Well you know how it goes, folks. One story is a curiosity, but two or more constitute a trend. And boy do we have a hell of a trend going on at this late campaign season. George W. Bush, the man who proudly rejects the "reality-based community" is increasingly being tied to fundamentalist Islamist governments.
First we have yesterday's news that
Iran supports Bush over Kerry.
"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era, despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into US presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.
The Bushies are spinning it and hoping it will go away. But that quote speaks volumes. The Iranians want George W. Bush to be re-elected because they KNOW four years of Bush will result in a lot of tough talk but no real action. They want Bush elected because it's historically been the Democrats who have actually pressed for human rights and democratic reform. They want the Republicans elected because Republicans deal with radical Islam while Democrats oppose it.
And Bush re-iterated that longstanding Republican position today.
If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, "I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," Bush said. "If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."
So George W. Bush would sit back and do nothing as Iranian-style Islamic fundamentalists seize control of Iraq. This is what he means by "freedom on the march"? A fundamentalist government like the Taliban? That's less free, not more, Mr. President.
Juan Cole expands on this too.
I think it can be fairly argued that the Bush "war on terror" has actually spread Islamic fundamentalism. (Bush coddling of Ariel Sharon's harsh policies in Palestine has also contributed).
Since Bush began acting aggressively in the region, the United Action Council of (often pro-Bin Laden!) fundamentalist parties in Pakistan has come to power by itself in the Northwest Frontier Province, in coalition in Baluchistan, and has 17% of the seats in parliament! Despite Pakistan's unwarranted reputation for "fundamentalism," in fact most Pakistanis are Sufis or traditionalists who dislike fundamentalism, and the latter parties seldom got more than 2-3% of seats in any election in which they ran. Until Bush came along.
In Iraq, a whole series of Muslim fundamentalist parties-- al-Da`wa, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Sadrists, the Salafis, and now al-Qaeda, have been unleashed by Bush. They seem likely to win any election held in Iraq, since the secularists remain disorganized.
In the parliamentary elections in Afghanistan now slated for spring 2005, the Taliban or the cousins of the Taliban are likely to be a major party, benefiting from the Pushtun vote.
We could go on (a similar story of new-found fundamentalist strength could be told for Indonesia, e.g.) The real legacy of Bush to the Muslim world will likely not be secular democracy, but the provocation of Muslim publics into voting for the Muslim fundamentalists on a scale never before seen in the region.
John Kerry scares the crap out of Islamic fundamentalist states. George W. Bush helps them to come to power. It seems to me that all of us as Americans should be taking him to task for that. And it seems like this is a story that needs to start spreading through the blogosphere fast, because it could really change the election.