa - a Warning for Repubs
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b8ddb803c0596529
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:27 am
From: "DB"

"Just another American" <abc@def.net> wrote in

> "So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding
> a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of
> America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a
> time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those
> young people are cut out of this process." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

I agree, that past simple process is now extinct for all modest earning
Americans.
Today, we don't buy houses, go on vacations, have no retirement plan or
Health Insurance & most likely do not have any savings.

It's not the illegal immigrants that will be the downfall of America, it
will be the self serving Politicians and greedy institutes that will rape
the place for all it's worth.

Bring on the next depression, so we can start fresh!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Hispanic Challenge to America - Long, Important Read
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/289ffe88311ee4fb
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:41 pm
From: spinoza1111@yahoo.com

Samuel P. Huntington has made it his business since September 11th to
define "America" as the people who came across in the Mayflower (not
including the slaves who waited on them, nor the mariners who kept the
sharp end of the boat pointed the right way).

It's all very well to use him as your authority. But what many
Americans DON'T realize that by attacking an immigrant grouping as "not
one of us" they are inviting the SAME treatment down the road.

As far as Huntington is concerned, Hispanics aren't the only problem.
Even Roman Catholics (including many German-Americans from Catholic
regions of Germany) are problematic "Americans". They owe some
allegiance in some spiritual matters (including what constitutes a just
war) to the Vatican. They drink more than people of Puritan heritage.
Even their writing style as educated men and women can irritate "Anglo
Saxons" who learn a Puritan spareness, whilst Catholic education
teaches a more luxuriant writing style.

Here is a shorter and more important read. It is by Douglas Massey at
Princeton, and it shows how the Border Patrol, to increase its funding,
exagerrated the immigrant threat by videotaping increased influxes,
that were caused by walls constructed in cities. This was then blown
out of proportion to blame immigrants for the consequences of the Bush
tax cuts.

The higher the wall, the less it works
Douglas S. Massey The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

PRINCETON, New Jersey The Mexican-American border is not now and never
has been out of control. The rate of undocumented migration to the
United States, adjusted for population growth, has not increased in 20
years. That is, from 1980 to 2004 the annual likelihood that a Mexican
will make his first illegal trip to the United States has remained at
about 1 in 100.

What has changed are the locations and visibility of border crossings.
That shift, more than anything, has given the public undue fears about
waves of Mexican workers trying to flood into America.

Until the 1990s, most undocumented Mexicans entered through either El
Paso, Texas, or San Diego, California. Both cities have large Hispanic
populations, so the daily passage of even thousands of Mexicans was not
very visible or disruptive.

This changed in 1992 when the Border Patrol built a steel fence south
of San Diego from the Pacific Ocean to the port of entry at San Ysidro,
California, where a highway crosses into Mexico.

The fence blocked one of the busiest illicit crossing routes and
channeled migrants toward the San Ysidro entry station, where their
numbers rapidly built up to impossible levels.

Every day the same episode unfolded: the crowd swelled to a critical
threshold, whereupon many migrants made what the local press called
"banzai runs" into the United States, darting through traffic on the
Interstate and clambering over cars.

Waiting nearby were Border Patrol officers - there not to arrest the
migrants but to capture the mayhem on video. Although nothing had
changed except the site of border crossings, the video gave the
impression that the border was overwhelmed by a rising tide of
undocumented migrants.

In the ensuing public uproar, the policy of tougher border enforcement
was expanded to all of the San Diego and El Paso area in 1993 and 1994.
So migrants began going to more remote locations along the border in
Arizona.

In 1989, two thirds of undocumented migrants came in through El Paso or
San Diego; by 2004 two-thirds crossed somewhere else. (My statistics
come from a study I have been undertaking with financing from the
National Institutes of Health since 1982.)

Unlike the old crossing sites, these new locations were sparsely
settled, so the sudden appearance of thousands of Mexicans
understandably generated much local agitation. By redirecting flows
into harsh, remote terrain the United States also tripled the death
rate during border crossing.

Less well known is that American policies also reduced the rate of
apprehension, because those remote sectors of the border had fewer
Border Patrol officers. During the 1980s, the probability that an
undocumented migrant would be apprehended while crossing stood at
around 33 percent; by 2000 it was at 10 percent, despite increases in
spending on border enforcement.

Naturally, public perceptions of chaos on the border prompted more
calls for enforcement. The number of Border Patrol officers increased
from around 2,500 in the early 1980s to around 12,000 today, and the
agency's annual budget rose to $1.6 billion from $200 million. The
boundary between Mexico and the United States has become perhaps the
most militarized frontier between two nations at peace anywhere in the
world.

Although border militarization has had little effect on the probability
of Mexicans migrating illegally, it did reduce the likelihood that they
would return to their homeland. America's tougher line roughly tripled
the average cost of getting across the border illegally. Thus Mexicans
who had run the gantlet at the border were more likely to hunker down
and stay in America.

My study has shown that in the early 1980s, about half of all
undocumented Mexicans returned home within 12 months of entry. By 2000
the rate of return migration stood at just 25 percent.

America is now locked into a perverse cycle whereby additional border
enforcement further decreases the rate of return migration, which
accelerates undocumented population growth, which brings calls for
harsher enforcement. The only thing to show for two decades of border
militarization is a larger undocumented population than we would
otherwise have, a rising number of Mexicans dying while trying to cross
and a growing burden on taxpayers for enforcement that is
counterproductive.

