Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has told Israeli newspaper reporters that sanctions against Iran were not working and that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear development sites was becoming “unavoidable.”

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

One question…does this mean that the US and the Bush Administration can stop banging their own war drums about Iran? Not likely…and here’s why.

Iran has already said that any attack on Iran will result in retaliations against Israel AND any US targets available.

Iran still claims to be developing nuclear capabilities for non-military, civilian use only. But the rhetoric from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the right of Israel to exist has only sought to increase skepticism about Iranian nuclear ambitions.

But why is this a US problem anyhow? We now have confirmation that Israel has their own ready nuclear strike force. Why can’t we let them take care of this themselves like the did with the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980’s and like the claim to have done when bombing a Syrian facility not long ago? Are Iranian nukes really a US problem- a problem that requires another costly war and further raping of the US treasury by unsavory “contractors?”

Unfortunately, US foreign policy is so entangled in the Middle East, and so heavily in favor of Israel, that any Israeli strike would likely suck US forces into the abyss, especially if it occurs while Bush is still steering the ship of state. Experts believe that Iranian nuclear facilities are more numerous and better defensible than Iraq had in the 80’s or than Syria was building. As such, unless Israel unleashed the power of her own nuclear arsenal, a protracted ground and air war could likely ensue, requiring assistance to Israel.

One has to wonder whether this entire Iranian nuclear problem is largely the making of the Bush Administration. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, Bush included Iran in his official “Axis of Evil” club, putting the Iranians on notice that they were in the sights of the warmonger in chief. Add a couple hundred thousand US troops at their doorstep in Iraq, an increasing presence in the Straight of Hormuz, and it’s no wonder that Iranian government officials would worry about their own country’s security.

Still, it’s hard to have empathy for the Iranian government. After all, they have been clear sponsors of terrorism for decades and have been a vocal foe of the US since the deposition of the CIA-installed Shah in the late 1970’s. (Actually, Iranian resentment of US interference in their government runs deep and back to the 1950’s when the CIA backed a coup to reinstall the Shah to power. His harsh rule created theenvironment for revolution that swept the Islamicists into power. And our government’s backing of the Shah turned their enmity towards the U.S.)

If Israel does attack Iranian nuclear facilities they could respond in kind. If that occurs, we’ll be pulled in. Which in turn could inflate other Arab nations to join Iran against the US and Israel. This is how regional conflicts grow and suck in other nations. This is how world wars begin.

Bush knows his stance on Iran is unpopular in the states. He doesn’t much care. Perhaps this is his way of getting to attack Iran anyhow- by getting Israel to start thingsoff. Or maybe he’s still trying to help bring on his fundamentalist base’s idea of Glory on Earth- the beginning of the end.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Today’s media has conditioned us to view “official” denials of events as proof that the story is true. Whether it is the latest celebrity gossip (so and so are breaking up- no they aren’t- oops, yes they did) or news from the government (The U.S. does not torture- wait, yes we do), whenever an “official spokesperson” comes out to deny reports in the press, it’s almost a sure thing that the reports are in fact more close to the truth than the denials. If we learned anything from the Bush White House and it’s spokespeople, it’s that this is an administration estranged from the truth in just about every instance.

Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary contractors.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The Washington Times already has a piece up:

Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she’s open to the possibility of being Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate, a Democratic party aide said. Clinton, who appears on the verge of losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama, made the comment in a conference call with fellow members of New York’s congressional delegation, the aide said. The party aide quoted Clinton as saying, when asked about being Obama’s running mate: “I am open to it.”

So after months of degrading Obama’s qualifications to be president, Hillary is all set to play second fiddle? I don’t think so friends.

Those who feel that the party needs to “heal” after a bitter primary process may have a point. But having an Obama/Clinton ticket isn’t the way to do it. Frankly, I think the party is going to “heal” just fine. Hillary supporters abandoning the Democratic party and voting for McCain will probably be as numerous as the number of Hollywood stars who really did move to Canada afte Bush was reseated in 2004. The stakes of a third Bush term, including more potential Supreme Court appointments and an ongoing war mentality that would occur under McCain are enough to bring even the most rumpled Hillarycrats back to reality.

Obama will rally the party back together while courting independents and moderate conservatives who have tired of the Bush Presidential Plan. But they won’t join him with Hillary on the ticket, that much is sure. And frankly, Obama doesn’t need Hillary in the number 2 spot to win. In fact, having her as his vice-president would only serve to devalue his own presidency. The Clinton political machine would no doubt work to subtly undermine Obama in order to boost Hillary’s own chances for another run. Oh, and another thing, HIllary’s RFK reference makes her an uncomfortable person to be in line behind Barack. Not that she’d do anything like that, but still…

But truth be told, when it comes to their take on government, Obama and Hillary are worlds apart. Hillary is still stuck in that “What Can I Make Government Do For You” mentality while Obama has moved forward to “What Can We Do With Our Government.” These points of view may well be diametrically opposed to each other, and the last thing we need is discord in the top slots.

