The list of examples of the leftists engaging in political romances with tyrants is infinite: Noam Chomsky traveling to Lebanon in May 2006 to embrace Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah; Academic Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish leftist, venerating Hamas and Hezbollah; Naomi Klein calling out in a column in The Nation for Muqtada al-Sadr's killing fields to come to New York; Tom Hayden reaching the next stage of his totalitarian high by meeting Klein's hero, al-Sadr, in London; and British Member of Parliament George Galloway visiting Syria in November 2005, prostrating himself before its despot and giving a speech at Damascus University in which he denounced America and Israel and extended his support to every possible enemy of the United States – from the terrorists in Iraq to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.
What Obama is pursuing with the Muslim Brotherhood, therefore, is simply to be expected. And in typical fashion, the left is clamoring behind him to indulge in its own romance with the Egyptian jihadist entity.No, no, no. According to Islam expert Daniel Pipes (in the National Post),
The deranged and delusional leftist support for the Muslim Brotherhood today is a replay of how the left supported the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979...
The Muslim faith is undemocratic in spirit. Then again, so was every other pre-modern religion.Meaning, says Pipes, that Islam is "potentially" (his word) compatible with democracy. And, further, "with enough effort and time, Muslims can be as democratic as Westerners."
To which the only sane response is: Who has the energy; who's got the time?
If you buy Pipes' assertion re Islam's "potential," you probably also think that the "cure" for radical Islam is moderate Islam. And, in the absence of any evidence of that elusive "moderate" strain (an "absence" accounted for definitively in the immortal words of a Turkish Islamist ), who in their right mind could believe that?