America needs an immigration policy that seeks to manage the cross-
border flows of people that are inevitable in a global economy, not to
repress them through unilateral police actions.
Just another American wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1084558/posts
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495&page=0
>
> The Hispanic Challenge
>
> By Samuel P. Huntington
>
> March/April 2004
>
> The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the
> United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages.
> Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not
> assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own
> political and linguistic enclaves-from Los Angeles to Miami-and
> rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream.
> The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.
>
> America was created by 17th- and 18th-century settlers who were
> overwhelmingly white, British, and Protestant. Their values,
> institutions, and culture provided the foundation for and shaped the
> development of the United States in the following centuries. They
> initially defined America in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and
> religion. Then, in the 18th century, they also had to define America
> ideologically to justify independence from their home country, which
> was also white, British, and Protestant. Thomas Jefferson set forth
> this "creed," as Nobel Prize-winning economist Gunnar Myrdal called
> it, in the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, its principles
> have been reiterated by statesmen and espoused by the public as an
> essential component of U.S. identity.
>
> By the latter years of the 19th century, however, the ethnic component
> had been broadened to include Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians, and
> the United States' religious identity was being redefined more broadly
> from Protestant to Christian. With World War II and the assimilation
> of large numbers of southern and eastern European immigrants and their
> offspring into U.S. society, ethnicity virtually disappeared as a
> defining component of national identity. So did race, following the
> achievements of the civil rights movement and the Immigration and
> Nationality Act of 1965. Americans now see and endorse their country
> as multiethnic and multiracial. As a result, American identity is now
> defined in terms of culture and creed.
>
> Most Americans see the creed as the crucial element of their national
> identity. The creed, however, was the product of the distinct
> Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key elements of
> that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious
> commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, including the
> responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and dissenting
> Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief
> that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on
> earth, a "city on a hill." Historically, millions of immigrants were
> attracted to the United States because of this culture and the
> economic opportunities and political liberties it made possible.
>
> Contributions from immigrant cultures modified and enriched the
> Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. The essentials of
> that founding culture remained the bedrock of U.S. identity, however,
> at least until the last decades of the 20th century. Would the United
> States be the country that it has been and that it largely remains
> today if it had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by
> British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics?
> The answer is clearly no. It would not be the United States; it would
> be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.
>
> In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States'
> Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under
> assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the
> doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group
> identities based on race, ethnicity, and gender over national
> identity; the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the
> expanding number of immigrants with dual nationalities and dual
> loyalties; and the growing salience for U.S. intellectual, business,
> and political elites of cosmopolitan and transnational identities. The
> United States' national identity, like that of other nation-states, is
> challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that
> globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful
> "blood and belief" identities.
>
> In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge
> to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and
> continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and
> the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white
> American natives. Americans like to boast of their past success in
> assimilating millions of immigrants into their society, culture, and
> politics. But Americans have tended to generalize about immigrants
> without distinguishing among them and have focused on the economic
> costs and benefits of immigration, ignoring its social and cultural
> consequences. As a result, they have overlooked the unique
> characteristics and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic
> immigration. The extent and nature of this immigration differ
> fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation
> successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the
> contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality
> poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country
> with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?
> By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual
> transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic)
> and two languages (English and Spanish).
>
> The impact of Mexican immigration on the United States becomes evident
> when one imagines what would happen if Mexican immigration abruptly
> stopped. The annual flow of legal immigrants would drop by about
> 175,000, closer to the level recommended by the 1990s Commission on
> Immigration Reform chaired by former U.S. Congresswoman Barbara
> Jordan. Illegal entries would diminish dramatically. The wages of
> low-income U.S. citizens would improve. Debates over the use of
> Spanish and whether English should be made the official language of
> state and national governments would subside. Bilingual education and
> the controversies it spawns would virtually disappear, as would
> controversies over welfare and other benefits for immigrants. The
> debate over whether immigrants pose an economic burden on state and
> federal governments would be decisively resolved in the negative. The
> average education and skills of the immigrants continuing to arrive
> would reach their highest levels in U.S. history. The inflow of
> immigrants would again become highly diverse, creating increased
> incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb U.S.
> culture. And most important of all, the possibility of a de facto
> split between a predominantly Spanish-speaking United States and an
> English-speaking United States would disappear, and with it, a major
> potential threat to the country's cultural and political integrity.
>
>
>
> A World of difference
>
> Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is
> without precedent in U.S. history. The experience and lessons of past
> immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and
> consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and
> most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six
> factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration,
> persistence, and historical presence.
>
> Contiguity | Americans' idea of immigration is often symbolized by the
> Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and, more recently perhaps, New
> York's John F. Kennedy Airport. In other words, immigrants arrive in
> the United States after crossing several thousand miles of ocean. U.S.
> attitudes toward immigrants and U.S. immigration policies are shaped
> by such images. These assumptions and policies, however, have little
> or no relevance for Mexican immigration. The United States is now
> confronted by a massive influx of people from a poor, contiguous
> country with more than one third the population of the United States.
> They come across a 2,000-mile border historically marked simply by a
> line in the ground and a shallow river.
>
> This situation is unique for the United States and the world. No other
> First World country has such an extensive land frontier with a Third
> World country. The significance of the long Mexican-U.S. border is
> enhanced by the economic differences between the two countries. "The
> income gap between the United States and Mexico," Stanford University
> historian David Kennedy has pointed out, "is the largest between any
> two contiguous countries in the world." Contiguity enables Mexican
> immigrants to remain in intimate contact with their families, friends,
> and home localities in Mexico as no other immigrants have been able to
> do.
>
> Scale | The causes of Mexican, as well as other, immigration are found
> in the demographic, economic, and political dynamics of the sending
> country and the economic, political, and social attractions of the
> United States. Contiguity, however, obviously encourages immigration.
> Mexican immigration increased steadily after 1965. About 640,000
> Mexicans legally migrated to the United States in the 1970s; 1,656,000
> in the 1980s; and 2,249,000 in the 1990s. In those three decades,
> Mexicans accounted for 14 percent, 23 percent, and 25 percent of total
> legal immigration. These percentages do not equal the rates of
> immigrants who came from Ireland between 1820 and 1860, or from
> Germany in the 1850s and 1860s. Yet they are high compared to the
> highly dispersed sources of immigrants before World War I, and
> compared to other contemporary immigrants. To them one must also add
> the huge numbers of Mexicans who each year enter the United States
> illegally. Since the 1960s, the numbers of foreign-born people in the
> United States have expanded immensely, with Asians and Latin Americans
> replacing Europeans and Canadians, and diversity of source
> dramatically giving way to the dominance of one source: Mexico.
>
> Mexican immigrants constituted 27.6 percent of the total foreign-born
> U.S. population in 2000. The next largest contingents, Chinese and
> Filipinos, amounted to only 4.9 percent and 4.3 percent of the
> foreign-born population.
>
> In the 1990s, Mexicans composed more than half of the new Latin
> American immigrants to the United States and, by 2000, Hispanics
> totaled about one half of all migrants entering the continental United
> States. Hispanics composed 12 percent of the total U.S. population in
> 2000. This group increased by almost 10 percent from 2000 to 2002 and
> has now become larger than blacks. It is estimated Hispanics may
> constitute up to 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2050. These
> changes are driven not just by immigration but also by fertility. In
> 2002, fertility rates in the United States were estimated at 1.8 for
> non-Hispanic whites, 2.1 for blacks, and 3.0 for Hispanics. "This is
> the characteristic shape of developing countries," The Economist
> commented in 2002. "As the bulge of Latinos enters peak child-bearing
> age in a decade or two, the Latino share of America's population will
> soar."
>
> In the mid-19th century, English speakers from the British Isles
> dominated immigration into the United States. The pre-World War I
> immigration was highly diversified linguistically, including many
> speakers of Italian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, English, German,
> Swedish, and other languages. But now, for the first time in U.S.
> history, half of those entering the United States speak a single
> non-English language.
>
> Illegality | Illegal entry into the United States is overwhelmingly a
> post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon. For almost a century after the
> adoption of the U.S. Constitution, no national laws restricted or
> prohibited immigration, and only a few states imposed modest limits.
> During the following 90 years, illegal immigration was minimal and
> easily controlled. The 1965 immigration law, the increased
> availability of transportation, and the intensified forces promoting
> Mexican emigration drastically changed this situation. Apprehensions
> by the U.S. Border Patrol rose from 1.6 million in the 1960s to 8.3
> million in the 1970s, 11.9 million in the 1980s, and 14.7 million in
> the 1990s. Estimates of the Mexicans who successfully enter illegally
> each year range from 105,000 (according to a binational
> Mexican-American commission) to 350,000 during the 1990s (according to
> the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service).
>
>
> The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act contained provisions to
> legalize the status of existing illegal immigrants and to reduce
> future illegal immigration through employer sanctions and other means.
> The former goal was achieved: Some 3.1 million illegal immigrants,
> about 90 percent of them from Mexico, became legal "green card"
> residents of the United States. But the latter goal remains elusive.
> Estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United
> States rose from 4 million in 1995 to 6 million in 1998, to 7 million
> in 2000, and to between 8 and 10 million by 2003. Mexicans accounted
> for 58 percent of the total illegal population in the United States in
> 1990; by 2000, an estimated 4.8 million illegal Mexicans made up 69
> percent of that population. In 2000, illegal Mexicans in the United
> States were 25 times as numerous as the next largest contingent, from
> El Salvador.
>
> Regional Concentration | The U.S. Founding Fathers considered the
> dispersion of immigrants essential to their assimilation. That has
> been the pattern historically and continues to be the pattern for most
> contemporary non-Hispanic immigrants. Hispanics, however, have tended
> to concentrate regionally: Mexicans in Southern California, Cubans in
> Miami, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans (the last of whom are not
> technically immigrants) in New York. The more concentrated immigrants
> become, the slower and less complete is their assimilation.
>
> In the 1990s, the proportions of Hispanics continued to grow in these
> regions of heaviest concentration. At the same time, Mexicans and
> other Hispanics were also establishing beachheads elsewhere. While the
> absolute numbers are often small, the states with the largest
> percentage increases in Hispanic population between 1990 and 2000
> were, in decreasing order: North Carolina (449 percent increase),
> Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Nevada, and Alabama (222
> percent). Hispanics have also established concentrations in individual
> cities and towns throughout the United States. For example, in 2003,
> more than 40 percent of the population of Hartford, Connecticut, was
> Hispanic (primarily Puerto Rican), outnumbering the city's 38 percent
> black population. "Hartford," the city's first Hispanic mayor
> proclaimed, "has become a Latin city, so to speak. It's a sign of
> things to come," with Spanish increasingly used as the language of
> commerce and government.
>
> The biggest concentrations of Hispanics, however, are in the
> Southwest, particularly California. In 2000, nearly two thirds of
> Mexican immigrants lived in the West, and nearly half in California.
> To be sure, the Los Angeles area has immigrants from many countries,
> including Korea and Vietnam. The sources of California's foreign-born
> population, however, differ sharply from those of the rest of the
> country, with those from a single country, Mexico, exceeding totals
> for all of the immigrants from Europe and Asia. In Los Angeles,
> Hispanics-overwhelmingly Mexican-far outnumber other groups. In 2000,
> 64 percent of the Hispanics in Los Angeles were of Mexican origin, and
> 46.5 percent of Los Angeles residents were Hispanic, while 29.7
> percent were non-Hispanic whites. By 2010, it is estimated that
> Hispanics will make up more than half of the Los Angeles population.
>
> Most immigrant groups have higher fertility rates than natives, and
> hence the impact of immigration is felt heavily in schools. The highly
> diversified immigration into New York, for example, creates the
> problem of teachers dealing with classes containing students who may
> speak 20 different languages at home. In contrast, Hispanic children
> make up substantial majorities of the students in the schools in many
> Southwestern cities. "No school system in a major U.S. city,"
> political scientists Katrina Burgess and Abraham Lowenthal said of Los
> Angeles in their 1993 study of Mexico-California ties, "has ever
> experienced such a large influx of students from a single foreign
> country. The schools of Los Angeles are becoming Mexican." By 2002,
> more than 70 percent of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School
> District were Hispanic, predominantly Mexican, with the proportion
> increasing steadily; 10 percent of schoolchildren were non-Hispanic
> whites. In 2003, for the first time since the 1850s, a majority of
> newborn children in California were Hispanic.
>
> Persistence | Previous waves of immigrants eventually subsided, the
> proportions coming from individual countries fluctuated greatly, and,
> after 1924, immigration was reduced to a trickle. In contrast, the
> current wave shows no sign of ebbing and the conditions creating the
> large Mexican component of that wave are likely to endure, absent a
> major war or recession. In the long term, Mexican immigration could
> decline when the economic well-being of Mexico approximates that of
> the United States. As of 2002, however, U.S. gross domestic product
> per capita was about four times that of Mexico (in purchasing power
> parity terms). If that difference were cut in half, the economic
> incentives for migration might also drop substantially. To reach that
> ratio in any meaningful future, however, would require extremely rapid
> economic growth in Mexico, at a rate greatly exceeding that of the
> United States. Yet, even such dramatic economic development would not
> necessarily reduce the impulse to emigrate. During the 19th century,
> when Europe was rapidly industrializing and per capita incomes were
> rising, 50 million Europeans emigrated to the Americas, Asia, and
> Africa.
>
>
>
> Historical Presence | No other immigrant group in U.S. history has
> asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory.
> Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim. Almost all
> of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah was part
> of Mexico until Mexico lost them as a result of the Texan War of
> Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.
> Mexico is the only country that the United States has invaded,
> occupied its capital-placing the Marines in the "halls of
> Montezuma"-and then annexed half its territory. Mexicans do not forget
> these events. Quite understandably, they feel that they have special
> rights in these territories. "Unlike other immigrants," Boston College
> political scientist Peter Skerry notes, "Mexicans arrive here from a
> neighboring nation that has suffered military defeat at the hands of
> the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was
> once part of their homeland.... Mexican Americans enjoy a sense of being
> on their own turf that is not shared by other immigrants."
>
