CrossRoads

2006/10/14

Tick Tock...

@ 08:51 PM (21 months, 17 days ago)


Sign Petition Now!

                 

Room Without a View

@ 04:40 AM (21 months, 18 days ago)
Send these war criminals to Guantanamo!

gr

@ 03:45 AM (21 months, 18 days ago)
Inside Politics

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran

White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes.
 (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)


2006/10/10

America PLEASE Wake Up

@ 07:21 PM (21 months, 22 days ago)
Watch! Listen! Act!


                                                                                                         Stolen Elections                                              

Read the rest of this entry ... (97 words left)

2006/10/9

Time is Running Out

@ 09:38 PM (21 months, 22 days ago)
The Threat is real! How Does This Threat To Internet Freedom Affect You?              
An Enlightening List



This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.

Read the rest of this entry ... (333 words left)

2006/10/8

Axis of Evil

@ 08:08 PM (21 months, 23 days ago)
Saturday, 2 February, 2002, 06:30 GMT
Bush's 'evil axis' comment stirs critics
Iranian men shout anti-US slogans in Tehran
Bush's words have met with angry responses
There is mounting international concern about President George W Bush's grouping together of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil".

Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov of Russia, which sees all three as falling within its sphere of influence, questioned whether there was evidence to label the three an "axis of evil".


This is, in fact, little short of declaring a war against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

North Korea Foreign Ministry

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Mr Bush's comments "a big mistake".

"First of all they (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are very different from each other," she said.

Mr Bush made the comment during his State of the Union speech, claiming the three countries were developing weapons of mass destruction.

But there have been angry responses from the countries themselves, while several allies of the US have expressed fears that it is preparing to open a new front in its war against terrorism.


map
1. Iraq: Suspected of wanting to pursue programmes to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
2. Iran: Listed by US as state sponsor of terrorism. Washington says Tehran plans to develop weapons of mass destruction
3. North Korea: The US's main concern has been missiles and other weapons programmes - and the country's willingness to export sensitive technology

See also:
Detailed clickable map


But Mr Bush did get some backing, when Jordan's King Abdullah said he endorsed "tremendously that view and that position".

Nato's Secretary-General Lord Robertson has warned the US it will have to provide evidence to justify any action against Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Nato gave the US its full support following the 11 September attacks, invoking Article Five of its founding treaty for the first time, which says an attack on one member is an attack on all.

But BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says that Lord Robertson's comments at the World Economic Forum in New York reflect Nato unease at expanding the war on terror.

President Bush maintained his tough stance on Friday, saying "all the three countries I mentioned are now on notice that we intend to take their development of weapons of mass destruction very seriously".

But he did hold out the prospect of talks with North Korea, saying the US would be "more than happy to enter into a dialogue" if the country made a clear statement of its peaceful intentions.

Allies worried

Mr Bush's bellicose remarks about North Korea, Iran and Iraq have raised concerns in Europe that the war on terrorism may spread in terms of geography and nature.

George Bush making his first State of the Union address
Bush says Iran, Iraq and North Korea support terrorism

Previously, the targets had been shadowy terrorist groups like al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden and their sponsors.

But according to Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the governments of Iran, Iraq and North Korea have now been "put on notice".

Our correspondent says the American attitude is not necessarily in line with those of its allies. South Korea would prefer talks to continue with the North and Iran has been the subject of recent British diplomatic approaches.

The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has said Britain will continue its dialogue with reformists in Iran, while sending what he called "strong messages" to hard-line elements within the government.

Mr Straw was speaking in Washington after holding talks with his American counterpart, Colin Powell.

The European Union also has a policy of engagement with the authorities in Tehran, which the BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says they have no intention of abandoning.

North Korea has joined Iran and Iraq in condemning Mr Bush's remarks.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman described Mr Bush's State of the Union address as "little short of a declaration of war".

2006/10/7

The Threat is Real

@ 11:20 PM (21 months, 24 days ago)
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
                                                           --Martin Luther King Jr.    


Global Warming

Read the rest of this entry ... (48 words left)

2006/10/6

Not very happy with you, Bill!

@ 11:58 PM (21 months, 25 days ago)
Tuned in to Bill Maher and of course all the commotion was centered on Foley and Bill made a statement regarding the "children" who respond when in chat rooms that I found appalling.

Read the rest of this entry ... (171 words left)

"Net Neutrality"

@ 07:00 PM (21 months, 26 days ago)
Net Neutrality: This is serious...Submitted by timbl on Wed. 2006-06-21 ~ 16:35 ~ Public Policy and the Web

When I invented the web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundred's of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going to end the USA. I blogged on net neutrality before, and so did a lot of other people. (see e.g. Danny Weitzner, SaveTheInternet.com, etc.)
Since then, some telecommunications companies spent a lot of money on public relations and TV ads, and the US House seems to have wavered from the path of preserving net neutrality.

There has been some misinformation spread about. So here are some clarifications.

Net Neutrality is this: If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That's all. It's up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.
Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have. We always will.

There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred. Control of information is hugelypowerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons.

(In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry. Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money.

Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.

Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to it's important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.

I hope that congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continued unabated.
Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee

Read the rest of this entry ... (96 words left)

2006/10/5

My Introduction

@ 07:30 AM (21 months, 27 days ago)
Hi, this is my first entry. I'll start out by telling you a little about myself. I like to write and am in the process of writing a book on Spiritual Healing. I've been working on it for many years. It is close to completion. My journey to finding Spiritual Healing is far from over;  it will no doubt be a life-long process.

Read the rest of this entry ... (184 words left)