Posted on 07/15/2005 4:51:12 PM PDT by Man50D
Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should nuke the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.
The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.
"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams.
In the interview this morning with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio in Orlando, Tancredo discussed his request for a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.
Campbell noted that just after the London bombings last week, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.
The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"
The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "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 could take out their holy sites.'"
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do it tighten up internally."
The comments heartened some readers of Free Republic, the conservative online news forum, including one who said, "Rep. Tancredo is taking off the gloves on the Islamofacists! Yee ha!"
Others, however, reflected the sentiment of another poster, who said, "Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe."
The Northeast Intelligence Network, which posted a soundbite from the congressman's interview on its website, praised the remarks, saying the group "applauds Representative Tancredo for all of his anti-terrorism efforts to keep our country safe. We also applaud Mr. Campbell for asking the tough but necessary questions – AND getting the answers."
But Adams insisted the comments were made in the context of an interview that led Tancredo down a hypothetical path and asked, "In the wake of a nuclear holocaust, what sort of things would be said?"
"In the past several weeks, we've had a lot of staff discussions triggered by [WND's] al-Qaida nuclear weapons article," he said. "We are reserving judgment about the merits of it. But one of the questions that has bothered [Tancredo] is how do you prevent terrorist attacks short of searching everybody? Even then, you wouldn't get it right 100 percent of the time."
The difficulty for the U.S., Adams said, is, "How do you evolve from a cold war paradigm – mutually assured destruction – to one where al-Qaida mingles in the public and emerges only as an attack is taking place?"
The Soviet Union's pressure point was the fear that one of their cities would be destroyed, Adams said, "But what are the pressure points of terrorists, of people who only look to the next world – short of a police state?"
Adams said the remarks also need to be heard in the context of Tancredo's style.
"One of his vices and virtues is he is a free thinker and is willing to speak his mind," the spokesman said. "Sometimes he says things in not the most artful way; but if you take him as, unfortunately, one of the few free thinkers on Capitol Hill, you'll get where he is coming from."
Just for the record, in many areas potential employers are not permitted to ask enough questions to establish legal status without getting sued (and losing) for discrimination. All they can ask is that you show a Social Security card, which is pretty easy to buy counterfeit).
Many Christians have "Stop War Now!" signs outside their homes/churches. I have yet to see a "Stop Jihad Now!" sign ANYWHERE
On April 20, 2005, why did Sen. Allen vote against S. Amdt. 516 to H.R. 1268? The amendment provided $390 million to hire 650 more border patrol agents, 250 new immigration investigators, and 168 new immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers. The amendment provided funds for 2,000 additional detention beds as well as funding to train the new personnel. The amendment passed by a vote of 65 to 34. The Repbulican senators that voted for the amendment included Senators Coburn, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, Domenici, Grassley, Gregg, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Snowe, Sununu, Talent, Thune and Vitter.
I bought a Disney DVD a few months ago with cartoons from WW2, it also has a animated movie titled "Victory through Airpower" featuring Alexander Seversky. I highly recommend it, he talks of targeting the enemies food supply. I remember during the Vietnam War the fifth column (e.g. Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, Ramsey Clark) was outraged when we bombed NVA AAA placed on dikes because it imperiled North Vietnam's food supply, and thinking if that were the case we should hit the dikes anyway.
If you can find the February 1946 issue of National Geographic there is an article by Hap Arnold titled "Air Power for Peace" where lays out a strategy of annihilating opponents. You can see in WW2 we had a real will to win that is not matched today.
Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens?
Do you support using the United States military to enforce the border with Mexico?
What has Sen. Allen said about the Mexican border that causes you to say that you hope he will make Mexico an offer it can't refuse?
[ The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian." ]
Nukeing Mecca is not draconian..
Nukeing the primary city in EVERY country thats not our ally, for the first offense. For a second offense nukeing 10 citys in every country not our ally is draconian..
But quite doable.. and straight to the point.. They don't even have to be Hydrogen bombs.. Theater nukes would do.. to make the point..
Let's suppose a nuke went off in NYC. The correct thing to do is to give Mecca's population a 30 notice, and THEN nuke it.
Yet another way the ACLU is undermining our country.
Reminding you that the US is not in sole possession of 'the stick'. Nuking Mecca would be a de facto declaration of war vs Saudi Arabia/ Islam and the results would most likely be the fall of all governments in the region seen to be even quasi-friendly to the US... Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan... And what a wonderful situation for China to exploit.
If Tancredo wants to feel stupid about anything, it should be for falling for a WingNutDaily "article" designed to pimp a book.
Do you know how to play golf ?
Tom Tancredo is a solid conservative and a loyal Republican. He is a pro-lifer, pro-defense, tax reformer and supporter of limited government. Tancredo supported the reelection of Bush/Cheney and generally supports the President's policies.
On the issue of illegal immigration, Cong Tancredo agrees with most Americans and parts ways with the President and the vast majority of politicos. He believes our borders should be sealed, employers who hire illegals should be prosecuted and illegals aren't entitled to government welfare handouts.
It's worse than that. He offended the Official Center-Right Speech Monitor of the GOP- Hugh Hewitt. Now the officially approved center-right bloggers are after Tancredo's head. Which is something they have wanted to do ever since Tancredo embarrased President Bush over the illegal immigration issue.
Listening to Barry Goldwater's 1964 RNC nomination acceptance speech, one realizes that President Bush is trying to follow the guidelines laid forth by Goldwater 41 years ago.
But the world has changed. China has abandoned its ambitions for pure collectivism for state-organized capitalism. Latin America is closer to North America than ever before, but illegal immigration has swamped us with Hispanic immigrants. The successes of capitalism have opened up new threats. And the very multiculturalism many Americans thought we needed in the rush to abolish racism left our borders open to an Islamic immigration invasion.
The global realpolitik have the Machiavellians in the State Department working overtime again, making the same kinds of compromises Goldwater attacked in 1964.
Who could have predicted these developments, many of which are the direct result of conservative successes? We must move forward, beyond 1964 and craft a new vision for America's future. Surrender to political correctness should be forgotten. CAFTA, NAFTA, and MFN status for China should be forgotten.
And yes, we must close the borders now.
And sadly, with the passing of time Goldwater became an apologist for Bill Clinton, a supporter of special rights for homosexuals and a pro-abortion advocate.
PresBush has shown his unwillingness to properly address the issue of illegals immigration. He continues to thumb his nose at the American people, US law and our Constitution.
CAFTA is essentially identified in Barry's speech. During the Cold War it was probably a good idea.
Fall ?
Of course they would fall.
They would fall or surrender.
It would be a nuclear holocaust for any that did not fall or surrender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.