> At times, scholars have suggested that the Southwest could become the
> United States' Quebec. Both regions include Catholic people and were
> conquered by Anglo-Protestant peoples, but otherwise they have little
> in common. Quebec is 3,000 miles from France, and each year several
> hundred thousand Frenchmen do not attempt to enter Quebec legally or
> illegally. History shows that serious potential for conflict exists
> when people in one country begin referring to territory in a
> neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights
> and claims to that territory.
>
> Spanglish as a Second Language
>
> In the past, immigrants originated overseas and often overcame severe
> obstacles and hardships to reach the United States. They came from
> many different countries, spoke different languages, and came legally.
> Their flow fluctuated over time, with significant reductions occurring
> as a result of the Civil War, World War I, and the restrictive
> legislation of 1924. They dispersed into many enclaves in rural areas
> and major cities throughout the Northeast and Midwest. They had no
> historical claim to any U.S. territory.
>
> On all these dimensions, Mexican immigration is fundamentally
> different. These differences combine to make the assimilation of
> Mexicans into U.S. culture and society much more difficult than it was
> for previous immigrants. Particularly striking in contrast to previous
> immigrants is the failure of third- and fourth-generation people of
> Mexican origin to approximate U.S. norms in education, economic
> status, and intermarriage rates.
>
>
>
> The size, persistence, and concentration of Hispanic immigration tends
> to perpetuate the use of Spanish through successive generations. The
> evidence on English acquisition and Spanish retention among immigrants
> is limited and ambiguous. In 2000, however, more than 28 million
> people in the United States spoke Spanish at home (10.5 percent of all
> people over age five), and almost 13.8 million of these spoke English
> worse than "very well," a 66 percent increase since 1990. According to
> a U.S. Census Bureau report, in 1990 about 95 percent of Mexican-born
> immigrants spoke Spanish at home; 73.6 percent of these did not speak
> English very well; and 43 percent of the Mexican foreign-born were
> "linguistically isolated." An earlier study in Los Angeles found
> different results for the U.S.-born second generation. Just 11.6
> percent spoke only Spanish or more Spanish than English, 25.6 percent
> spoke both languages equally, 32.7 percent more English than Spanish,
> and 30.1 percent only English. In the same study, more than 90 percent
> of the U.S.-born people of Mexican origin spoke English fluently.
> Nonetheless, in 1999, some 753,505 presumably second-generation
> students in Southern California schools who spoke Spanish at home were
> not proficient in English.
>
> English language use and fluency for first- and second-generation
> Mexicans thus seem to follow the pattern common to past immigrants.
> Two questions remain, however. First, have changes occurred over time
> in the acquisition of English and the retention of Spanish by
> second-generation Mexican immigrants? One might suppose that, with the
> rapid expansion of the Mexican immigrant community, people of Mexican
> origin would have less incentive to become fluent in and to use
> English in 2000 than they had in 1970.
>
> Second, will the third generation follow the classic pattern with
> fluency in English and little or no knowledge of Spanish, or will it
> retain the second generation's fluency in both languages?
> Second-generation immigrants often look down on and reject their
> ancestral language and are embarrassed by their parents' inability to
> communicate in English. Presumably, whether second-generation Mexicans
> share this attitude will help shape the extent to which the third
> generation retains any knowledge of Spanish. If the second generation
> does not reject Spanish outright, the third generation is also likely
> to be bilingual, and fluency in both languages is likely to become
> institutionalized in the Mexican-American community.
>
> Spanish retention is also bolstered by the overwhelming majorities
> (between 66 percent and 85 percent) of Mexican immigrants and
> Hispanics who emphasize the need for their children to be fluent in
> Spanish. These attitudes contrast with those of other immigrant
> groups. The New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service finds "a
> cultural difference between the Asian and Hispanic parents with
> respect to having their children maintain their native language." In
> part, this difference undoubtedly stems from the size of Hispanic
> communities, which creates incentives for fluency in the ancestral
> language. Although second- and third-generation Mexican Americans and
> other Hispanics acquire competence in English, they also appear to
> deviate from the usual pattern by maintaining their competence in
> Spanish. Second- or third-generation Mexican Americans who were
> brought up speaking only English have learned Spanish as adults and
> are encouraging their children to become fluent in it.
> Spanish-language competence, University of New Mexico professor F.
> Chris Garcia has stated, is "the one thing every Hispanic takes pride
> in, wants to protect and promote."
>
> A persuasive case can be made that, in a shrinking world, all
> Americans should know at least one important foreign language-Chinese,
> Japanese, Hindi, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, French, German, or Spanish-so
> as to understand a foreign culture and communicate with its people. It
> is quite different to argue that Americans should know a non-English
> language in order to communicate with their fellow citizens. Yet that
> is what the Spanish-language advocates have in mind. Strengthened by
> the growth of Hispanic numbers and influence, Hispanic leaders are
> actively seeking to transform the United States into a bilingual
> society. "English is not enough," argues Osvaldo Soto, president of
> the Spanish American League Against Discrimination. "We don't want a
> monolingual society." Similarly, Duke University literature professor
> (and Chilean immigrant) Ariel Dorfman asks, "Will this country speak
> two languages or merely one?"And his answer, of course, is that it
> should speak two.
>
> Hispanic organizations play a central role in inducing the U.S.
> Congress to authorize cultural maintenance programs in bilingual
> education; as a result, children are slow to join mainstream classes.
> The continuing huge inflow of migrants makes it increasingly possible
> for Spanish speakers in New York, Miami, and Los Angeles to live
> normal lives without knowing English. Sixty-five percent of the
> children in bilingual education in New York are Spanish speakers and
> hence have little incentive or need to use English in school.
>
> Dual-language programs, which go one step beyond bilingual education,
> have become increasingly popular. In these programs, students are
> taught in both English and Spanish on an alternating basis with a view
> to making English-speakers fluent in Spanish and Spanish-speakers
> fluent in English, thus making Spanish the equal of English and
> transforming the United States into a two-language country. Then U.S.
> Secretary of Education Richard Riley explicitly endorsed these
> programs in his March 2000 speech, "Excelencia para Todos-Excellence
> for all." Civil rights organizations, church leaders (particularly
> Catholic ones), and many politicians (Republican as well as Democrat)
> support the impetus toward bilingualism.
>
> Perhaps equally important, business groups seeking to corner the
> Hispanic market support bilingualism as well. Indeed, the orientation
> of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need
> bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings.
> Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such
> as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak
> English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish
> had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average
> incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000.
> For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans
> (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or
> the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their
> fellow citizens only in English.
>
> In the debates over language policy, the late California Republican
> Senator S.I. Hayakawa once highlighted the unique role of Hispanics in
> opposing English. "Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to
> making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And
> certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here.
> They're learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees
> all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there
> is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish
> the second official language."
>
> If the spread of Spanish as the United States' second language
> continues, it could, in due course, have significant consequences in
> politics and government. In many states, those aspiring to political
> office might have to be fluent in both languages. Bilingual candidates
> for president and elected federal positions would have an advantage
> over English-only speakers. If dual-language education becomes
> prevalent in elementary and secondary schools, teachers will
> increasingly be expected to be bilingual. Government documents and
> forms could routinely be published in both languages. The use of both
> languages could become acceptable in congressional hearings and
> debates and in the general conduct of government business. Because
> most of those whose first language is Spanish will also probably have
> some fluency in English, English speakers lacking fluency in Spanish
> are likely to be and feel at a disadvantage in the competition for
> jobs, promotions, and contracts.
>
> In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: "We must have
> but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the
> language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell
> address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural." By
> contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, "I hope very
> much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak
> Spanish." And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de
> Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the
> weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both
> English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among
> the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both
> English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of
> Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson,
> Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the
> United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between
> Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks
> and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.
>
> Blood Is Thicker Than Borders
>
> Massive Hispanic immigration affects the United States in two
> significant ways: Important portions of the country become
> predominantly Hispanic in language and culture, and the nation as a
> whole becomes bilingual and bicultural. The most important area where
> Hispanization is proceeding rapidly is, of course, the Southwest. As
> historian Kennedy argues, Mexican Americans in the Southwest will soon
> have "sufficient coherence and critical mass in a defined region so
> that, if they choose, they can preserve their distinctive culture
> indefinitely. They could also eventually undertake to do what no
> previous immigrant group could have dreamed of doing: challenge the
> existing cultural, political, legal, commercial, and educational
> systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the
> very institutions in which they do business."
>
> Anecdotal evidence of such challenges abounds. In 1994, Mexican
> Americans vigorously demonstrated against California's Proposition
> 187-which limited welfare benefits to children of illegal
> immigrants-by marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving
> scores of Mexican flags and carrying U.S. flags upside down. In 1998,
> at a Mexico-United States soccer match in Los Angeles, Mexican
> Americans booed the U.S. national anthem and assaulted U.S. players.
> Such dramatic rejections of the United States and assertions of
> Mexican identity are not limited to an extremist minority in the
> Mexican-American community. Many Mexican immigrants and their
> offspring simply do not appear to identify primarily with the United
> States.
>
> Empirical evidence confirms such appearances. A 1992 study of children
> of immigrants in Southern California and South Florida posed the
> following question: "How do you identify, that is, what do you call
> yourself?" None of the children born in Mexico answered "American,"
> compared with 1.9 percent to 9.3 percent of those born elsewhere in
> Latin America or the Caribbean. The largest percentage of Mexican-born
> children (41.2 percent) identified themselves as "Hispanic," and the
> second largest (36.2 percent) chose "Mexican." Among Mexican-American
> children born in the United States, less than 4 percent responded
> "American," compared to 28.5 percent to 50 percent of those born in
> the United States with parents from elsewhere in Latin America.
> Whether born in Mexico or in the United States, Mexican children
> overwhelmingly did not choose "American" as their primary
> identification.
>
> Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista
> (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is
> well underway. A meaningful move to reunite these territories with
> Mexico seems unlikely, but Prof. Charles Truxillo of the University of
> New Mexico predicts that by 2080 the southwestern states of the United
> States and the northern states of Mexico will form La República del
> Norte (The Republic of the North). Various writers have referred to
> the southwestern United States plus northern Mexico as "MexAmerica" or
> "Amexica" or "Mexifornia." "We are all Mexicans in this valley," a
> former county commissioner of El Paso, Texas, declared in 2001.
>
> This trend could consolidate the Mexican-dominant areas of the United
> States into an autonomous, culturally and linguistically distinct, and
> economically self-reliant bloc within the United States. "We may be
> building toward the one thing that will choke the melting pot," warns
> former National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman Graham Fuller, "an
> ethnic area and grouping so concentrated that it will not wish, or
> need, to undergo assimilation into the mainstream of American
> multi-ethnic English-speaking life."
>
> A prototype of such a region already exists-in Miami.
>
> Bienvenido a Miami
>
> Miami is the most Hispanic large city in the 50 U.S. states. Over the
> course of 30 years, Spanish speakers-overwhelmingly Cuban-established
> their dominance in virtually every aspect of the city's life,
> fundamentally changing its ethnic composition, culture, politics, and
> language. The Hispanization of Miami is without precedent in the
> history of U.S. cities.
>
> The economic growth of Miami, led by the early Cuban immigrants, made
> the city a magnet for migrants from other Latin American and Caribbean
> countries. By 2000, two thirds of Miami's people were Hispanic, and
> more than half were Cuban or of Cuban descent. In 2000, 75.2 percent
> of adult Miamians spoke a language other than English at home,
> compared to 55.7 percent of the residents of Los Angeles and 47.6
> percent of New Yorkers. (Of Miamians speaking a non-English language
> at home, 87.2 percent spoke Spanish.) In 2000, 59.5 percent of Miami
> residents were foreign-born, compared to 40.9 percent in Los Angeles,
> 36.8 percent in San Francisco, and 35.9 percent in New York. In 2000,
> only 31.1 percent of adult Miami residents said they spoke English
> very well, compared to 39.0 percent in Los Angeles, 42.5 percent in
> San Francisco, and 46.5 percent in New York.
>
> The Cuban takeover had major consequences for Miami. The elite and
> entrepreneurial class fleeing the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel
> Castro in the 1960s started dramatic economic development in South
> Florida. Unable to send money home, they invested in Miami. Personal
> income growth in Miami averaged 11.5 percent a year in the 1970s and
> 7.7 percent a year in the 1980s. Payrolls in Miami-Dade County tripled
> between 1970 and 1995. The Cuban economic drive made Miami an
> international economic dynamo, with expanding international trade and
> investment. The Cubans promoted international tourism, which, by the
> 1990s, exceeded domestic tourism and made Miami a leading center of
> the cruise ship industry. Major U.S. corporations in manufacturing,
> communications, and consumer products moved their Latin American
> headquarters to Miami from other U.S. and Latin American cities. A
> vigorous Spanish artistic and entertainment community emerged. Today,
> the Cubans can legitimately claim that, in the words of Prof. Damian
> Fernández of Florida International University, "We built modern
> Miami," and made its economy larger than those of many Latin American
> countries.
>
> A key part of this development was the expansion of Miami's economic
> ties with Latin America. Brazilians, Argentines, Chileans, Colombians,
> and Venezuelans flooded into Miami, bringing their money with them. By
> 1993, some $25.6 billion in international trade, mostly involving
> Latin America, moved through the city. Throughout the hemisphere,
> Latin Americans concerned with investment, trade, culture,
> entertainment, holidays, and drug smuggling increasingly turned to
> Miami.
>
> Such eminence transformed Miami into a Cuban-led, Hispanic city. The
> Cubans did not, in the traditional pattern, create an enclave
> immigrant neighborhood. Instead, they created an enclave city with its
> own culture and economy, in which assimilation and Americanization
> were unnecessary and in some measure undesired. By 2000, Spanish was
> not just the language spoken in most homes, it was also the principal
> language of commerce, business, and politics. The media and
> communications industry became increasingly Hispanic. In 1998, a
> Spanish-language television station became the number-one station
> watched by Miamians-the first time a foreign-language station achieved
> that rating in a major U.S. city. "They're outsiders," one successful
> Hispanic said of non-Hispanics. "Here we are members of the power
> structure," another boasted.
>
> "In Miami there is no pressure to be American," one Cuban-born
> sociologist observed. "People can make a living perfectly well in an
> enclave that speaks Spanish." By 1999, the heads of Miami's largest
> bank, largest real estate development company, and largest law firm
> were all Cuban-born or of Cuban descent. The Cubans also established
> their dominance in politics. By 1999, the mayor of Miami and the
> mayor, police chief, and state attorney of Miami-Dade County, plus two
> thirds of Miami's U.S. Congressional delegation and nearly one half of
> its state legislators, were of Cuban origin. In the wake of the Elián
> González affair in 2000, the non-Hispanic city manager and police
> chief in Miami City were replaced by Cubans.
>
> The Cuban and Hispanic dominance of Miami left Anglos (as well as
> blacks) as outside minorities that could often be ignored. Unable to
> communicate with government bureaucrats and discriminated against by
> store clerks, the Anglos came to realize, as one of them put it, "My
