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.
Awww a cutesy wootsy graphic to convey your worthless opinion on the matter.
Don't run from your point of view. You should defend it if you really believe it.
Tancredo was an idiot for what he said about nuking mecca and doesn't help with the WOT .. it will only incite the terrorists to come after us even more
You specifically say that Tancredo's statement will make the terrorists hate us more. Are you now disavowing yourself from your previous statement?
Hey, the caption could well have been: "Tancredo supporting our troops," or "Tancredo supporting American sovereignty."
I would expect a swift and deadly response ..
but an elected official shouldn't go shooting off his fat mouth and putting our military in any more danger then they are already in
Tancredo should shut up and let the military do their job
THEY are the trained professionals .. not some politician up in Congress
And do try to follow along. If you're saying that Tancredo's statement will make the terrorists want to kill us even worse, then the converse of that is that not saying certain things will make the terrorists hate us less.
I disagree it will incite terrorists to do what they will do anyway, but that type of comment gives credibility to the lies they use to recruit youths.
I realize there are those that glory in the idea of nuking the entirety of the middle east on this board, but I do not. For one, it's short term thought with no strategy to handle the fall out. What would China's response be? Pakistan at an incoming threat? Russia? People need to think long and hard about the fact the world is not the same as in WWII. We are not the only power with the bomb any longer.
Second, are the Muslims in Iraq working with us to establish a democracy our enemies? The people in Afghanistan? Lebanon? How about the majority of Iranians held hostage by an oppressive regime that are very pro-American? What about the consequences to Israel? Let's say they don't retaliate by nuking us. Maybe they'll just nuke Israel as payback.
Tancredo's line of thought and those that embrace continually remind me that we are blessed to have G.W.B. in office. A man that will neither throw up the white flag or toss a few indiscrimate bombs as Clinton did, nor someone I need fear with his finger poised over the button.
I am no friend of Islam, I am under no delusions of a society still roughly in the middle ages, but neither am I afflicted with the sentimentality we should do the world a *favor* and rid it of an entire continent of people endangering our national security and allies in process. Thankfully, neither are the vast majority of the American people.
Again you infer that by modifying our behavior, we can make the terrorists hate us less. I really wish you wouldn't use liberal logic.
Is Hugh living in fantasyland?
Then I take it you're all for rounding up American Muslims, since you think we're at war with them?
-PJ
Next the Satanic Right will salivate at the idea of suspending the Constitution so that they can round up the infidels and force their conversions, and torture those they suspect of backsliding.
Wrong .. AGAIN
I believe what I said was "incite"
Meaning they will use Tancredo's comments to recurite even more terrorists to fight against our troops
I don't like when this BS comes from Biden or Kennedy ... I'm not going to like it when it comes from Tancredo
And I really wish you would stop assuming things I didn't say
"...but an elected official shouldn't go shooting off his fat mouth..."
I guess flappin' the gums beats workin' with other congressman to pass good legislation.
Sadly, it doesn't help the country.
So your argument is that terrorists will use Tancredo's statement to recruit more terrorists. I don't know about you, but anyone that decides to go to war with the US based on a politician's statement is going to go to war with us regardless. A politician's statement isn't going to push a moderate Muslim over the edge to become a suicide bomber. You really don't have a high opinion of Muslims if you think they are that easily swayed by propaganda.
Fair enough, but what do you think the reaction of all those 'fake' believers of Islam would be to the nuking of Mecca? 'Oh well, I didn't really believe in it anyway' ? Of course not.
This irrationality, and hatred, and anti-Americanism, and the constant back-biting against our American leadership in a time of war has been tolerated for too long on a conservative forum. The same keyboard kommandos have been whipping themselves into an orgy of hatred and calumny for years now. They all ought to be deported for moral-depravity and infidelity to justice.
Well,lets just hope the Muslim scholars and Imams are not advising young Muslims to read some passages they have preselected from our Old Testament.
CJ, There's a border thread waiting for your flaming.
Given the choices on the ballot, there is an element of truth in what he said. You can either entitle a Democrat like Bustamante, or a dingbat like Huffington, or a Communist simp like Camejo to the Governorship, or keep California from being swallowed up by the fringe left by electing Arnold.
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.