Posted on 07/18/2005 10:58:49 PM PDT by Checkers
The Tancredo Blunder
Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.
Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.
The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.
I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.
Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.
Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.
Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.
UPDATE: More at CaptainsQuarters, RovingTheologian OneClearCall, OpaqueLucidity Brainster's Bogus Gold and Mark Daniels.
I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT. Yoni Tidi is a frequent and popular guest on my program, a deeply religious Jew and a retired major from the Israeli security services. On the program tonight he condemned the idea of attacking Mecca or any other target that is "Muslim" as opposed to "terrorist-supporting." We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.
A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue. And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.
Hugh said electing aRnie was just what California needs too.
Oh well. ;-)
And he can be an obnoxious blowhard much too often.
And he made little sense given that his recommendation was to nuke Damascus or some such.
It was a politically foolish but correct statement.
"Hugh said electing aRnie was just what California needs too."
Given the alternatives of Gray or Cruz, Hugh was and is, right.
Hewitt's a moron that's just kissing liberal ass with an article like this.
Nuking Mecca sounds good to me.
"And he made little sense given that his recommendation was to nuke Damascus or some such."
Damascus is not a legitimate target if you're trying to take down Syria? I disagree.
Nuking Mecca strikes me as a bad idea.
Is Hugh living in fantasyland?
I think you left someone out. ;)
"Hewitt's a moron that's just kissing liberal ass with an article like this."
Hewitt's a moron for opposing the nuking of Mecca? I'm sorry, but I'm expected back on Earth...
Tom is like the illegals doing jobs american folks won't do, sticking it out there when others won't.
Time for Hugh Hewitt to do some Koran and Hadith/Sunnah study:
http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/
I am just starting to study the above to determine if the "War on Terror" is a war with some Wahhabi "extremists" or whether we are at war with Islam. If we are at war with a proven minority (<1%?) of Islam then our tactics would be radically different than if we are at war with the religion as a whole. If the religion as a whole is hostile to all "infidels" then targeting concentrations of the enemy would be justified, as in any war. I don't think Hugh knows if Muslims who aren't advocating violence against infidels are just "lukewarm" Muslims, or if a minority of Muslims are wrong about their religion, and advocate violence.
I think I named everybody who got over 10%. I might be off on the numbers.
I know I named all the Candidates who had a chance in Hell...
When you get back to Earth you might want to go pick up a copy of the Koran and start reading.
"Tom is like the illegals doing jobs american folks won't do, sticking it out there when others won't."
There may be very good reasons to not "stick it out there."
Especially when it is an insane idea that will be broadcast on al-Jazerra 24/7.
OOPs. I forgot, you're ,, gasssp, one of them.. lol
Tom got 13.5%, btw.
and we got almost a 20% hike in general fund spending in 2 years and 20 plus billion in new debt, so far. :)
G' Nite
"Totally agree. I look at nuking Mecca how Truman nuked Imperial Japan - rather than invade and being hamstrung by "rules" we need to think like the enemy think"
Do you believe "they" will surrender on the deck of the Missouri?
And who is the enemy, in your opinion?
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.