What Was the Meaning of the Iowa Caucus Results?

Iowa citizens made their choice clear last night, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won going away giving the Democrats a unique double victory. The Republican Party is still in shock after a Democrat won their first contest of the 2008 presidential year.

I'm joking, of course, but only a little. Huckabee is a Republican, but he won by appealing to the Democratic side of the Iowa Republican voter.

He was the Republican who distanced himself farthest from George W. Bush, attacked by Mitt Romney for saying that Bush's "arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." Iowans agreed with Huckabee and the Democrats.

Iowans chose Huckabee's pro-environmental policies rejecting the burn and pillage approach favored by the rest of the field. They knew they wanted Huckabee when he said, "we have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly.''

While the Republican candidates tried to stir up hate and prejudice against illegal immigrants, Huckabee stood his ground saying, "that some anti-immigration Republicans are guilty of demagoguery and racism."

CNBC this morning called Huckabee's economic positions farther left than many in the Democratic Party. Fred Thompson called Huckabee a "pro-life liberal," because of his populist economic positions and his record raising some taxes as governor of Arkansas. Iowans rejected Thompson.

Huckabee was not ashamed to share his Christian/Democratic values. He appealed to Iowan's sense of fairness and humanity and tries to change the Republican Party's image of greed and selfishness . He made health care a priority while critising the economic disparities that have arisen under Bush, leaving his Republican bedmates foaming at the mouth.

Iowans rejected Romney's call for reaffirming Bush's tax cuts, they rejected McCain's Iraq policy, they rejected the hate of Tancredo ,and they ignored Guiliani's attempt to wallow in 9/11 self pity. Iowan Republican rejected their own party.

Huckabee's win has been explained by his religious evangelicalism, but that is too simple an explanation. Look farther and you'll see that the Republicans, in the reddest of red states, have dramatically shifted toward the Democratic Party.

Oil's at $100, Where is George Bush?

Oil's at $100 a barrel today, and what is George W. Bush doing about it? Nothing of course. I predicted in September that by January oil would be at $100 a barrel. Why was I so prescient? It really wasn't that hard. I knew that $100 oil was one of Bush's priorities before he left office.

You see, George Bush doesn't care about the effects that high oil prices are having on the average man, he doesn't care that high oil prices are enriching terrorist-supporting regimes around the world while bankrupting the United States, he was elected to serve and protect the oil industry he's part of, country come second.

Can you imagine if another president was in office? Oil hitting $100 a barrel would trigger a whole series of national security meetings. Plans would be developed to make the country energy independent, to conserve energy, to siphon the power that OPEC holds over supply and price. Instead, the issue is ignored and we get smirks by the accidental president.

I knew when T. Boone Pickens, the oil billionaire who was part of the Swift boating of John Kerry, said that oil would hit $100 a barrel, that it would. This presidency has been all about pleasing the oil industry. From Cheney's secret energy meetings to Bush's hand-holding Saudi relationship, this country has been trashed to line the pockets of Exxon and Chevron and the Arab Sheikdoms the Bush family is so close to.

On a side note, I can't help contrasting the difference between economics and political science on days like this. Watching the various business channels bubble and gush in giddy excitement as oil hovers at the magical $100 level, shows how superficial economics is when it comes to running the world.

A political scientist is talking about geopolitical repercussions, economic justice issues, environmental ramifications and so on. The business people are just wondering how they can make money on the trade. This shows how economics is just a simple subfield of political science, the most important field one can study.

Where is Bush today? No doubt toasting his brethren in the oil industry as they congratulate him on his greatest accomplishment of all; $100 oil.

Are We Going to War with Pakistan?

Benazir Bhutto's assassination last week had the distinct feel of Ahmad Massoud's assassination in 2001. You'll remember how Massoud, the guerilla leader in Afghanistan who opposed the Taliban, was killed two days before 9/11. Within months we went to war in Afghanistan where we remain today.

George W. Bush has been itching to go to war with Iran until U.S. intelligence estimates exposed his arguments as being without merit. The fact that this matters indicates that he has lost the military's support for such an unprovoked war. With only a year left to leave his mark on history, where should he look next?

The recent assassination in Pakistan appears to give Bush the opportunity he's been looking for. The Bush administration has made it clear that they would not allow a terrorist state to get nuclear weapons. If Pakistan's president and longtime U.S. ally, Pervez Musharraf, were to be ousted and a new general comes to power, this would provide Bush the needed pretext for war.

There has been plenty of chatter in the media recently claiming that the Pakistani government and military has become infiltrated with al Qaeda supporters and religious extremists. The idea of loose nukes is getting widespread currency. The conversation begins, all that is missing is a coup or terrorist attack to seal the deal.

Now that the holidays are over, expect something big to occur over the next few weeks. The United States can't really have a war without a dramatic opening act.

Is Bill Clinton More Comfortable with Bush or Carter?

In 1976, Iowans selected Jimmy Carter to be the Democratic nominee for president. Carter remains extremely popular among Democrats. Carter is an outspoken advocate for peace and human rights, his attempts a solution in the Middle East won him the Nobel Prize, and he is a tireless worker for justice and Democratic values.