> God, this is what it's like to be the minority." The Anglos had three
> choices. They could accept their subordinate and outsider position.
> They could attempt to adopt the manners, customs, and language of the
> Hispanics and assimilate into the Hispanic community-"acculturation in
> reverse," as the scholars Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick labeled
> it. Or they could leave Miami, and between 1983 and 1993, about
> 140,000 did just that, their exodus reflected in a popular bumper
> sticker: "Will the last American to leave Miami, please bring the
> flag."
>
> Contempt of culture
>
> Is Miami the future for Los Angeles and the southwest United States?
> In the end, the results could be similar: the creation of a large,
> distinct, Spanish-speaking community with economic and political
> resources sufficient to sustain its Hispanic identity apart from the
> national identity of other Americans and also able to influence U.S.
> politics, government, and society. However, the processes by which
> this result might come about differ. The Hispanization of Miami has
> been rapid, explicit, and economically driven. The Hispanization of
> the Southwest has been slower, unrelenting, and politically driven.
>
> The Cuban influx into Florida was intermittent and responded to the
> policies of the Cuban government. Mexican immigration, on the other
> hand, is continuous, includes a large illegal component, and shows no
> signs of tapering. The Hispanic (that is, largely Mexican) population
> of Southern California far exceeds in number but has yet to reach the
> proportions of the Hispanic population of Miami-though it is
> increasing rapidly.
>
> The early Cuban immigrants in South Florida were largely middle and
> upper class. Subsequent immigrants were more lower class. In the
> Southwest, overwhelming numbers of Mexican immigrants have been poor,
> unskilled, and poorly educated, and their children are likely to face
> similar conditions. The pressures toward Hispanization in the
> Southwest thus come from below, whereas those in South Florida came
> from above. In the long run, however, numbers are power, particularly
> in a multicultural society, a political democracy, and a consumer
> economy.
>
> Another major difference concerns the relations of Cubans and Mexicans
> with their countries of origin. The Cuban community has been united in
> its hostility to the Castro regime and in its efforts to punish and
> overthrow that regime. The Cuban government has responded in kind. The
> Mexican community in the United States has been more ambivalent and
> nuanced in its attitudes toward the Mexican government. Since the
> 1980s, however, the Mexican government has sought to expand the
> numbers, wealth, and political power of the Mexican community in the
> U.S. Southwest and to integrate that population with Mexico. "The
> Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders,"
> Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in the 1990s. His successor,
> Vicente Fox, called Mexican emigrants "heroes" and describes himself
> as president of 123 million Mexicans, 100 million in Mexico and 23
> million in the United States.
>
> As their numbers increase, Mexican Americans feel increasingly
> comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of American
> culture. They demand recognition of their culture and the historic
> Mexican identity of the U.S. Southwest. They call attention to and
> celebrate their Hispanic and Mexican past, as in the 1998 ceremonies
> and festivities in Madrid, New Mexico, attended by the vice president
> of Spain, honoring the establishment 400 years earlier of the first
> European settlement in the Southwest, almost a decade before
> Jamestown. As the New York Times reported in September 1999, Hispanic
> growth has been able to "help 'Latinize' many Hispanic people who are
> finding it easier to affirm their heritage.... [T]hey find strength in
> numbers, as younger generations grow up with more ethnic pride and as
> a Latin influence starts permeating fields such as entertainment,
> advertising, and politics." One index foretells the future: In 1998,
> "José" replaced "Michael" as the most popular name for newborn boys in
> both California and Texas.
>
> Irreconcilable Differences
>
> The persistence of Mexican immigration into the United States reduces
> the incentives for cultural assimilation. Mexican Americans no longer
> think of themselves as members of a small minority who must
> accommodate the dominant group and adopt its culture. As their numbers
> increase, they become more committed to their own ethnic identity and
> culture. Sustained numerical expansion promotes cultural consolidation
> and leads Mexican Americans not to minimize but to glory in the
> differences between their culture and U.S. culture. As the president
> of the National Council of La Raza said in 1995: "The biggest problem
> we have is a cultural clash, a clash between our values and the values
> in American society." He then went on to spell out the superiority of
> Hispanic values to American values. In similar fashion, Lionel Sosa, a
> successful Mexican-American businessman in Texas, in 1998 hailed the
> emerging Hispanic middle-class professionals who look like Anglos, but
> whose "values remain quite different from an Anglo's."
>
> To be sure, as Harvard University political scientist Jorge I.
> Domínguez has pointed out, Mexican Americans are more favorably
> disposed toward democracy than are Mexicans. Nonetheless, "ferocious
> differences" exist between U.S. and Mexican cultural values, as Jorge
> Castañeda (who later served as Mexico's foreign minister) observed in
> 1995.
>
> Castañeda cited differences in social and economic equality, the
> unpredictability of events, concepts of time epitomized in the mañana
> syndrome, the ability to achieve results quickly, and attitudes toward
> history, expressed in the "cliché that Mexicans are obsessed with
> history, Americans with the future." Sosa identifies several Hispanic
> traits (very different from Anglo-Protestant ones) that "hold us
> Latinos back": mistrust of people outside the family; lack of
> initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; little use for education; and
> acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven.
> Author Robert Kaplan quotes Alex Villa, a third-generation Mexican
> American in Tucson, Arizona, as saying that he knows almost no one in
> the Mexican community of South Tucson who believes in "education and
> hard work" as the way to material prosperity and is thus willing to
> "buy into America." Profound cultural differences clearly separate
> Mexicans and Americans, and the high level of immigration from Mexico
> sustains and reinforces the prevalence of Mexican values among Mexican
> Americans.
>
> Continuation of this large immigration (without improved assimilation)
> could divide the United States into a country of two languages and two
> cultures. A few stable, prosperous democracies-such as Canada and
> Belgium-fit this pattern. The differences in culture within these
> countries, however, do not approximate those between the United States
> and Mexico, and even in these countries language differences persist.
> Not many Anglo-Canadians are equally fluent in English and French, and
> the Canadian government has had to impose penalties to get its top
> civil servants to achieve dual fluency. Much the same lack of dual
> competence is true of Walloons and Flemings in Belgium. The
> transformation of the United States into a country like these would
> not necessarily be the end of the world; it would, however, be the end
> of the America we have known for more than three centuries. Americans
> should not let that change happen unless they are convinced that this
> new nation would be a better one.
>
> Such a transformation would not only revolutionize the United States,
> but it would also have serious consequences for Hispanics, who will be
> in the United States but not of it. Sosa ends his book, The Americano
> Dream, with encouragement for aspiring Hispanic entrepreneurs. "The
> Americano dream?" he asks. "It exists, it is realistic, and it is
> there for all of us to share." Sosa is wrong. There is no Americano
> dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant
> society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that
> society only if they dream in English.
>
>
> Samuel P. Huntington is chairman of the Harvard Academy for
> International and Area Studies and cofounder of FOREIGN POLICY.
> Copyright © 2004 by Samuel P. Huntington. From the forthcoming book
> Who Are We by Samuel P. Huntington to be published by Simon &
> Schuster, Inc. N.Y. Printed by permission.
>
>
> From Diversity to Dominance
> Foreign-Born Population Living in the United States
>
>
> 1960
>
> In 1960, the foreign-born population in the United States (from the
> five principal countries of origin) was relatively diverse: 2000
>
> In 2000, the foreign-born population from the top five countries was
> distributed very differently:
>
> Source: Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon's "Historical Census
> Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States
> 1850-1990" (Population Division Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Census
> Bureau, February 1999); and "Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in
> the United States: 2000" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, Current
> Population Reports, Series p23-206, 2001).
>
>
> Education
>
> The education of people of Mexican origin in the United States lags
> well behind the U.S. norm. In 2000, 86.6 percent of native-born
> Americans had graduated from high school. The rates for the
> foreign-born population in the United States varied from 94.9 percent
> for Africans, 83.8 percent for Asians, 49.6 percent for Latin
> Americans overall, and down to 33.8 percent for Mexicans, who ranked
> lowest.
>
> Education of Mexican Americans by Generation (1989-90) First Second
> Third Fourth All Americans *
> No high school degree (%) 69.9 51.5 33.0 41.0 23.5
> High school degree (%) 24.7 39.2 58.5 49.4 30.4
> Post high school degree (%) 5.4 9.3 8.5 9.6 45.1
> * Except Mexican Americans, 1990
> Source: Rodolfo O. De la Garza, Angelo Falcón, P. Chris García's
> "Mexican Immigrants, Mexican Americans, and American Political
> Culture," in Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passell's (eds.)
> Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America's Newest
> Arrivals (Washington: Urban Institute Press, 1994); and "Census of
> Population: Persons of Hispanic Origin in the United States,"
> Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990)
>
>
> Economic Status
>
> Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans lag behind the rest of the
> nation and other immigrant groups on a variety of economic indicators,
> including managerial and prefessional occupations, home ownership, and
> household income.
>
> Managerial/Professional Positions as a Percentage of Employed Members
> of Immigrant Groups (2000)
>
> Source: A. Dianne Schmidley, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
> Reports, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:
> 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2001
> Home Ownership and Income of Mexican Americans, by Generation
> (1989-90) First Second Third Fourth All Americans
> Homeowner (%) 30.6 58.6 44.1 40.3 64.1*
> Household Income of $50,000 or more (%) 7.1 10.5 11.2 10.7 24.8**
> *1990, Includes Mexican Americans. **1990, Excludes Mexican Americans.
> Source: De la Garza et al., 1994; "Current Population Survey, March
> 1990" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990); and "Census of
> Population: Persons of Hispanic Origin in the United States," 1990
>
> Intermarriage
>
> In 1977, 31 percent of all U.S. marriages involving Hispanic crossed
> ethnic lines, compared to only 25.5 percent in 1994 and 28.3 percent
> in 2000. As the absolute number of Mexican immigrants increases and
> their high birthrate produces more children, the opportunities for
> them to marry each other will increase.
>
> Percentage of Asian and Hipanic Women Married Outside of their Ethnic
> Group (1994)
> Asian Hispanic
> First Generation (%) 18.6 8.4
> Second Generation (%) 29.2 26.4
> Third Generation (%) 41.5 33.2
> Source: Gregory Rodriguez, "From Newcomers to New Americans: The
> successful Integration of Immigrants into American Society"
> (Washington: National Immigration Forum, 1999), citing "Current
> Population Survey, June 1994" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1994)
>
> The special social and cultural problems posed by Mexican immigration
> to the United States have received little public attention or
> meaningful discussion. But many academic sociologists and other
> scholars have warned of them for years.
>
> In 1983, the distinguished sociologist Morris Janowitz pointed to the
> "strong resistance to acculturation among Spanish-speaking residents"
> in the United States, and argued that "Mexicans are unique as an
> immigrant group in the persistent strength of their communal bonds."
> As a result, "Mexicans, together with other Spanish-speaking
> populations, are creating a bifurcation in the social-political
> structure of the United States that approximates nationality
> divisions...."
>
> Other scholars have reiterated these warnings, emphasizing how the
> size, persistence, and regional concentration of Mexican immigration
> obstruct assimilation. In 1997, sociologists Richard Alba and Victor
> Nee pointed out that the four-decade interruption of large-scale
> immigration after 1924 "virtually guaranteed that ethnic communities
> and cultures would be steadily weakened over time." In contrast,
> continuation of the current high levels of Latin American immigration
> "will create a fundamentally different ethnic context from that faced
> by the descendants of European immigrants, for the new ethnic
> communities are highly likely to remain large, culturally vibrant, and
> institutionally rich." Under current conditions, sociologist Douglas
> Massey agrees, "the character of ethnicity will be determined
> relatively more by immigrants and relatively less by later
> generations, shifting the balance of ethnic identity toward the
> language, culture, and ways of life of the sending society."
>
> "A constant influx of new arrivals," demographers Barry Edmonston and
> Jeffrey Passel contend, "especially in predominantly immigrant
> neighborhoods, keeps the language alive among immigrants and their
> children." Finally, American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Falcoff
> also observes that because "the Spanish-speaking population is being
> continually replenished by newcomers faster than that population is
> being assimilated," the widespread use of Spanish in the United States
> "is a reality that cannot be changed, even over the longer term."
>
> -S.P.H.
>
> In the 1993 film Falling Down, Michael Douglas plays a white former
> defense company employee reacting to the humiliations that he sees
> imposed on him by a multicultural society. "From the get-go," wrote
> David Gates in Newsweek, "the film pits Douglas-the picture of
> obsolescent rectitude with his white shirt, tie, specs, and astronaut
> haircut-against a rainbow coalition of Angelenos. It's a cartoon
> vision of the beleaguered white male in multicultural America."
> A plausible reaction to the demographic changes underway in the United
> States could be the rise of an anti-Hispanic, anti-black, and
> anti-immigrant movement composed largely of white, working- and
> middle-class males, protesting their job losses to immigrants and
> foreign countries, the perversion of their culture, and the
> displacement of their language. Such a movement can be labeled "white
> nativism."
>
> "Cultured, intelligent, and often possessing impressive degrees from
> some of America's premier colleges and universities, this new breed of
> white racial advocate is a far cry from the populist politicians and
> hooded Klansmen of the Old South," writes Carol Swain in her 2002
> book, The New White Nationalism in America. These new white
> nationalists do not advocate white racial supremacy but believe in
> racial self-preservation and affirm that culture is a product of race.
> They contend that the shifting U.S. demographics foretell the
> replacement of white culture by black or brown cultures that are
> intellectually and morally inferior.
>
> Changes in the U.S. racial balance underlie these concerns.
> Non-Hispanic whites dropped from 75.6 percent of the population in
> 1990 to 69.1 percent in 2000. In California-as in Hawaii, New Mexico,
> and the District of Columbia-non-Hispanic whites are now a minority.
> Demographers predict that, by 2040, non-Hispanic whites could be a
> minority of all Americans. Moreover, for several decades, interest
> groups and government elites have promoted racial preferences and
> affirmative action, which favor blacks and nonwhite immigrants.
> Meanwhile, pro-globalization policies have shifted jobs outside the
> United States, aggravated income inequality, and promoted declining
> real wages for working-class Americans.
>
> Actual and perceived losses in power and status by any social, ethnic,
> racial, or economic group almost always produce efforts to reverse
> those losses. In 1961, the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina was 43
> percent Serb and 26 percent Muslim. In 1991, it was 31 percent Serb
> and 44 percent Muslim. The Serbs reacted with ethnic cleansing. In
> 1990, the population of California was 57 percent non-Hispanic white
> and 26 percent Hispanic. By 2040, it is predicted to be 31 percent
> non-Hispanic white and 48 percent Hispanic.
>
> The chance that California whites will react like Bosnian Serbs is
> about zero. The chance that they will not react at all is also about
> zero. Indeed, they already have reacted by approving initiatives
> against benefits for illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and
> bilingual education, as well as by the movement of whites out of the
> state. As more Hispanics become citizens and politically active, white
> groups are likely to look for other ways of protecting themselves.
>
> Industrialization in the late 19th century produced losses for U.S.
> farmers and led to agrarian protest groups, including the Populist
> movement, the Grange, the Nonpartisan League, and the American Farm
> Bureau Federation. Today, white nativists could well ask: If blacks
> and Hispanics organize and lobby for special privileges, why not
> whites? If the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
> People and the National Council of La Raza are legitimate
> organizations, why not a national organization promoting white
> interests?
>
> White nationalism is "the next logical stage for identity politics in
> America," argues Swain, making the United States "increasingly at risk
> of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation's history."
> The most powerful stimulus to such white nativism will be the cultural
> and linguistic threats whites see from the expanding power of
> Hispanics in U.S. society.
>
> -S.P.H.
>
>
> --
> "The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made
> enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also
> have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails
> and their lawn, for example."
>
> "So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding
> a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of
> America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a
> time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those
> young people are cut out of this process." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1787765

