President Bush, amid the turmoil of the Middle East (which he can be thanked for in part), decided it would be a good idea to check in with his regional bedfellows.

After Bush stopped in Israel, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited Bush over for a slumber party. CNN reported Bush even stayed up way past his 9:30 p.m. bedtime to polish off some arms deals and discuss squeezing more petroleum production out of the oil-rich nation.

It’s no secret that Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, contains the world’s largest oil supply. Seeing as the United States is the world’s largest consumer of petrol, by a long shot, and roughly 70 to 80 percent of the kingdom’s revenue is derived from domestic oil production, it’s easy to see why Bush and Abdullah have become such good pals.

Yet their relationship is rather ironic.

Notice it’s King Abdullah, not President Abdullah.

According to the The Economist’s Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the ninth most authoritarian regime in the world, sandwiched between Guinea-Bissau and Uzbekistan.

There are no recognized political parties in Saudi Arabia and there have never been free and fair elections – except for the local elections of 2005 in which participation was reserved for male citizens only.

Additionally, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have been extremely critical of the Saudi legal system and its past human rights record.

In 2002, it was under investigation by the United Nations’ Committee against Torture for its repeated history of questionable interrogation methods, or rather, what those at Guantanamo refer to as advanced interrogation techniques.

Saudi Arabia is also the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.

If you’re looking for a quintessential example of what a democracy isn’t, then look no further.

But wait just a gosh darn minute: Don’t we dislike dictators? Didn’t Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address lambast Saddam Hussein for being a “brutal dictator” with ties to “terrorism”?

On second thought, wasn’t Osama bin Laden (and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers) born, raised and schooled in Saudi Arabia? Wouldn’t that make Abdullah a dictator who harbors terrorists?

A lot of people were under the impression that us freedom lovers do not like those types.

But the plot thickens: The Associated Press reports that Bush has voiced his intentions to go ahead with a blistering $20 billion arms deal with the Saudis that includes sensitive, high-tech defense weaponry such as satellite and laser-guided missile technologies.

Let us not forget, however, that not too long ago the United States was making similar deals with Hussein and the Communist resistance in Afghanistan during the 1980s – which included bin Laden himself and what we now know as al-Qaida – both of which resulted in major boo-boos that need no explanation.

In true American fashion, we’re still paying others to do our work.

And even though the billions of dollars spent in Reagan-era deals came back and bit us in the ass, we’re doing the exact same thing only to once again set the stage for something many politicians continue to ignore: blowback.

Apparently, the flaws of the Reagan-era politics have taught us nothing.

In light of all this, American citizens are proving to be either really gullible or simply amnesiacs.

If in 2003 we vehemently insisted upon invading and overthrowing a brutal dictator on the basis of his possession of weapons, provided by yours truly, and his undemocratic, totalitarian ways, then what’s so different about King Abdullah?

As they say, the customer’s always right.