"Bush Urges All Autocrats to Yield Now to Democracy"

And - does he maen to include the House of Saud?

by "the broader middle-east" I thought he was talking about New Jersey.

I hope he meant to include the White House.

Interestingly, in that article, there is a lot about NATO and Iraq and Afghanistan - Afghanistan has requested more NATO troops - and there is discussion about whether NATO and Iraq.

Given that autocracy would be the ultimate consummation so devoutly desired by the Bush dynasty, the mealy-mouthed hypocricy is breathtaking . . .

Yes - but is anyone else about to get invaded?

Maybe NATO?

LOL! See, he read my post


Bloody right.

Hypocritical or not, thats good stuff, actually.

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul not Constantinople
Been a long time gone
Old Constantinople's still has Turkish delight
On a moonlight night

Every gal in Constantinople
Is a Miss-stanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it, I can't say
(People just liked it better that way)

Take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks'

They are now activating what was known in my military days as the inactive reserve. That had too sedentary a sound for the DoD, however, and the name was changed to "the ready reserve." That expression, however, alarmed those who had already done three or four years of active duty, as had i, so they renamed it the individual reserve, dropping the requirement to attend annual training. (Annual training was a miserably flop after Viet Nam--for example, i sent a letter to the reserve unit in Missouri to which i had been assigned, inviting them, in so many words, to find me and make me attend.) Therefore, they once again renamed it, to the "individual reserve." They are now calling up those poor s.o.b.'s, because we cannot meet our current commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the thirty other foreign nations in which our trooops are stationed.

The situation is similar to (but only superficially) the position in which the Roman Empire had found itself in the late second century--over-committed militarity with a stagnant economy. Bush's solution has been remarkably similar to that of Septimius Severus--he has expanded our military commitments while placating the wealthy with tax exemptions. Septimius Severus of course, simply debased the currency further, and paid the army exorbitant amounts. The Shrub has been even more ruthless, he doesn't bother to assure that active-duty soldiers and their families, or veterans, get the benefits they are due and have been promised.

Nota Bene: I do not for a moment subscribe to any of the specious comparisons of the United States to the Roman Empire which have been so popular in our history. I especially despise the tendancy of American conservatives to dress up the old whore Gibbon created about moral decay and the barbarian wolf at the door.

Hey Dys, did you see where the Pope apologized to Constantinople for the sack of the city by Crusaders in 1204? Guess you need to send him that They Might Be Giants song . . .

Hmmmmm - Orwellian, no?

He loved Big Brother.

Yes, interesting.

I'm committed. We will overthrow the unconstitutional and cruel government of John Howard!!! To the barracades mes enfants!!!!

It's interesting that comments which would provide the participants, thus far, in this thread with major wood if they were voiced by a Democrat, are ridiculed and dismissed.