"ISTANBUL, June 29 -- President Bush criticized unnamed U.S. allies in the Middle East for compromising with extremists and suppressing dissent and called on the Islamic world to move toward democracy as a way to safeguard the United States and reduce violence in the Middle East.


Speaking in front of a waterfront mosque, Bush said that leaders throughout the Middle East, "including some friends of the United States, must recognize the direction of the events of the day. Any nation that compromises with violent extremists only emboldens them and invites future violence.

"Suppressing dissent only increases radicalism. The long-term stability of any government depends on being open to change and responsive to citizens."

Bush did not specify which U.S. allies he was referring to, but an aide and outside experts said that Saudi Arabia was among them..." Washington Post

This sounds so like the Bush Administration. Well, any presidential administration from the last half of the 20th century, too. I detect a noticeable pattern. Start war with some foreign country, preferably full of non-white people in war-torn lands that contain an essential resource (bonus points if the country has a dictatorship and lies on an oil reserve). Then, we fuck all our ties with our allies, maybe experience some economic problems, hopefully profit from the plundering and smooth over any rough edges with US media (avoiding nation building or reconstruction) before the election, then repeat.

Right now, if the pattern holds true, the current administration would likely need some kind of distraction from all the post-war chaos that really doesn't go over too well with the media. So, they have to give them something tough to swallow or easy to choke on to keep them quiet concerning things like nation-building and democracy. So, he distracts them by pointing out faults in allies and praising countries that cooperate, like Turkey. However, I find irony in something in the article:

Bush called a democratic transformation of the Middle East "one of the great and difficult tasks of history."

"Nations in the region will have greater stability because governments will have greater legitimacy," he said. "And nations like Turkey and America will be safer, because a hopeful Middle East will no longer produce ideologies and movements that seek to kill our citizens."

If I remember correctly, Turkey was only an ally in the war and occupation because their government supported it even when an overwhelming majority of the people were opposed to it. So - let's try really hard to make some sense of this one here- he praises Turkey's support in the war and its democracy even though the support in the war was done very anti-democratically. I can't even come up with an abstract metaphor to help rationalize it. It's like enjoying a diet beverage with your cheeseburger and french fries because it's healthier than regular soda, only the diet soda is laced with chemicals that will make you sick and die sooner. Or something perhaps even more insane than that. Hell, the more I think about it, the less I understand it. That's how crazy it is.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Atrocities continue in Sudan.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The corporate bastards in NYC know peoplez gonna fuck some shit up at the RNC. Theyaz preppin.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Economist has an interesting article about the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. Their leader, who "wants to drive away his middle class and keep a frightened and starving peasantry in his thrall," is a total kook. He is also an African Hitler if I ever saw one.


sean says, "hes like im gonna give ya the claw!"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Army still defends its plans for the involuntary call to service that would "mobilize involuntarily 5,600 retired or discharged soldiers" from a pool of 111,000 people. It's like the draft for people that already got screwed by serving in the military.