No, I don’t think Obama should tap Hillary for the VP position. Maybe there’s a place for her somewhere in his administration. Or better yet, she can remain in the Senate, doing her best for the poeple of New York and America by helping to pass a truly progressive agenda brought forth by the Obama Administration.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

A newly released Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that presidents should talk to the leaders of “enemy” countries in an effort to solve problems. The poll shows citizens of all parties favor this sort of diplomacy over the staunch view held by John McCain who says that sitting down for meetings with enemy foreign leaders is “reckless.”

Even Republicans, who for at least the last 8 years have operated under a “shoot first, negotiate never” policy, are starting to come around to the old adage we’re taught on the schoolyard- try to solve your problems first with words and not fists.

And it’s not as if a president who talks with America’s stated foes is a new concept here. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Nixon and Mao. Reagan and Gorbachev. Hell, two of those guys were Republicans! Yet once the GOP got a frat boy into the Oval Office, we don’t talk to enemies? Better to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran than to have a sit down? Again, most Americans don’t think so…

If anything, this poll indicates that Americans are tiring of the “cowboy diplomacy” employed by the Bush Administration and being co-opted by the McCain campaign as the best way to move America forward in the world. Even Hillary Clinton has towed the Bush-McCain doctrine in this arena. Americans are ready to move on to a more cooperative, more adult-oriented, more reality based foreign policy, and clearly McCain isn’t on the same page.

But Barack Obama has already said that talking to our enemies is the best first step towards solving our problems. And Americans agree with him.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Speaking at a book signing in April 2008, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich told an audience that the Bush Administration has done too good a job at protecting America from terrorist attacks and should probably have let a few succeed to remind us all of the great dangers we still face.

“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich said. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” (Raw Story has the full video clip here.)

To begin with, I’ve yet to see or hear convincing evidence that the Bush Administration actually deserves credit for the lack of attacks by terrorists on US soil since 9-11-01. Where Gingrich credits the administrations illegal domestic wiretap programs for halting domestic terror attacks, I think the closer truth is that a combination of US action in Afghanistan, a shift of targeting by the terrorists towards Europe and the Middle East, and the historical patience of the terror gangs is why America hasn’t had another attack.

Conservatives publically lamenting the lack of terror attacks on America isn’t new with GIngrich. We’ve heard this before- in 2004 and 2006 and even more recently during this election cycle. In an effort to bolster support for Bush’s most unsavory anti-terror tactics, GOPers have verbalized their wish that some terror attacks would occur.

In 2005:

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President’s fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

And again in 2007:

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Dennis Milligan, head of the Arkansas GOP said on June 3, 2007.

These people are undeniably crazy for power, it seems, if they truly wish for the death and destruction of their countrymen and women just to “validate” George W. Bush and his policies.

Remember this when you go to the polls-only one party actually wishes for terror attacks on America to justify their abuses of power at home and abroad.  The party that brought you the Iraq Debacle. The party that brought you Katrina. The party that brought you torture and spying on Americans. The party of massive deficits, distrust of science, and no capacity for true compassion, caring or common sense. That party is the GOP.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

When it comes to being a world leader in the sciences, America is losing ground.

Speaking at a science summit that opens this week’s first World Science Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for science. They cited U.S. officials and others questioning scientific evidence of climate change, the reluctance to federally fund stem cell research, and some U.S. officials casting doubt on evolution as examples that have damaged America’s international standing.

In an era where scientific knowledge is vital to halting many problems facing the planet and future generations, America’s torrid love affair with right-wing politics couldn’t be ending too soon. For the last 7+ years, our government has been headed by an uninquisitive dunderhead who has mocked science in favor of personal ideological dogma and “gut feelings.”

And while science alone can’t solve all our troubles, a concerted lack of science is a prescription for decline. Starting with No Child Left Behind, the policies of the Bush administration has been to relegate science and scientific learning to the sidelines. By forcing the focus on math and reading skills over all other curriculae, schools have been federally mandated to achieve high test scores in those subjects or risk losing federal funding. But the result hasn’t been more knowledgable students with better math and reading skills. Instead, we still have “failing” schools in those subjects AND a lack of a rounded education that could interest today’s youth towards science.

But the “example” of leadership doesn’t end there. The ban on stem cell research, the insistance on continued fossil fuel energy over other possible avenues of exploration, the great “Intelligent Design” debate and the rush to insist that lawmakers know better than doctors what “brain dead” really implies all reveal a disheartening attitude towards politicized scientific inquiry and non-advancement. And the rest of the world is laughing behind our backs. Well, a lot of them anyhow.

But our loss is their gain, and they are sprinting ahead as we choke on their dust.

Our recent trip to Mars notwithstanding, American scientific advancement has seemed to focus itself on leisure activities for Americans instead of on things that could make our world a better place. Computer graphics and applications designed to make things more realistic only serve to disguise the fact that the real world is getting uglier all the time. One would think that the brain power used to develop “TV on Your Cel Phone” might have been better employed trying to create cleaner forms of energy.

And where our scientific knowledge and advances could actually help make the world a better place, like the use of genetically modified food crops in areas where food production is difficult, our politics (now and over the past) have made would be recipients wary of our motives and leery of offers of help. As with so many things, the use of science to further political ambitions has backfired, creating more doubt and mistrust than is really necessary.

