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."
If the ILLEGAL aliens here are required to go back home and re-apply for a guest worker visa to re-enter the U.S. legally, that's fine with me. If they are here ILLEGALLY and granted a visa so they can stay/work here without paying any penalty, nor are their employers for hiring them ILLEGALLY, that is amnesty.
You could bomb Mecca with conventional weapons.
Or you could just drop pigs on them. For the first strike, to let them know that the second one is do-able.
There'd be squeals of protest, of course: from the pro-islumists, from the PETA animal-worshipers, and from the ordnance on their way down, of course.
Technical problems relating to having the animals mess up the interior of expensive USAF cargo aircraft could be overcome either by tranquilizing the critters and dropping them via palletload, or by attaching bombrack fittings to the porkers and fitting them externally on tactical aircraft- once they get above 12000 feet or so, lack of oxygen will put their porky little lights right out. But once they've done their job, they ought to get a medal.
I'm happier with the idea of fingerprints and retinascans, etc, for future foreign citizenship applicants- including any under any *amnesty* programs. Then, as followup, any apprehended or identified as not being in the resulting database can be deported, barred for life from any reentry, and facing a reasonable punishment of 10 years or so if caught trying again, with reward programs and 800-number tiplines for those who spot them. If after a ten-year stretch they try again, double it, and double that for a third time out. Fourth time constitutes primae facie evidence of espionage/sabatoge directed against the US; whether dealt with by life imprisonment or a death penalty is a minor detail to be worked out.
Here is a link to a Fox News story about President Bush's guest worker proposal: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107707,00.html .
Here are some highlights from that story:
"The program would be open to all undocumented workers now in the United States. Applicants who can show they have a job or for those still in their home countries, a job offer would get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. . . .
"Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez welcomed the proposal, but said the United States needs a more concrete plan to help migrants.
"But workers accepted into the program would be allowed to immediately, with an employer's sponsorship, begin applying for a green card, which allows permanent U.S. residency. Although these workers would get no advantage over other applicants already in the long line for green cards, an illegal immigrant who attempted to apply now would simply be deported.
"With about half the illegal immigrants estimated to be from Mexico, the program was designed in part to win Bush increased support among the powerful Hispanic voting bloc in the November presidential election. He won just over one-third of that constituency in 2000."
Illegal aliens accepted into President Bush's "program would be allowed to immediately, with an with an employer's sponsorship, begin applying for a green card, which allows permanent U.S. residency."
President Bush's program would reward millions of illegal aliens with a job. Those millions of illegal aliens would immediately be able to begin applying for a green, which allows permaent residency. The millions of illegal aliens that President Bush will reward will not be deported and most certainly not be prosecuted for the immigration crime or crimes they have committed.
Governments do it all the time.
Wimped out
Not a man of his word
Not Qualified
No
He just proved he does not know how to deal with them.
That would work for a first wave of attacks.
Our borders are not secure. Our borders are a joke. Only a small perecentage of the illegal aliens entering the United States are caught. What percentage of the illegal aliens that are actually caught entering U.S. territory simply try again within a short period of time from when they are caught and make it that time? I suspect a large percentage.
Who do you believe is a man of his word and is qualified to be president?
I think a lot of us are looking beyond the weak support for border security to a day when our borders are guarded adequately. A lot of security issues hinge on it.
That pic looks like what one of those 100 megaton tsar bombs might leave after detonating in downtown Tehran. (After a phone call, of course. We don't kill innocents, but we do make them VERY uncomfortable.)
If Cong. Tancredo is elected president, our borders will
be guarded adequtely.
If he's serious about running for president, then I'd like to find out more about his other policies. Border and military/industrial and dual-use technlogy security are probably about equal on my list of priorities, though.
unstable, no-class b-----d, Michael Weiner Show."
Senator George Allen
Do you support giving any form of legal status to illegal aliens?
Do you support using the military on the border with Mexico?
What will Senator Allen do to secure the border with Mexico?
nuke the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.
Sure. We keep the ones we want and ship the others back. To make it fair we get to expel some American traitors with them.
Do you support using the military on the border with Mexico?
Not immediately. I don't want to annex Mexico. At least not yet.What will Senator Allen do to secure the border with Mexico?
I would hope he would make them an offer they can't refuse.
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.