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:42 pm
From: spinoza1111@yahoo.com

Hmm, the Internet never lies. Despite all the responsible noises made
by posters about being "moderates", I find in the post line a group
called "alt.politics.nationalism.white".

FASCISTS.

Just another American wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1084558/posts
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495&page=0
>
> The Hispanic Challenge
>
> By Samuel P. Huntington
>
> March/April 2004
>
> The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the
> United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages.
> Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not
> assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own
> political and linguistic enclaves-from Los Angeles to Miami-and
> rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream.
> The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.
>
> America was created by 17th- and 18th-century settlers who were
> overwhelmingly white, British, and Protestant. Their values,
> institutions, and culture provided the foundation for and shaped the
> development of the United States in the following centuries. They
> initially defined America in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and
> religion. Then, in the 18th century, they also had to define America
> ideologically to justify independence from their home country, which
> was also white, British, and Protestant. Thomas Jefferson set forth
> this "creed," as Nobel Prize-winning economist Gunnar Myrdal called
> it, in the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, its principles
> have been reiterated by statesmen and espoused by the public as an
> essential component of U.S. identity.
>
> By the latter years of the 19th century, however, the ethnic component
> had been broadened to include Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians, and
> the United States' religious identity was being redefined more broadly
> from Protestant to Christian. With World War II and the assimilation
> of large numbers of southern and eastern European immigrants and their
> offspring into U.S. society, ethnicity virtually disappeared as a
> defining component of national identity. So did race, following the
> achievements of the civil rights movement and the Immigration and
> Nationality Act of 1965. Americans now see and endorse their country
> as multiethnic and multiracial. As a result, American identity is now
> defined in terms of culture and creed.
>
> Most Americans see the creed as the crucial element of their national
> identity. The creed, however, was the product of the distinct
> Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key elements of
> that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious
> commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, including the
> responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and dissenting
> Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief
> that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on
> earth, a "city on a hill." Historically, millions of immigrants were
> attracted to the United States because of this culture and the
> economic opportunities and political liberties it made possible.
>
> Contributions from immigrant cultures modified and enriched the
> Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. The essentials of
> that founding culture remained the bedrock of U.S. identity, however,
> at least until the last decades of the 20th century. Would the United
> States be the country that it has been and that it largely remains
> today if it had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by
> British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics?
> The answer is clearly no. It would not be the United States; it would
> be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.
>
> In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States'
> Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under
> assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the
> doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group
> identities based on race, ethnicity, and gender over national
> identity; the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the
> expanding number of immigrants with dual nationalities and dual
> loyalties; and the growing salience for U.S. intellectual, business,
> and political elites of cosmopolitan and transnational identities. The
> United States' national identity, like that of other nation-states, is
> challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that
> globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful
> "blood and belief" identities.
>
> In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge
> to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and
> continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and
> the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white
> American natives. Americans like to boast of their past success in
> assimilating millions of immigrants into their society, culture, and
> politics. But Americans have tended to generalize about immigrants
> without distinguishing among them and have focused on the economic
> costs and benefits of immigration, ignoring its social and cultural
> consequences. As a result, they have overlooked the unique
> characteristics and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic
> immigration. The extent and nature of this immigration differ
> fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation
> successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the
> contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality
> poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country
> with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?
> By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual
> transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic)
> and two languages (English and Spanish).
>
> The impact of Mexican immigration on the United States becomes evident
> when one imagines what would happen if Mexican immigration abruptly
> stopped. The annual flow of legal immigrants would drop by about
> 175,000, closer to the level recommended by the 1990s Commission on
> Immigration Reform chaired by former U.S. Congresswoman Barbara
> Jordan. Illegal entries would diminish dramatically. The wages of
> low-income U.S. citizens would improve. Debates over the use of
> Spanish and whether English should be made the official language of
> state and national governments would subside. Bilingual education and
> the controversies it spawns would virtually disappear, as would
> controversies over welfare and other benefits for immigrants. The
> debate over whether immigrants pose an economic burden on state and
> federal governments would be decisively resolved in the negative. The
> average education and skills of the immigrants continuing to arrive
> would reach their highest levels in U.S. history. The inflow of
> immigrants would again become highly diverse, creating increased
> incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb U.S.
> culture. And most important of all, the possibility of a de facto
> split between a predominantly Spanish-speaking United States and an
> English-speaking United States would disappear, and with it, a major
> potential threat to the country's cultural and political integrity.
>
>
>
> A World of difference
>
> Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is
> without precedent in U.S. history. The experience and lessons of past
> immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and
> consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and
> most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six
> factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration,
> persistence, and historical presence.
>
> Contiguity | Americans' idea of immigration is often symbolized by the
> Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and, more recently perhaps, New
> York's John F. Kennedy Airport. In other words, immigrants arrive in
> the United States after crossing several thousand miles of ocean. U.S.
> attitudes toward immigrants and U.S. immigration policies are shaped
> by such images. These assumptions and policies, however, have little
> or no relevance for Mexican immigration. The United States is now
> confronted by a massive influx of people from a poor, contiguous
> country with more than one third the population of the United States.
> They come across a 2,000-mile border historically marked simply by a
> line in the ground and a shallow river.
>
> This situation is unique for the United States and the world. No other
> First World country has such an extensive land frontier with a Third
> World country. The significance of the long Mexican-U.S. border is
> enhanced by the economic differences between the two countries. "The
> income gap between the United States and Mexico," Stanford University
> historian David Kennedy has pointed out, "is the largest between any
> two contiguous countries in the world." Contiguity enables Mexican
> immigrants to remain in intimate contact with their families, friends,
> and home localities in Mexico as no other immigrants have been able to
> do.
>
> Scale | The causes of Mexican, as well as other, immigration are found
> in the demographic, economic, and political dynamics of the sending
> country and the economic, political, and social attractions of the
> United States. Contiguity, however, obviously encourages immigration.
> Mexican immigration increased steadily after 1965. About 640,000
> Mexicans legally migrated to the United States in the 1970s; 1,656,000
> in the 1980s; and 2,249,000 in the 1990s. In those three decades,
> Mexicans accounted for 14 percent, 23 percent, and 25 percent of total
> legal immigration. These percentages do not equal the rates of
> immigrants who came from Ireland between 1820 and 1860, or from
> Germany in the 1850s and 1860s. Yet they are high compared to the
> highly dispersed sources of immigrants before World War I, and
> compared to other contemporary immigrants. To them one must also add
> the huge numbers of Mexicans who each year enter the United States
> illegally. Since the 1960s, the numbers of foreign-born people in the
> United States have expanded immensely, with Asians and Latin Americans
> replacing Europeans and Canadians, and diversity of source
> dramatically giving way to the dominance of one source: Mexico.
>
> Mexican immigrants constituted 27.6 percent of the total foreign-born
> U.S. population in 2000. The next largest contingents, Chinese and
> Filipinos, amounted to only 4.9 percent and 4.3 percent of the
> foreign-born population.
>
> In the 1990s, Mexicans composed more than half of the new Latin
> American immigrants to the United States and, by 2000, Hispanics
> totaled about one half of all migrants entering the continental United
> States. Hispanics composed 12 percent of the total U.S. population in
> 2000. This group increased by almost 10 percent from 2000 to 2002 and
> has now become larger than blacks. It is estimated Hispanics may
> constitute up to 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2050. These
> changes are driven not just by immigration but also by fertility. In
> 2002, fertility rates in the United States were estimated at 1.8 for
> non-Hispanic whites, 2.1 for blacks, and 3.0 for Hispanics. "This is
> the characteristic shape of developing countries," The Economist
> commented in 2002. "As the bulge of Latinos enters peak child-bearing
> age in a decade or two, the Latino share of America's population will
> soar."
>
> In the mid-19th century, English speakers from the British Isles
> dominated immigration into the United States. The pre-World War I
> immigration was highly diversified linguistically, including many
> speakers of Italian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, English, German,
> Swedish, and other languages. But now, for the first time in U.S.
> history, half of those entering the United States speak a single
> non-English language.
>
> Illegality | Illegal entry into the United States is overwhelmingly a
> post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon. For almost a century after the
> adoption of the U.S. Constitution, no national laws restricted or
> prohibited immigration, and only a few states imposed modest limits.
> During the following 90 years, illegal immigration was minimal and
> easily controlled. The 1965 immigration law, the increased
> availability of transportation, and the intensified forces promoting
> Mexican emigration drastically changed this situation. Apprehensions
> by the U.S. Border Patrol rose from 1.6 million in the 1960s to 8.3
> million in the 1970s, 11.9 million in the 1980s, and 14.7 million in
> the 1990s. Estimates of the Mexicans who successfully enter illegally
> each year range from 105,000 (according to a binational
> Mexican-American commission) to 350,000 during the 1990s (according to
> the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service).
>
>
> The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act contained provisions to
> legalize the status of existing illegal immigrants and to reduce
> future illegal immigration through employer sanctions and other means.
> The former goal was achieved: Some 3.1 million illegal immigrants,
> about 90 percent of them from Mexico, became legal "green card"
> residents of the United States. But the latter goal remains elusive.
> Estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United
> States rose from 4 million in 1995 to 6 million in 1998, to 7 million
> in 2000, and to between 8 and 10 million by 2003. Mexicans accounted
> for 58 percent of the total illegal population in the United States in
> 1990; by 2000, an estimated 4.8 million illegal Mexicans made up 69
> percent of that population. In 2000, illegal Mexicans in the United
> States were 25 times as numerous as the next largest contingent, from
> El Salvador.
>
> Regional Concentration | The U.S. Founding Fathers considered the
> dispersion of immigrants essential to their assimilation. That has
> been the pattern historically and continues to be the pattern for most
> contemporary non-Hispanic immigrants. Hispanics, however, have tended
> to concentrate regionally: Mexicans in Southern California, Cubans in
> Miami, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans (the last of whom are not
> technically immigrants) in New York. The more concentrated immigrants
> become, the slower and less complete is their assimilation.
>
> In the 1990s, the proportions of Hispanics continued to grow in these
> regions of heaviest concentration. At the same time, Mexicans and
> other Hispanics were also establishing beachheads elsewhere. While the
> absolute numbers are often small, the states with the largest
> percentage increases in Hispanic population between 1990 and 2000
> were, in decreasing order: North Carolina (449 percent increase),
> Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Nevada, and Alabama (222
> percent). Hispanics have also established concentrations in individual
> cities and towns throughout the United States. For example, in 2003,
> more than 40 percent of the population of Hartford, Connecticut, was
> Hispanic (primarily Puerto Rican), outnumbering the city's 38 percent
> black population. "Hartford," the city's first Hispanic mayor
> proclaimed, "has become a Latin city, so to speak. It's a sign of
> things to come," with Spanish increasingly used as the language of
> commerce and government.
>
> The biggest concentrations of Hispanics, however, are in the
> Southwest, particularly California. In 2000, nearly two thirds of
> Mexican immigrants lived in the West, and nearly half in California.
> To be sure, the Los Angeles area has immigrants from many countries,
> including Korea and Vietnam. The sources of California's foreign-born
> population, however, differ sharply from those of the rest of the
> country, with those from a single country, Mexico, exceeding totals
> for all of the immigrants from Europe and Asia. In Los Angeles,
> Hispanics-overwhelmingly Mexican-far outnumber other groups. In 2000,
> 64 percent of the Hispanics in Los Angeles were of Mexican origin, and
> 46.5 percent of Los Angeles residents were Hispanic, while 29.7
> percent were non-Hispanic whites. By 2010, it is estimated that
> Hispanics will make up more than half of the Los Angeles population.
>
> Most immigrant groups have higher fertility rates than natives, and
> hence the impact of immigration is felt heavily in schools. The highly
> diversified immigration into New York, for example, creates the
> problem of teachers dealing with classes containing students who may
> speak 20 different languages at home. In contrast, Hispanic children
> make up substantial majorities of the students in the schools in many
> Southwestern cities. "No school system in a major U.S. city,"
> political scientists Katrina Burgess and Abraham Lowenthal said of Los
> Angeles in their 1993 study of Mexico-California ties, "has ever
> experienced such a large influx of students from a single foreign
> country. The schools of Los Angeles are becoming Mexican." By 2002,
> more than 70 percent of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School
> District were Hispanic, predominantly Mexican, with the proportion
> increasing steadily; 10 percent of schoolchildren were non-Hispanic
> whites. In 2003, for the first time since the 1850s, a majority of
> newborn children in California were Hispanic.
>
> Persistence | Previous waves of immigrants eventually subsided, the
> proportions coming from individual countries fluctuated greatly, and,
> after 1924, immigration was reduced to a trickle. In contrast, the
> current wave shows no sign of ebbing and the conditions creating the
> large Mexican component of that wave are likely to endure, absent a
> major war or recession. In the long term, Mexican immigration could
> decline when the economic well-being of Mexico approximates that of
> the United States. As of 2002, however, U.S. gross domestic product
> per capita was about four times that of Mexico (in purchasing power
> parity terms). If that difference were cut in half, the economic
> incentives for migration might also drop substantially. To reach that
> ratio in any meaningful future, however, would require extremely rapid
> economic growth in Mexico, at a rate greatly exceeding that of the
> United States. Yet, even such dramatic economic development would not
> necessarily reduce the impulse to emigrate. During the 19th century,
> when Europe was rapidly industrializing and per capita incomes were
> rising, 50 million Europeans emigrated to the Americas, Asia, and
> Africa.
>
>
>
> Historical Presence | No other immigrant group in U.S. history has
> asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory.
> Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim. Almost all
> of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah was part
> of Mexico until Mexico lost them as a result of the Texan War of
> Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.
> Mexico is the only country that the United States has invaded,
> occupied its capital-placing the Marines in the "halls of
> Montezuma"-and then annexed half its territory. Mexicans do not forget
> these events. Quite understandably, they feel that they have special
> rights in these territories. "Unlike other immigrants," Boston College
> political scientist Peter Skerry notes, "Mexicans arrive here from a
> neighboring nation that has suffered military defeat at the hands of
> the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was
> once part of their homeland.... Mexican Americans enjoy a sense of being
