Tancredo Must Go
What an idiot:
I caught Tancredo's non-apology on Fox News yesterday. This whole "I was only presenting hypotheticals" line is complete nonsense.
We are at war. Public officials must conduct themselves in such a fashion in public as to aid the prosecution of the war. While Tancredo's remarks were less harmful than Dick Durbin's comparing American soldiers to Nazis, they were harmful nonetheless. His unwillingness to repudiate his clearly stupid statements indicates an unfitness for public service in a time of war.
He's got to go.
The fact that the Democrats have no standards whatsoever for their officeholders is irrelevant, as is the potential loss of a GOP House seat.
A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
I caught Tancredo's non-apology on Fox News yesterday. This whole "I was only presenting hypotheticals" line is complete nonsense.
We are at war. Public officials must conduct themselves in such a fashion in public as to aid the prosecution of the war. While Tancredo's remarks were less harmful than Dick Durbin's comparing American soldiers to Nazis, they were harmful nonetheless. His unwillingness to repudiate his clearly stupid statements indicates an unfitness for public service in a time of war.
He's got to go.
The fact that the Democrats have no standards whatsoever for their officeholders is irrelevant, as is the potential loss of a GOP House seat.
posted by Teflon at 7:07 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Tancredo must go for utterring what muslim extremists have admitted is their most ominous deterrent to larger strikes against us? Has Al Qaeda been politically correct, do you think? What will your standards for U.S. officeholders be if our government is bunkered down somewhere like the Greenbrier Congressional relocation facility? Do you comprehend how close that was to reality on 9/11? Perhaps you want to be a LAWYER.
Well, there's certainly no chance of me becoming a lawyer.
It's not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of winning a war.
Bombing Mecca in retaliation for an al Qaeda attack on the U.S. is rather like bombing France in retaliation for the Tet Offensive: satisfying, but very counterproductive.
There are around a billion Muslims who revere Mecca, including many who control key resources and strategic real estate we'd need to have to win the war. It simply makes no sense to risk widening the war.
When Spikey Isikoff regurgitated al Qaeda propaganda (and consequently got a bunch of people killed), that was wrong.
When Dick Durbin compared our soldiers to Nazis, that was wrong.
And when Tom Tancredo threatened to bomb Mecca, that was wrong.
They were all wrong for similar reasons---they hurt the war effort. In the case of Durbin and Isikoff, I believe they deliberately intended to hurt the war effort (after all, how could they not see the impact of their scurrilous statements?)
In Tancredo's case, I believe he simply said something stupid, for which, sorry to say, he ought to either apologize or resign.
Since he's been weasel-wording around the media circuit rather than simply apologizing for saying something dumb, the latter would seem to be the only choice to prevent further damage.
We are not at war with Muslims, but rather Muslim terrorists. The difference is not mere terminology or political correctness, as you would surely realize if OPEC elected to quit selling directly to us and if we were thrown out of the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia.
Another implication of bombing Mecca---wouldn't you think the terrorists would respond by destroying Jerusalem and The Vatican if at all possible?
I'd much rather hunt these SOBs down and eliminate them. That requires help from Muslims, like it or not.
Teflon- Your points are valid, but a bit naive. Muslim non-terrorists (always a vacillating number) must understand the stakes in this long war are as huge for them as for "infidels". Our nuclear triad (also an advertised deterrent) worked without ever having to be used, just like Tancredo's stated deterrent in the Islamo-terrorism war.
Some Muslims would be more eager to help us win, if they fully understood what the alternative could bring them. So far, they might hold UBL responsible for the fall of Sadaam's Iraq, were it not for our weak-kneed Dem' LAWYERS, who tell the world a cowboy is responsible. You had better believe the gloves come off if the U.S. is struck again like 9/11. It crippled our economy for over a year. Somalia, Sudan and Syria all look like ripe targets next time (at the same time).
Meanwhile, expect psy-ops to start any day now (maybe Tancredo was acting on his own, maybe not).
Isn't it a bit of a gaping hole in Tancredo's argument that al Qaeda would welcome the retaliatory bombing of Mecca?
They do blow up mosques as a hobby, you know, and they would love to see the House of Saud marginalized and a Wahhabi take power there, as would likely happen in the wake of bombing Mecca.
Moreover, what do you think that would do for Pakistan and Indonesia's assistance in the War on Terror, not to mention the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq proper?
The American military does not avoid blowing up religious sites because they're politically correct---they do so because they're smarter than the enemy, informed as they are by Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and other great military thinkers.
I'd posit the naive position is assuming that turning Mecca to glass would cow Islamofascist terrorists rather than multiply their ranks logarithmically. If Beijing nuked Los Angeles and we nuked Moscow in return, do you really think the Chicoms would cease and desist? Wouldn't it merely widen the war?
We are killing the bad guys by the bushel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to increase activity in Pakistan and Indonesia and to push Iran and Syria off the cliff. Talking about bombing Mecca doesn't seem to provide either an effective deterrent nor accelerate our efforts to take us through the next phase of the war.
As for the kid gloves, they've been off since 9/11. We're hunting down the terrorists and killing them, which I think you'd agree is quite an effective deterrent indeed.
If our politicians and journos can merely keep out of the military's way, we'll win this in a walk.
Tancredo, Durbin, and Isikoff have hindered, not helped this effort through their stupidity. I'd love to see all three canned to provide a deterrent where it's most needed right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home