I have reached your same conclusion. I'll have to revise my tagline.
That is true. Obviously, Bush is only adding the "fascist" bit for public consumption and because to Americans it is unthinkable that anything that calls itself a religion could be utterly and entirely bad. But in many ways, fascism does not apply to Islam, which has as its ideal a theocratic, transnational government in which the religious and civil spheres are one and the same. This is not true of fascism, which, as the author himself said, is based on extreme nationalism. The author is right in that Islam is a "Mass Movement" in the sense he defines it, that is, something that takes away individual responsibility, fosters hatred of those on the outside, etc. But this is because Islam is essentially a cult, which differs from a religion in that it is focused on creating a closed, all-encompassing world that answers all the follower's questions, relieves him of all responsibilities for deciding on right and wrong, imposes its own set of behavioral rules that are arbitrary and have no ethical roots, and is controlled entirely by the leader or his appointed followers. Mohammed was an Arab, so Arabs have preeminence in this group (remember, being a cleric who is a descendant of Mohammed is ultra-super-special), but it cannot simply be defined as an Arab nationalist movement.
The Arab nations have always had a particular hatred of Jews, probably because of their proximity to Israel, or, before its existence, to territory that they knew to have belonged to the Jews. This anti-semitism pervades their scriptures and hence has been adopted by Muslims everywhere. But I think their main attraction to Hitler and his movement was their shared anti-semitism, because, as you say, fascism is no more a government the Muslims could apply than is democracy.
Oddly enough, I think Islam could function with a Communist government, because Communism has some of the same features (transnational, etc.) and also exercises a great deal of control over its citizens, who have virtually no individual existence. The left is very authoritarian and "mass think" oriented, and I think that's one of the reasons many leftists really admire Islam, which as "religions" go has a concept of an impersonal, arbitrary god who does not will or desire human freedom or any response, other than fear and submission. Also, of course, as dysfunctional Muslim economies have shown time and again, Mohammed and Marx would get along just fine with each other in the area of economic structure, too!
But as you say, no further definition is necessary: Islam in itself is the enemy.
There is not a thing wrong with any one of those terms. Each one describes Islam to a 'T'. Islam seeks conversion through threats, acts of terror, acts of aggression, global conquest, and global warfare.
Exactly. We are at war with Islam. So why do we not deport these idiots immediately under the Sedition Act?
Come on. We can learn Arabic from several good sources that don't involve keeping these fools around.