> on their own turf that is not shared by other immigrants."
>
> At times, scholars have suggested that the Southwest could become the
> United States' Quebec. Both regions include Catholic people and were
> conquered by Anglo-Protestant peoples, but otherwise they have little
> in common. Quebec is 3,000 miles from France, and each year several
> hundred thousand Frenchmen do not attempt to enter Quebec legally or
> illegally. History shows that serious potential for conflict exists
> when people in one country begin referring to territory in a
> neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights
> and claims to that territory.
>
> Spanglish as a Second Language
>
> In the past, immigrants originated overseas and often overcame severe
> obstacles and hardships to reach the United States. They came from
> many different countries, spoke different languages, and came legally.
> Their flow fluctuated over time, with significant reductions occurring
> as a result of the Civil War, World War I, and the restrictive
> legislation of 1924. They dispersed into many enclaves in rural areas
> and major cities throughout the Northeast and Midwest. They had no
> historical claim to any U.S. territory.
>
> On all these dimensions, Mexican immigration is fundamentally
> different. These differences combine to make the assimilation of
> Mexicans into U.S. culture and society much more difficult than it was
> for previous immigrants. Particularly striking in contrast to previous
> immigrants is the failure of third- and fourth-generation people of
> Mexican origin to approximate U.S. norms in education, economic
> status, and intermarriage rates.
>
>
>
> The size, persistence, and concentration of Hispanic immigration tends
> to perpetuate the use of Spanish through successive generations. The
> evidence on English acquisition and Spanish retention among immigrants
> is limited and ambiguous. In 2000, however, more than 28 million
> people in the United States spoke Spanish at home (10.5 percent of all
> people over age five), and almost 13.8 million of these spoke English
> worse than "very well," a 66 percent increase since 1990. According to
> a U.S. Census Bureau report, in 1990 about 95 percent of Mexican-born
> immigrants spoke Spanish at home; 73.6 percent of these did not speak
> English very well; and 43 percent of the Mexican foreign-born were
> "linguistically isolated." An earlier study in Los Angeles found
> different results for the U.S.-born second generation. Just 11.6
> percent spoke only Spanish or more Spanish than English, 25.6 percent
> spoke both languages equally, 32.7 percent more English than Spanish,
> and 30.1 percent only English. In the same study, more than 90 percent
> of the U.S.-born people of Mexican origin spoke English fluently.
> Nonetheless, in 1999, some 753,505 presumably second-generation
> students in Southern California schools who spoke Spanish at home were
> not proficient in English.
>
> English language use and fluency for first- and second-generation
> Mexicans thus seem to follow the pattern common to past immigrants.
> Two questions remain, however. First, have changes occurred over time
> in the acquisition of English and the retention of Spanish by
> second-generation Mexican immigrants? One might suppose that, with the
> rapid expansion of the Mexican immigrant community, people of Mexican
> origin would have less incentive to become fluent in and to use
> English in 2000 than they had in 1970.
>
> Second, will the third generation follow the classic pattern with
> fluency in English and little or no knowledge of Spanish, or will it
> retain the second generation's fluency in both languages?
> Second-generation immigrants often look down on and reject their
> ancestral language and are embarrassed by their parents' inability to
> communicate in English. Presumably, whether second-generation Mexicans
> share this attitude will help shape the extent to which the third
> generation retains any knowledge of Spanish. If the second generation
> does not reject Spanish outright, the third generation is also likely
> to be bilingual, and fluency in both languages is likely to become
> institutionalized in the Mexican-American community.
>
> Spanish retention is also bolstered by the overwhelming majorities
> (between 66 percent and 85 percent) of Mexican immigrants and
> Hispanics who emphasize the need for their children to be fluent in
> Spanish. These attitudes contrast with those of other immigrant
> groups. The New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service finds "a
> cultural difference between the Asian and Hispanic parents with
> respect to having their children maintain their native language." In
> part, this difference undoubtedly stems from the size of Hispanic
> communities, which creates incentives for fluency in the ancestral
> language. Although second- and third-generation Mexican Americans and
> other Hispanics acquire competence in English, they also appear to
> deviate from the usual pattern by maintaining their competence in
> Spanish. Second- or third-generation Mexican Americans who were
> brought up speaking only English have learned Spanish as adults and
> are encouraging their children to become fluent in it.
> Spanish-language competence, University of New Mexico professor F.
> Chris Garcia has stated, is "the one thing every Hispanic takes pride
> in, wants to protect and promote."
>
> A persuasive case can be made that, in a shrinking world, all
> Americans should know at least one important foreign language-Chinese,
> Japanese, Hindi, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, French, German, or Spanish-so
> as to understand a foreign culture and communicate with its people. It
> is quite different to argue that Americans should know a non-English
> language in order to communicate with their fellow citizens. Yet that
> is what the Spanish-language advocates have in mind. Strengthened by
> the growth of Hispanic numbers and influence, Hispanic leaders are
> actively seeking to transform the United States into a bilingual
> society. "English is not enough," argues Osvaldo Soto, president of
> the Spanish American League Against Discrimination. "We don't want a
> monolingual society." Similarly, Duke University literature professor
> (and Chilean immigrant) Ariel Dorfman asks, "Will this country speak
> two languages or merely one?"And his answer, of course, is that it
> should speak two.
>
> Hispanic organizations play a central role in inducing the U.S.
> Congress to authorize cultural maintenance programs in bilingual
> education; as a result, children are slow to join mainstream classes.
> The continuing huge inflow of migrants makes it increasingly possible
> for Spanish speakers in New York, Miami, and Los Angeles to live
> normal lives without knowing English. Sixty-five percent of the
> children in bilingual education in New York are Spanish speakers and
> hence have little incentive or need to use English in school.
>
> Dual-language programs, which go one step beyond bilingual education,
> have become increasingly popular. In these programs, students are
> taught in both English and Spanish on an alternating basis with a view
> to making English-speakers fluent in Spanish and Spanish-speakers
> fluent in English, thus making Spanish the equal of English and
> transforming the United States into a two-language country. Then U.S.
> Secretary of Education Richard Riley explicitly endorsed these
> programs in his March 2000 speech, "Excelencia para Todos-Excellence
> for all." Civil rights organizations, church leaders (particularly
> Catholic ones), and many politicians (Republican as well as Democrat)
> support the impetus toward bilingualism.
>
> Perhaps equally important, business groups seeking to corner the
> Hispanic market support bilingualism as well. Indeed, the orientation
> of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need
> bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings.
> Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such
> as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak
> English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish
> had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average
> incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000.
> For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans
> (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or
> the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their
> fellow citizens only in English.
>
> In the debates over language policy, the late California Republican
> Senator S.I. Hayakawa once highlighted the unique role of Hispanics in
> opposing English. "Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to
> making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And
> certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here.
> They're learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees
> all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there
> is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish
> the second official language."
>
> If the spread of Spanish as the United States' second language
> continues, it could, in due course, have significant consequences in
> politics and government. In many states, those aspiring to political
> office might have to be fluent in both languages. Bilingual candidates
> for president and elected federal positions would have an advantage
> over English-only speakers. If dual-language education becomes
> prevalent in elementary and secondary schools, teachers will
> increasingly be expected to be bilingual. Government documents and
> forms could routinely be published in both languages. The use of both
> languages could become acceptable in congressional hearings and
> debates and in the general conduct of government business. Because
> most of those whose first language is Spanish will also probably have
> some fluency in English, English speakers lacking fluency in Spanish
> are likely to be and feel at a disadvantage in the competition for
> jobs, promotions, and contracts.
>
> In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: "We must have
> but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the
> language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell
> address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural." By
> contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, "I hope very
> much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak
> Spanish." And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de
> Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the
> weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both
> English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among
> the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both
> English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of
> Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson,
> Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the
> United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between
> Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks
> and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.
>
> Blood Is Thicker Than Borders
>
> Massive Hispanic immigration affects the United States in two
> significant ways: Important portions of the country become
> predominantly Hispanic in language and culture, and the nation as a
> whole becomes bilingual and bicultural. The most important area where
> Hispanization is proceeding rapidly is, of course, the Southwest. As
> historian Kennedy argues, Mexican Americans in the Southwest will soon
> have "sufficient coherence and critical mass in a defined region so
> that, if they choose, they can preserve their distinctive culture
> indefinitely. They could also eventually undertake to do what no
> previous immigrant group could have dreamed of doing: challenge the
> existing cultural, political, legal, commercial, and educational
> systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the
> very institutions in which they do business."
>
> Anecdotal evidence of such challenges abounds. In 1994, Mexican
> Americans vigorously demonstrated against California's Proposition
> 187-which limited welfare benefits to children of illegal
> immigrants-by marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving
> scores of Mexican flags and carrying U.S. flags upside down. In 1998,
> at a Mexico-United States soccer match in Los Angeles, Mexican
> Americans booed the U.S. national anthem and assaulted U.S. players.
> Such dramatic rejections of the United States and assertions of
> Mexican identity are not limited to an extremist minority in the
> Mexican-American community. Many Mexican immigrants and their
> offspring simply do not appear to identify primarily with the United
> States.
>
> Empirical evidence confirms such appearances. A 1992 study of children
> of immigrants in Southern California and South Florida posed the
> following question: "How do you identify, that is, what do you call
> yourself?" None of the children born in Mexico answered "American,"
> compared with 1.9 percent to 9.3 percent of those born elsewhere in
> Latin America or the Caribbean. The largest percentage of Mexican-born
> children (41.2 percent) identified themselves as "Hispanic," and the
> second largest (36.2 percent) chose "Mexican." Among Mexican-American
> children born in the United States, less than 4 percent responded
> "American," compared to 28.5 percent to 50 percent of those born in
> the United States with parents from elsewhere in Latin America.
> Whether born in Mexico or in the United States, Mexican children
> overwhelmingly did not choose "American" as their primary
> identification.
>
> Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista
> (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is
> well underway. A meaningful move to reunite these territories with
> Mexico seems unlikely, but Prof. Charles Truxillo of the University of
> New Mexico predicts that by 2080 the southwestern states of the United
> States and the northern states of Mexico will form La República del
> Norte (The Republic of the North). Various writers have referred to
> the southwestern United States plus northern Mexico as "MexAmerica" or
> "Amexica" or "Mexifornia." "We are all Mexicans in this valley," a
> former county commissioner of El Paso, Texas, declared in 2001.
>
> This trend could consolidate the Mexican-dominant areas of the United
> States into an autonomous, culturally and linguistically distinct, and
> economically self-reliant bloc within the United States. "We may be
> building toward the one thing that will choke the melting pot," warns
> former National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman Graham Fuller, "an
> ethnic area and grouping so concentrated that it will not wish, or
> need, to undergo assimilation into the mainstream of American
> multi-ethnic English-speaking life."
>
> A prototype of such a region already exists-in Miami.
>
> Bienvenido a Miami
>
> Miami is the most Hispanic large city in the 50 U.S. states. Over the
> course of 30 years, Spanish speakers-overwhelmingly Cuban-established
> their dominance in virtually every aspect of the city's life,
> fundamentally changing its ethnic composition, culture, politics, and
> language. The Hispanization of Miami is without precedent in the
> history of U.S. cities.
>
> The economic growth of Miami, led by the early Cuban immigrants, made
> the city a magnet for migrants from other Latin American and Caribbean
> countries. By 2000, two thirds of Miami's people were Hispanic, and
> more than half were Cuban or of Cuban descent. In 2000, 75.2 percent
> of adult Miamians spoke a language other than English at home,
> compared to 55.7 percent of the residents of Los Angeles and 47.6
> percent of New Yorkers. (Of Miamians speaking a non-English language
> at home, 87.2 percent spoke Spanish.) In 2000, 59.5 percent of Miami
> residents were foreign-born, compared to 40.9 percent in Los Angeles,
> 36.8 percent in San Francisco, and 35.9 percent in New York. In 2000,
> only 31.1 percent of adult Miami residents said they spoke English
> very well, compared to 39.0 percent in Los Angeles, 42.5 percent in
> San Francisco, and 46.5 percent in New York.
>
> The Cuban takeover had major consequences for Miami. The elite and
> entrepreneurial class fleeing the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel
> Castro in the 1960s started dramatic economic development in South
> Florida. Unable to send money home, they invested in Miami. Personal
> income growth in Miami averaged 11.5 percent a year in the 1970s and
> 7.7 percent a year in the 1980s. Payrolls in Miami-Dade County tripled
> between 1970 and 1995. The Cuban economic drive made Miami an
> international economic dynamo, with expanding international trade and
> investment. The Cubans promoted international tourism, which, by the
> 1990s, exceeded domestic tourism and made Miami a leading center of
> the cruise ship industry. Major U.S. corporations in manufacturing,
> communications, and consumer products moved their Latin American
> headquarters to Miami from other U.S. and Latin American cities. A
> vigorous Spanish artistic and entertainment community emerged. Today,
> the Cubans can legitimately claim that, in the words of Prof. Damian
> Fernández of Florida International University, "We built modern
> Miami," and made its economy larger than those of many Latin American
> countries.
>
> A key part of this development was the expansion of Miami's economic
> ties with Latin America. Brazilians, Argentines, Chileans, Colombians,
> and Venezuelans flooded into Miami, bringing their money with them. By
> 1993, some $25.6 billion in international trade, mostly involving
> Latin America, moved through the city. Throughout the hemisphere,
> Latin Americans concerned with investment, trade, culture,
> entertainment, holidays, and drug smuggling increasingly turned to
> Miami.
>
> Such eminence transformed Miami into a Cuban-led, Hispanic city. The
> Cubans did not, in the traditional pattern, create an enclave
> immigrant neighborhood. Instead, they created an enclave city with its
> own culture and economy, in which assimilation and Americanization
> were unnecessary and in some measure undesired. By 2000, Spanish was
> not just the language spoken in most homes, it was also the principal
> language of commerce, business, and politics. The media and
> communications industry became increasingly Hispanic. In 1998, a
> Spanish-language television station became the number-one station
> watched by Miamians-the first time a foreign-language station achieved
> that rating in a major U.S. city. "They're outsiders," one successful
> Hispanic said of non-Hispanics. "Here we are members of the power
> structure," another boasted.
>
> "In Miami there is no pressure to be American," one Cuban-born
> sociologist observed. "People can make a living perfectly well in an
> enclave that speaks Spanish." By 1999, the heads of Miami's largest
> bank, largest real estate development company, and largest law firm
> were all Cuban-born or of Cuban descent. The Cubans also established
> their dominance in politics. By 1999, the mayor of Miami and the
> mayor, police chief, and state attorney of Miami-Dade County, plus two
> thirds of Miami's U.S. Congressional delegation and nearly one half of
> its state legislators, were of Cuban origin. In the wake of the Elián
> González affair in 2000, the non-Hispanic city manager and police
> chief in Miami City were replaced by Cubans.
>
> The Cuban and Hispanic dominance of Miami left Anglos (as well as
> blacks) as outside minorities that could often be ignored. Unable to
> communicate with government bureaucrats and discriminated against by
> store clerks, the Anglos came to realize, as one of them put it, "My
