Bush is tearing through the Middle East and has finally stumbled upon the magical kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While Bush has been angering most of the western world the past seven years, it's countries like Saudi Arabia that have been kept happy.

Remember how happy Israel was when Bush delivered the $30 Billion worth in weapons, well Saudi Arabia is just as happy with the $20 Billion worth in weapons Bush is going to give them. Seriously, who the fuck gives George W Bush a medal?

The war drum is obviously beating. Bush is touring his Middle Eastern allies with gifts of weapons worth Billions and asking them to mobilize for war, during the same tour has been giving speeches about how evil and dangerous Iran is to the rest of the world. He wants another war, I am curious, are Americans going to support a third Bush war in the middle east? Or will you be cheering for Wexler tonight?

Another statistic to consider is a study West Point conducted recently, the results indicated that 41% of foreign fighters (terrorists, suicide bombers whatever you want to call em, those guys who attack Americans) in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. There are actually more Moroccans fighting Americans in Iraq than Iranians! Sorry, this is all very insane to watch develop, so don't listen to me, here are some links, form an opinion.

Wapo: US Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies - July 28th 07.
NYT: U.S. Plans Sale of 900 Missiles to Saudi Arabia -Jan 15th.
AP: Congress likely to OK Saudi arms deal - Jan 14th.
CNN - Impact of Saudi Arms deal - Jan 14th.
TDS - History of Arms sales - Jul 26th 07.

Below is a recent segment of PBS Newshour discussing the Bush Visit to Saudi Arabia.

In my book The Enemy at Home I quoted Benazir Bhutto saying, "Within the Muslim world, there is a reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture. America is viewed through this prism as an immoral society." This was one of the most astute explanations of why the propaganda of the radical Muslims has been so successful in recruiting traditional Muslims to the anti-American cause.

Bhutto's words were echoed also by the West's leading historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis. Reviewing what he calls "the standard litany of American offenses recited in the lands of Islam," Lewis ends with this one. "Yet the most powerful accusation of all is the degeneracy and debauchery of the American way of life." Many Americans, both on the right and the left, don't want to hear this message. And so we have been subjected to the same tired nonsense about how the radical Muslims are against freedom, oppose the Iraq invasion, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, the radical Muslims are upset about Iraq, but that's because Iraq is a pro-American Muslim democracy. Such a thing has not previously existed in the Middle East. It provides a startling alternative to the two kinds of tyranny that are widespread in the region: Islamic tyranny of the Iran variety, and secular tyranny such as we find with Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Assad in Syria, and in the Gulf Kingdoms.

Who doesn't want democracy to succeed in the Muslim world? Not counting the cultural left in America, there are two groups that are working overtime to subvert the democratic idea. The first is our enemies, namely the radical Muslims. These Bin Laden types would have an obvious incentive to kill Benazir Bhutto, and not surprisingly Musharraf has accused them of being the perpetrators of Bhutto's assassination. If Musharraf is right, the radicals did it in order to subvert the January election, destabilize Musharraf, and sow the seeds of chaos from which an extremist takeover becomes possible. This would be a nightmare prospect for the United States.

A second possibility is that Musharraf is himself behind the murder. After all, there is a second group that doesn't want democracy to work for Muslims. These are the secular despots who are allied with the United States. These thugs appeal for U.S. support basically by saying, "We are corrupt goons, but what is the alternative? Would you rather have the Bin Laden guys in power?" And typically the Americans heave a sigh and continue supporting what is perceived as the lesser evil.

Although Musharraf is no friend of democracy, and is hardly above wiping out one of the main opposition leaders, in this case it seems rather unlikely that he would be the culprit. The reason is that Musharraf runs the obvious risk that he would be blamed for the assassination, and now there are rioting crowds in Pakistan who are pointing the finger precisely in his direction. Also Musharraf gains from national stability, which has in the past allowed him to repel his opponents both from the democratic camp (such as Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto) as well as the Islamic radicals who sometimes use the language of democracy but seek to establish a Taliban-style government in Islamabad.

Who, then, is most likely behind the Bhutto assassination? Somewhere, I suspect, the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are smiling, having done it again through the mechanism of their suicide squads. And once again America is in a very awkward situation, having no choice now but to support Musharraf while quietly preparing for the possibility that his reign may come to an abrupt end.

As events continue to unfold in Burma I came across a couple of videos that will help everybody get up to date on the events. First, a recent clip from CNN International where, in under 10 minutes, they explain the lead-up to this month's protests and also explain how the pro-democracy activists have been using the Internet to get their message heard around the world, although the Internet has since been shut down in Burma.

In that last video they referred to Shwe's ritzy wedding clip on youtube that can be viewed here.

How could I not hope that CNN's Democratic debate tonight would fail? The foundering all-news network spent weeks touting their joint venture with YouTube as "first ever," "revolutionary" and "never been tried before" - an "experiment" on par with democracy itself!

The debate itself was treated as a news story - and not just any news story. The TOP news story of the day. The clock in the lower right corner of the screen (counting the hours and minutes till showtime!) is now a staple of awards show programming, of course. (Mind you, had CNN asked me to do red carpet coverage I would have been there in a heartbeat. "Candy Crowley, who are you wearing?!")

Why questions from ordinary Americans is so "groundbreaking" is beyond me: Politicians have participated in call-in shows like "Larry King Live" for years. They've attended town hall meetings. I even have a videotape of Hubert Humphrey addressing the tough questions of Minnesota dairy farmers from the 1960s. The only difference here is CNN had to roll in footage of the questioners instead of simply cutting to a questioner in the audience. Oh, that newfangled technology! Those crazy computers!

The whole thing smacked of a stodgy and creaky ratings-challenged network desperately trying to talk to the "young people." Reminiscent of the New York Times' much-mocked "grunge glossary" in 1992.

Cameron Diaz's penchant for dictator-inspired fashion is well known. With all the brouhaha over her Mao Zedong handbag, barely anyone noticed her Nicolae Ceausescu fanny pack. And it doesn't end there...