Yet, the Clintons seem to snub Carter at every opportunity while saddling up to the Bush dynasty. The Boston Globe declares that Bill Clinton has become a member of the Bush clan. For a Democrat, this must be extremely disturbing. Having the standard bearer of the party carry the torch for one of the least popular Republican presidents in history is curious.

The fact that George W. Bush has never been conciliatory to Democrats makes you wonder what's in it for the Clintons. Are they trying to advance their political interests at the expense of their party? Does Bill Clinton prefer George Bush over Jimmy Carter?

Why Do Top Democrats Join the Media?

Watching George Stephanopoulos go after Hillary Clinton this morning, was a little off-putting. Afterall, it wasn't that long ago that the two were working hand in hand together to get Bill Clinton elected. Did Stephanopoulos' politics change? Doubtful. What it does show is how a key political operative was bought off and made ineffective by the media.

Stephanopoulos is not alone. Chris Mathews and Tim Russert were once hardcore Democratic strartegists. Now, they are more famous for lobbing softballs to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld while going for the jugular against the Howard Dean's and John Kerry's of the world.

One can only imagine what a difference these three would make if they were working for Democrats instead of posing as moderate mainstream reporters without agendas. Afterall, no matter how much Stephanopoulos, Russert and Mathews bend over backwards to give the other side a fair hearing, they will forever be remembered as Democrats and thus taint the media as being liberal.

It's hard to imagine three more talented people who have been suctioned out of real politics and into the "objective" business of journalism. Can you imagine Karl Rove attacking a Republican or giving a fair hearing to Democrats? Of course not. These three were feared by the other side, now they are lap dogs, big and blustery for sure, but completely neutered.

Why Was Ahmad Massoud Assassinated?

We go back to September 9th, 2001. Ahmed Massoud, the military leader of the Taliban-fighting Northern Alliance, was killed by a camera bomb. Other Northern Alliance leaders were hurt or killed in the attack, seemingly designed to cripple the guerrilla movement.

The two assassins were Arabs and it is suspected that Abdul Sayyaf was involved. Some speculate that Pakistan was behind it, but conventional wisdom is that the assassination was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden to strengthen his position with the Taliban two days prior to 9/11.

Who did benefit? Not Pakistan certainly. They were the sponsors of the Taliban and had to absorb the Taliban back into their country. It doesn't make sense that bin Laden was behind it; the action would appear to be a distraction with no real pay-off for him. In the end, it did not advance al Qaeda's interest at all; they lost their safe haven and bin Laden had to flee the country.

The people who benefitted from 9/11 would seem to be the ones who wanted the Taliban
overthrown. That would be the Northern Alliance, which Massoud led, a paradox for sure, and/or those who wanted an American invasion of Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance was not succeeding. They were running out of time and money, and the Bush administration appeared to be siding with the Taliban. They needed an event to turn things around. Massoud was a Tajik and a moderate who was against religious fanaticism. This contrasts with many around him who had histories with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood
and who were ethnic Pashtun's.

Abdul Sayyaf fits this profile, but he certainly couldn't seriously believe that killing a remote guerilla fighter halfway around the world would merit American involvement. Which leads one to think that he would have known September 11th was coming also.

Sayyaf would have known that America would answer such a terrorist attack and overthrow the Taliban for him. He would have strengthened his position by eliminating Massoud, his prime opposition. Sayyaf was also intimately connected to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Whatever the answer, the one-two punch of Massoud's killing and 9/11 is something that needs to be explored further.

What Do We Know About Abdul Rasul Sayyaf?

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States and Saudi Arabia mounted a huge effort to expel the communist forces. They funneled billions of dollars into the hands of Afghan guerrillas known as the Mujahadeen. These were Islamic revolutionaries and the consequence of this reverberates to this day.

Abdul Rasul Sayyaf is one of Afghanistan's most powerful warlords and religious leaders. He was educated in Egypt where he became a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was financed heavily by Wahabi Saudi's during the war and worked closely with Osama bin Laden. He established a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Afghanistan and an education camp called Dawa'a al-Jihad, which Ramzi Yousef, the Kuwaiti behind the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing, attended.

This relationship with Yousef goes over to the Philippines where the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group is named after him. Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh's partner in the Oklahoma City bombing, is suspected of learning bomb-making from this group on his many visits to the Philippines.

After the Soviets withdrew, Sayyaf battled other warlords for control of Kabul, destroying the city and killing tens of thousands of civilians. Sayyaf's militia committed numerous atrocities and the fighting allowed the Taliban to rise to power.

Sayyaf is believed to have helped set-up the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud in 2001. Massoud was the military leader of the Northern Alliance killed two days before 9/11.

According to the 9/11 Commission, Sayyaf was a mentor to Khalid Sheik Mohamed, the Kuwaiti who was the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Where is Sayyaf today? No, not at Guantanamo Bay or in American custody. He is a powerful member of the Afghanistan legislature, his men are in powerful positions of government, and he has tremendous influence with President Karzai.

As Afghanistan reverts to Sayyaf's religious fanaticism, some want to hold him accountable for past war crimes. Instead, Sayyaf holds demonstrations calling for amnesty for himself and other Mujahadeen leaders. Is there anything else we should know about Abdul Rasul Sayyaf?