> God, this is what it's like to be the minority." The Anglos had three
> choices. They could accept their subordinate and outsider position.
> They could attempt to adopt the manners, customs, and language of the
> Hispanics and assimilate into the Hispanic community-"acculturation in
> reverse," as the scholars Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick labeled
> it. Or they could leave Miami, and between 1983 and 1993, about
> 140,000 did just that, their exodus reflected in a popular bumper
> sticker: "Will the last American to leave Miami, please bring the
> flag."
>
> Contempt of culture
>
> Is Miami the future for Los Angeles and the southwest United States?
> In the end, the results could be similar: the creation of a large,
> distinct, Spanish-speaking community with economic and political
> resources sufficient to sustain its Hispanic identity apart from the
> national identity of other Americans and also able to influence U.S.
> politics, government, and society. However, the processes by which
> this result might come about differ. The Hispanization of Miami has
> been rapid, explicit, and economically driven. The Hispanization of
> the Southwest has been slower, unrelenting, and politically driven.
>
> The Cuban influx into Florida was intermittent and responded to the
> policies of the Cuban government. Mexican immigration, on the other
> hand, is continuous, includes a large illegal component, and shows no
> signs of tapering. The Hispanic (that is, largely Mexican) population
> of Southern California far exceeds in number but has yet to reach the
> proportions of the Hispanic population of Miami-though it is
> increasing rapidly.
>
> The early Cuban immigrants in South Florida were largely middle and
> upper class. Subsequent immigrants were more lower class. In the
> Southwest, overwhelming numbers of Mexican immigrants have been poor,
> unskilled, and poorly educated, and their children are likely to face
> similar conditions. The pressures toward Hispanization in the
> Southwest thus come from below, whereas those in South Florida came
> from above. In the long run, however, numbers are power, particularly
> in a multicultural society, a political democracy, and a consumer
> economy.
>
> Another major difference concerns the relations of Cubans and Mexicans
> with their countries of origin. The Cuban community has been united in
> its hostility to the Castro regime and in its efforts to punish and
> overthrow that regime. The Cuban government has responded in kind. The
> Mexican community in the United States has been more ambivalent and
> nuanced in its attitudes toward the Mexican government. Since the
> 1980s, however, the Mexican government has sought to expand the
> numbers, wealth, and political power of the Mexican community in the
> U.S. Southwest and to integrate that population with Mexico. "The
> Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders,"
> Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in the 1990s. His successor,
> Vicente Fox, called Mexican emigrants "heroes" and describes himself
> as president of 123 million Mexicans, 100 million in Mexico and 23
> million in the United States.
>
> As their numbers increase, Mexican Americans feel increasingly
> comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of American
> culture. They demand recognition of their culture and the historic
> Mexican identity of the U.S. Southwest. They call attention to and
> celebrate their Hispanic and Mexican past, as in the 1998 ceremonies
> and festivities in Madrid, New Mexico, attended by the vice president
> of Spain, honoring the establishment 400 years earlier of the first
> European settlement in the Southwest, almost a decade before
> Jamestown. As the New York Times reported in September 1999, Hispanic
> growth has been able to "help 'Latinize' many Hispanic people who are
> finding it easier to affirm their heritage.... [T]hey find strength in
> numbers, as younger generations grow up with more ethnic pride and as
> a Latin influence starts permeating fields such as entertainment,
> advertising, and politics." One index foretells the future: In 1998,
> "José" replaced "Michael" as the most popular name for newborn boys in
> both California and Texas.
>
> Irreconcilable Differences
>
> The persistence of Mexican immigration into the United States reduces
> the incentives for cultural assimilation. Mexican Americans no longer
> think of themselves as members of a small minority who must
> accommodate the dominant group and adopt its culture. As their numbers
> increase, they become more committed to their own ethnic identity and
> culture. Sustained numerical expansion promotes cultural consolidation
> and leads Mexican Americans not to minimize but to glory in the
> differences between their culture and U.S. culture. As the president
> of the National Council of La Raza said in 1995: "The biggest problem
> we have is a cultural clash, a clash between our values and the values
> in American society." He then went on to spell out the superiority of
> Hispanic values to American values. In similar fashion, Lionel Sosa, a
> successful Mexican-American businessman in Texas, in 1998 hailed the
> emerging Hispanic middle-class professionals who look like Anglos, but
> whose "values remain quite different from an Anglo's."
>
> To be sure, as Harvard University political scientist Jorge I.
> Domínguez has pointed out, Mexican Americans are more favorably
> disposed toward democracy than are Mexicans. Nonetheless, "ferocious
> differences" exist between U.S. and Mexican cultural values, as Jorge
> Castañeda (who later served as Mexico's foreign minister) observed in
> 1995.
>
> Castañeda cited differences in social and economic equality, the
> unpredictability of events, concepts of time epitomized in the mañana
> syndrome, the ability to achieve results quickly, and attitudes toward
> history, expressed in the "cliché that Mexicans are obsessed with
> history, Americans with the future." Sosa identifies several Hispanic
> traits (very different from Anglo-Protestant ones) that "hold us
> Latinos back": mistrust of people outside the family; lack of
> initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; little use for education; and
> acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven.
> Author Robert Kaplan quotes Alex Villa, a third-generation Mexican
> American in Tucson, Arizona, as saying that he knows almost no one in
> the Mexican community of South Tucson who believes in "education and
> hard work" as the way to material prosperity and is thus willing to
> "buy into America." Profound cultural differences clearly separate
> Mexicans and Americans, and the high level of immigration from Mexico
> sustains and reinforces the prevalence of Mexican values among Mexican
> Americans.
>
> Continuation of this large immigration (without improved assimilation)
> could divide the United States into a country of two languages and two
> cultures. A few stable, prosperous democracies-such as Canada and
> Belgium-fit this pattern. The differences in culture within these
> countries, however, do not approximate those between the United States
> and Mexico, and even in these countries language differences persist.
> Not many Anglo-Canadians are equally fluent in English and French, and
> the Canadian government has had to impose penalties to get its top
> civil servants to achieve dual fluency. Much the same lack of dual
> competence is true of Walloons and Flemings in Belgium. The
> transformation of the United States into a country like these would
> not necessarily be the end of the world; it would, however, be the end
> of the America we have known for more than three centuries. Americans
> should not let that change happen unless they are convinced that this
> new nation would be a better one.
>
> Such a transformation would not only revolutionize the United States,
> but it would also have serious consequences for Hispanics, who will be
> in the United States but not of it. Sosa ends his book, The Americano
> Dream, with encouragement for aspiring Hispanic entrepreneurs. "The
> Americano dream?" he asks. "It exists, it is realistic, and it is
> there for all of us to share." Sosa is wrong. There is no Americano
> dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant
> society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that
> society only if they dream in English.
>
>
> Samuel P. Huntington is chairman of the Harvard Academy for
> International and Area Studies and cofounder of FOREIGN POLICY.
> Copyright © 2004 by Samuel P. Huntington. From the forthcoming book
> Who Are We by Samuel P. Huntington to be published by Simon &
> Schuster, Inc. N.Y. Printed by permission.
>
>
> From Diversity to Dominance
> Foreign-Born Population Living in the United States
>
>
> 1960
>
> In 1960, the foreign-born population in the United States (from the
> five principal countries of origin) was relatively diverse: 2000
>
> In 2000, the foreign-born population from the top five countries was
> distributed very differently:
>
> Source: Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon's "Historical Census
> Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States
> 1850-1990" (Population Division Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Census
> Bureau, February 1999); and "Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in
> the United States: 2000" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, Current
> Population Reports, Series p23-206, 2001).
>
>
> Education
>
> The education of people of Mexican origin in the United States lags
> well behind the U.S. norm. In 2000, 86.6 percent of native-born
> Americans had graduated from high school. The rates for the
> foreign-born population in the United States varied from 94.9 percent
> for Africans, 83.8 percent for Asians, 49.6 percent for Latin
> Americans overall, and down to 33.8 percent for Mexicans, who ranked
> lowest.
>
> Education of Mexican Americans by Generation (1989-90) First Second
> Third Fourth All Americans *
> No high school degree (%) 69.9 51.5 33.0 41.0 23.5
> High school degree (%) 24.7 39.2 58.5 49.4 30.4
> Post high school degree (%) 5.4 9.3 8.5 9.6 45.1
> * Except Mexican Americans, 1990
> Source: Rodolfo O. De la Garza, Angelo Falcón, P. Chris García's
> "Mexican Immigrants, Mexican Americans, and American Political
> Culture," in Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passell's (eds.)
> Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America's Newest
> Arrivals (Washington: Urban Institute Press, 1994); and "Census of
> Population: Persons of Hispanic Origin in the United States,"
> Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990)
>
>
> Economic Status
>
> Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans lag behind the rest of the
> nation and other immigrant groups on a variety of economic indicators,
> including managerial and prefessional occupations, home ownership, and
> household income.
>
> Managerial/Professional Positions as a Percentage of Employed Members
> of Immigrant Groups (2000)
>
> Source: A. Dianne Schmidley, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
> Reports, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:
> 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2001
> Home Ownership and Income of Mexican Americans, by Generation
> (1989-90) First Second Third Fourth All Americans
> Homeowner (%) 30.6 58.6 44.1 40.3 64.1*
> Household Income of $50,000 or more (%) 7.1 10.5 11.2 10.7 24.8**
> *1990, Includes Mexican Americans. **1990, Excludes Mexican Americans.
> Source: De la Garza et al., 1994; "Current Population Survey, March
> 1990" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990); and "Census of
> Population: Persons of Hispanic Origin in the United States," 1990
>
> Intermarriage
>
> In 1977, 31 percent of all U.S. marriages involving Hispanic crossed
> ethnic lines, compared to only 25.5 percent in 1994 and 28.3 percent
> in 2000. As the absolute number of Mexican immigrants increases and
> their high birthrate produces more children, the opportunities for
> them to marry each other will increase.
>
> Percentage of Asian and Hipanic Women Married Outside of their Ethnic
> Group (1994)
> Asian Hispanic
> First Generation (%) 18.6 8.4
> Second Generation (%) 29.2 26.4
> Third Generation (%) 41.5 33.2
> Source: Gregory Rodriguez, "From Newcomers to New Americans: The
> successful Integration of Immigrants into American Society"
> (Washington: National Immigration Forum, 1999), citing "Current
> Population Survey, June 1994" (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1994)
>
> The special social and cultural problems posed by Mexican immigration
> to the United States have received little public attention or
> meaningful discussion. But many academic sociologists and other
> scholars have warned of them for years.
>
> In 1983, the distinguished sociologist Morris Janowitz pointed to the
> "strong resistance to acculturation among Spanish-speaking residents"
> in the United States, and argued that "Mexicans are unique as an
> immigrant group in the persistent strength of their communal bonds."
> As a result, "Mexicans, together with other Spanish-speaking
> populations, are creating a bifurcation in the social-political
> structure of the United States that approximates nationality
> divisions...."
>
> Other scholars have reiterated these warnings, emphasizing how the
> size, persistence, and regional concentration of Mexican immigration
> obstruct assimilation. In 1997, sociologists Richard Alba and Victor
> Nee pointed out that the four-decade interruption of large-scale
> immigration after 1924 "virtually guaranteed that ethnic communities
> and cultures would be steadily weakened over time." In contrast,
> continuation of the current high levels of Latin American immigration
> "will create a fundamentally different ethnic context from that faced
> by the descendants of European immigrants, for the new ethnic
> communities are highly likely to remain large, culturally vibrant, and
> institutionally rich." Under current conditions, sociologist Douglas
> Massey agrees, "the character of ethnicity will be determined
> relatively more by immigrants and relatively less by later
> generations, shifting the balance of ethnic identity toward the
> language, culture, and ways of life of the sending society."
>
> "A constant influx of new arrivals," demographers Barry Edmonston and
> Jeffrey Passel contend, "especially in predominantly immigrant
> neighborhoods, keeps the language alive among immigrants and their
> children." Finally, American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Falcoff
> also observes that because "the Spanish-speaking population is being
> continually replenished by newcomers faster than that population is
> being assimilated," the widespread use of Spanish in the United States
> "is a reality that cannot be changed, even over the longer term."
>
> -S.P.H.
>
> In the 1993 film Falling Down, Michael Douglas plays a white former
> defense company employee reacting to the humiliations that he sees
> imposed on him by a multicultural society. "From the get-go," wrote
> David Gates in Newsweek, "the film pits Douglas-the picture of
> obsolescent rectitude with his white shirt, tie, specs, and astronaut
> haircut-against a rainbow coalition of Angelenos. It's a cartoon
> vision of the beleaguered white male in multicultural America."
> A plausible reaction to the demographic changes underway in the United
> States could be the rise of an anti-Hispanic, anti-black, and
> anti-immigrant movement composed largely of white, working- and
> middle-class males, protesting their job losses to immigrants and
> foreign countries, the perversion of their culture, and the
> displacement of their language. Such a movement can be labeled "white
> nativism."
>
> "Cultured, intelligent, and often possessing impressive degrees from
> some of America's premier colleges and universities, this new breed of
> white racial advocate is a far cry from the populist politicians and
> hooded Klansmen of the Old South," writes Carol Swain in her 2002
> book, The New White Nationalism in America. These new white
> nationalists do not advocate white racial supremacy but believe in
> racial self-preservation and affirm that culture is a product of race.
> They contend that the shifting U.S. demographics foretell the
> replacement of white culture by black or brown cultures that are
> intellectually and morally inferior.
>
> Changes in the U.S. racial balance underlie these concerns.
> Non-Hispanic whites dropped from 75.6 percent of the population in
> 1990 to 69.1 percent in 2000. In California-as in Hawaii, New Mexico,
> and the District of Columbia-non-Hispanic whites are now a minority.
> Demographers predict that, by 2040, non-Hispanic whites could be a
> minority of all Americans. Moreover, for several decades, interest
> groups and government elites have promoted racial preferences and
> affirmative action, which favor blacks and nonwhite immigrants.
> Meanwhile, pro-globalization policies have shifted jobs outside the
> United States, aggravated income inequality, and promoted declining
> real wages for working-class Americans.
>
> Actual and perceived losses in power and status by any social, ethnic,
> racial, or economic group almost always produce efforts to reverse
> those losses. In 1961, the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina was 43
> percent Serb and 26 percent Muslim. In 1991, it was 31 percent Serb
> and 44 percent Muslim. The Serbs reacted with ethnic cleansing. In
> 1990, the population of California was 57 percent non-Hispanic white
> and 26 percent Hispanic. By 2040, it is predicted to be 31 percent
> non-Hispanic white and 48 percent Hispanic.
>
> The chance that California whites will react like Bosnian Serbs is
> about zero. The chance that they will not react at all is also about
> zero. Indeed, they already have reacted by approving initiatives
> against benefits for illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and
> bilingual education, as well as by the movement of whites out of the
> state. As more Hispanics become citizens and politically active, white
> groups are likely to look for other ways of protecting themselves.
>
> Industrialization in the late 19th century produced losses for U.S.
> farmers and led to agrarian protest groups, including the Populist
> movement, the Grange, the Nonpartisan League, and the American Farm
> Bureau Federation. Today, white nativists could well ask: If blacks
> and Hispanics organize and lobby for special privileges, why not
> whites? If the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
> People and the National Council of La Raza are legitimate
> organizations, why not a national organization promoting white
> interests?
>
> White nationalism is "the next logical stage for identity politics in
> America," argues Swain, making the United States "increasingly at risk
> of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation's history."
> The most powerful stimulus to such white nativism will be the cultural
> and linguistic threats whites see from the expanding power of
> Hispanics in U.S. society.
>
> -S.P.H.
>
>
> --
> "The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made
> enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also
> have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails
> and their lawn, for example."
>
> "So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding
> a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of
> America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a
> time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those
> young people are cut out of this process." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1787765

