THE SILENCE WAS deafening from the White House. There wasn't one fist-in-the-air speech about Iran's recent escapade of kidnapping. Finally, the Bush cabal did something right.

Iran's seizure and parading of fifteen British sailors was a clear violation of international law. Capturing the Brits is one thing; separating them is another: however, blindfolding the sailors and cocking rifles in a mock execution were clearly examples of psychological torture. Parading them in front of TV cameras and forcing them to confess or face seven years in prison are both violations of the Geneva Convention.

Think about it. The biggest member of the Axis of Evil violated our staunchest ally. And yet this White House was mum.

There are reasons. First, there might be delicate backdoor negotiations with Tehran about Iraq and U.N. sanctions on Iran for their nuclear programs. The U.S. has been known to work with the hated Iranians before. Take Iran-Contra in the 1980s.

Plus, there was the release of some captured Iranian operatives in Iraq the day before the British soldiers were returned.

And maybe our silence is related to some espionage victories we've had over Tehran in the past few months. A number of high-level Iranians have defected recently.

And worse for the Iranians, the head of Iran's nuclear program was mysteriously assassinated in an alleged Mossad-style operation by the Israelis.

Those reasons all make sense. But when would those things keep this White House silent?

So, there's one last reason: embarrassment. The Bush Administration is finally embarrassingly quiet because of their foray into the dark world of Fascism.

How can we criticize Iran's action, as bad as they were, when our actions—Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and rendition interrogations in foreign countries—seem far worse? If he did try to slam Iran, he might look like Woody Allen fumbling with his tie or hair saying, "Abu what? Well, rendition was merely a vacation getaway. Guantanamo is lovely in the spring. You should try it. It beats Tehran according to a survey of evil-doers…make that alleged evil-doers."

          
Silence is a better option at this point. Clearly, Iran won the political gamesmanship. Don't try to out-fascist a fascist.

Let me be clear about using the F word here. I am not saying George Bush is a fascist, even though some of his actions after 9/11, and even today, borrow from the definition of fascism, which is:

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

We could spend many column inches here comparing the Nazis and their belief in the Aryan race to the strain of American domestic totalitarianism in the form of extremist evangelicals and their anti-Christian actions that put George W. Bush in office. I'll leave that to an interesting book called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America by Christopher Hedges, a New York Times reporter and a divinity school graduate. This might be a nice complement to Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior. If you read them both, I want to hear from you.

We could also compare Mr. Bush to Mr. Ahmadinejad. It was an ironic twist that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that captured the British sailors were given medals the day the sailors were released. That brought back memories of the awards ceremonies for Mike Brown and George Tenet for their service.

And hard core Republicans, don't get your right-wing, conservative knickers in a wad, either. How many times have you called Nancy Pelosi or other left-leaning Democrats Communists? That type of talk goes back to FDR. Was he a Communist just because he was forced to raise taxes? Yet there have been times America has leaned toward Socialism in our domestic policies. Some historians think without the strong labor unions in the early 1900s, Socialism might have flourished here.

That being said, 9/11 made this White House lean toward Fascism—honestly. George Bush is no different than a desperate man who would rob a store to support his broke family. How about a parent who would kill someone threatening his or her child? This White House would do anything to make sure another attack would not happen. Wouldn't many of us do the same?

This was, and still is, a frightened White House. Sure, they fear terrorists striking us in the future. If guys with box-cutters can inflict that kind of damage, then what else can future extremists do? While many of us see Internet technology opening the world to commerce and free trade, many in the White House rightly see a world where Islamic nationalists can use those same tools to destroy us. It's no wonder this White House turned to an extreme form of Neo-Conservatism, longing for the days of Reagan and Thatcher, and even more.

You can also blame yourself for that turn toward the dark side of governing. We the public didn't question enough. Yes, we were frightened, too. We wanted back the days before 9/11. The media followed our lead, too. They became mouth piece rather than a check on government. That should have been the Democrats job. But they had less power than the media in 2000 and 2004.

Now we all share in the utter loss of power for this White House. Granted, a second-term president loses effectiveness. But George Bush can't even get a dinner date with Saudi King Abdullah—our biggest ally in the Middle East. And when Bob Novak, the unapologetic apologist for the White House and the extreme Right, says that the Bush White House is more alone than even Richard Nixon's White House, then you know things are dire for Mr. Bush.

As a result, America has reduced bargaining power over military, political, and economic matters. And that can hurt our pocketbooks and lifestyles—at least in the short run. You don't think Hezbollah will be up to their old tricks this summer? And those tricks will only bring in more oil revenues for countries like Iran. Brace yourselves.

Are we collapsing like the Roman Empire or the British Empire? Of course not. But we do face some tricky foreign maneuvering over the next 19 months until a new president is elected.

That's why it is so important to elect a president who is not another George Bush.

Already, the public seems to be shying away from his religious extremist view. I doubt our next president will declare that Jesus put him in the White House. But we're looking at another George W. Bush in the current candidates' fundraising efforts. Most of the candidates have more intellectual capacity than Mr. Bush, but they still share the same long time on the fundraising circuit—which is just as bad.