Thanks to Bush and his cohorts in the religious right, science in America is in decline. We’re blinded to the science, and unless we open our eyes again, our status as a world leader in scientific innovation, and indeed in many areas, will continue to slip.

 (cross posted at Bring It On!)

The California Supreme Courts groundbreaking decision in favor of same-sex marriages is already bearing unexpected fruit. Due to a New York court ruling that said same-sex marriages legally performed outside of New York would be recognized as having equal legal status to heterosexual marriages, California may well become the Mecca for Gay Marriage.

Previously, only Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriages, but the state’s residency requirements have made it arduous for same-sex couples to obtain legal marriages in that state if they don’t live there. Now, with California handing out its first same-sex marriage licenses starting June 17th, and with New York formally recognizing out-of state same-sex marriages, California’s sunny beaches may become a popular wedding-honeymoon destination for America’s besotted same-sex couples.

Now we have the nations two most populous states saying that under the law and in the eyes of Justice, same-sex marriages are equal to opposite-sex marriages. Could it be that the “Defense of Marriage” no longer looms high on the minds of even the most right of center voters? Could it be that mainstream America has finally tired of the tirades against their friends and sons and moms and brothers? Could it be that one two many GOP mis-stances finally exposed the hypocrisy behind the rhetoric? Perhaps it is all those things…

For opponents of equality among their fellow citizens the news is not good. Having lost in the California courts, they’re trotting out their tired old constitutional amendment proposition-which voters had favored in principal in the past-for a November ballot measure. But a new poll shows voters leaning in favor of the court ruling and accepting (if not embracing) the move towards true human equality.

It almost restores hope that humanity can progress. 

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Regular readers may have been wondering what’s been going on with Common Sense. My last post was a month ago, and that’s a long stretch, even for me.

As you can see, Common Sense has undergone a facelift. After 3 1/2 years, I felt it was time for a change. I hope you like it. Of course, being a writer and not a web designer I couldn’t have done this alone. Many thanks go out to my designer, Anna. Not only does she do great work, she’s very professional in every way. If you are thinking of a redesign for your own site, click on the “Design” link at the bottom of the side bar and contact her. You won’t regret it.

Other minor changes have been made here to make the site more user friendly and to put forth a cleaner look. You can find my blogroll on its own page. (see above in the header bar.) Likewise, links to important activist sites now appear on the “Act Now” page. (also in header bar above.) And my pet project, “Make Me A Millionaire Today” has it’s own page too. Additionally, all previous posts can still be accessed through the search feature or by perusing the archives. Comments are still accepted, read, and occasionally replied to.

Finally, the blog itself is now powered by WordPress instead of Blogger. I’ve been using WordPress over at Bring It On! for some time now and really enjoy its complex simplicity. It’s user-friendly in a way that Blogger never really was.

So that’s the skinny on why I’ve been away for so long. Now that Common Sense is back up and running, I’ll be posting again with more regularity. And as always, you can continue to read fine Ken Grandlund articles at Bring It On!

Thanks for your continued readership and participation on Common Sense.

Now, back to business.

Now that you’ve finished your taxes for the year, I thought a little refresher on where those tax dollars are being spent would be in order. So without further adieu, here is where your federal tax dollars are spent:

MOST TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON MILITARY

Out of every tax dollar collected by the US government,

42.2¢ goes to the military to pay for wars, weapons, and every now and then a few bucks for a wounded soldier.

22.1¢ goes to health care initiatives like Medicare and Medicaid and a few pennies for those pesky kids programs.

10.2¢ towards non-military debt-you know, paying off that national debt that comes from bigger government under Republican administrations.

8.7¢ funds anti-poverty programs like welfare, foodstamps, and shelters.

4.4¢ gets thrown at education where it is promptly turned into administrator salaries and profits for the big companies who print standardized testing materials.

3.9¢ underwrites the costs of governmental services-from the courts and justice systems to the lifetime benefits our elected officials receive but would never let the rest of us have.

3.3¢ pays the bills for any projects related to affordable housing and community development-mostly this is used to buy poisonous FEMA trailers from some corporation tied to the current administration.

2.6¢ is spent to promote and explore the wonders of science and space, the future of cleaner, renewable energy, and to protect the environment…no, really, it IS!!!

1.5¢ of every dollar is for agriculture and transportation. Half to farmers to keep them from planting certain crops and half to people who can’t seem to make a road that lasts more than a season or two.

and finally,

1¢ gets sent abroad in the form of foreign aid-but only to countries who promote abstinence, fight terrorists, or lend us lots of money.

I know this only adds up to 99.9¢ out of a dollar…I guess that other tenth of a cent is beign siphoned off the top ala Office Space and is accumulating in a slush fund somewhere for out of work politicians to draw from in case of a caviar emergency or something. (Hey…a tenth of a cent can really add up when you’re talking billions of dollars in tax receipts.)

(BTW- these numbers were culled from a slide show presented at cnbc.com)

Cross posted at Bring It On!