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SECURING THE KIKE REALM
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8dd1ed5cdcb29a1b
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:43 pm
From: "Boedicia@isp.com"

DoD wrote:
> <Boedicia@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:1143869292.870240.104240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > DoD wrote:
> >> "Calife" <user@user.net> wrote in message
> >> news:442c03d5$0$18327$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
> >> > BernardZ wrote:
> >> > > In article <MsRWf.15204$g6.11008@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> >> > > serwad@bellsouth.net says...
> >> > >> Look at Palestine. Horror/chaos destabilizes people and it
> >> > >> takes generations to restabilize and build back a civilization.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Actually this is a true statement. When Israel ruled the region it
> >> > > was
> >> > > claim and one of the fastest growing economy in the world.
> >> > >
> >> > > Now look at what replaced it.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/lynch2a.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > As a Muslim don't you feel ashamed Alex at what has been created.
> >> >
> >> > You're right of course!
> >> > US built cluster bombs and assorted hi-tech weaponry used by Israel are
> >> > far more efficient and way more discrete in extermination than the
> >> > knives and other "weapons" allowed the Palestinians.
> >> > Israeli quality killings performed far from the "free press", and
> >> > thereby affording BernardZ the comfort of guiltless eye aversion, are a
> >> > fine example of Israeli talents at turning the victim into perpetrator,
> >> > and vice-versa!
> >> > Bravo!
> >>
> >> You must of left the USA because we got over our Jew hatred
> >
> > When was that?
>
> In the 40's and 50's

Now why on earth would Americans hate the jew in the 40's and 50's and
not the 80's and 90's:)

you dumb fuckin wannabe American...

Says the wannabe jew. Take my advice, get the snip, convert, change
your name to
"Judas" and open a liquor store in a black neighbourhood. Then
you'll be a *real*
one instead of a wannabe yuo dumb doodoo.

. When the fuck are
> you gonna head back to Europe and quit fucking our soil up? Don't stop in
> Britain... Ariadne is a true British woman....

She's not British, she is a jewess, who concerns herself more with
what goes on
in Israel than Britain. She's also bonkers.

you would do better to go to
> France or Germany,

Why single out those 2 countries? are you anti French and anti German
as well as
hating Arabs and the British you daft little wannabe.

stewpid fucking racist bitch...

Ha, another "clever" jew or at least a moronic wannabe "clever" jew:)

Keep taking your pills before the men in white throw a net over you.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:51 pm
From: "Boedicia@isp.com"

Israel Blumstein wrote:
> Steffi Green <green1583@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Miriam Cohen wrote:
> > > On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 05:37:21 GMT, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <Boedicia@isp.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1143869292.870240.104240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > DoD wrote:
> > > > > > "Calife" <user@user.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:442c03d5$0$18327$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
> > > > > > > BernardZ wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <MsRWf.15204$g6.11008@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > > > > > > > serwad@bellsouth.net says...
> > > > > > > > > Look at Palestine. Horror/chaos destabilizes people and it
> > > > > > > > > takes generations to restabilize and build back a
> > > > > > > > > civilization.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually this is a true statement. When Israel ruled the
> > > > > > > > region it was
> > > > > > > > claim and one of the fastest growing economy in the world.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now look at what replaced it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/lynch2a.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a Muslim don't you feel ashamed Alex at what has been
> > > > > > > > created.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're right of course!
> > > > > > > US built cluster bombs and assorted hi-tech weaponry used by
> > > > > > > Israel are far more efficient and way more discrete in
> > > > > > > extermination than the knives and other "weapons" allowed the
> > > > > > > Palestinians.
> > > > > > > Israeli quality killings performed far from the "free press",
> > > > > > > and thereby affording BernardZ the comfort of guiltless eye
> > > > > > > aversion, are a fine example of Israeli talents at turning
> > > > > > > the victim into perpetrator, and vice-versa!
> > > > > > > Bravo!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You must of left the USA because we got over our Jew hatred
> > > > >
> > > > > When was that?
> > > >
> > > > In the 40's and 50's you dumb fuckin wannabe American.... When the
> > > > fuck are you gonna head back to Europe and quit fucking our soil
> > > > up? Don't stop in Britain... Ariadne is a true British woman....
> > > > you would do better to go to France or Germany, stewpid fucking
> > > > racist bitch....
> > >
> > > Excuuuuuuuuuuse me. Araidne is not a true British woman. She is a
> > > true semite, i.e. a jew!
> >
> > One can be a Jew and British and value being both.
>
> Not really, twatty. Jews have failed to assimilate in Britain. Not
> only do they look different from the natives, but they have this
> age-old problem of divided loyalties.

A couple of them moved to London from Canada. They managed to get
jobs in Britains
nuclear energy programme. They were caught sending information to
Russia
during the Cold War. They received long prison sentences. They
should have been
hanged. When they finally got out they were deported to Russia, not
Canada,
since they stated "We are devoted Communists".

Show me a commie and I'll show you a jew and vice versa.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where is Elizabeth Taylor?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c6dd30793b95678
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 10:45 pm
From: "Abel Frazier"

She is a retiree. She had brain tumor removed some years ago. She is having
a relaxed time to live to the full giving her time to charity work.

"Old Timer" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20060405171400.25204.qmail@web31910.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
> Where is she now?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.

To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com

¶ 10:55 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

About Me