Start here.
Posted on 07/23/2005 3:40:37 PM PDT by bayourod
It is probably not a good idea in terms of job security to publicly call your boss a horse's ass. So have some sympathy for Will Adams, spokesman for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. He was asked by reporters to explain the asinine thing the congressman said last week. Adams told them Tancredo is just a "free thinker." By which standard Michael Jackson is just a tad eccentric. Or haven't you heard? Tancredo thinks maybe the United States should bomb Mecca. You know Mecca. City in Saudi Arabia. Birthplace of the prophet Muhammad. Holiest shrine of Islam, a religion practiced by one of every six people on Earth. That's the place a U.S. congressman thinks maybe we should lob some ordnance at.
Tancredo made this contribution to the national dialogue last week during a talk show on WFLA, a TV station in Orlando, Fla. Host Pat Campbell had asked how we should respond if U.S. cities are ever struck by terrorists using nuclear devices. "Well," said Tancredo, "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."
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," said Campbell.
"Yeah," said Tancredo.
Predictably, Tancredo's suggestion has been a little controversial. That is, if you can call statements of condemnation stretching from Moscow to the State Department to Ankara, Turkey, "a little controversial."
Tancredo has refused to apologize, but he did issue a written "clarification," which said in part, "I do not advocate this. Much more thought would need to be given to the potential ramifications of such a horrific response."
Actually, you don't need to give any thought to the ramifications of such an action, because they should be self-evident to anyone smarter than the average hamster. We would become an international pariah. Muslims would hate us with renewed fervor, and Osama bin Laden would thank us for writing his recruitment material.
In other words, the same situation we have now, except worse. Much, much, much worse.
And I wonder: Am I the only who feels that lately - lately being defined as since Sept. 11, 2001 - the nation seems overrun by yahoos?
Granted, the presence of yahoos in daily life is not a new torment. They have always been among us, the simplemindedness of their thinking exceeded only by the volume at which they express it. Think Cliff Clavin, the cogs of his brain lubricated by beer, holding forth from his stool at the end of the bar. Of course, the only thing you had to do to avoid Cliff was to stay out of Cheers.
But the 9/11 attacks have unleashed yahooism on an unprecedented scale. Cliff is no longer confined to his bar stool. Under the name Mona Charen, he once wrote a newspaper column advocating the expulsion of Muslims from America. Under the name Rush Limbaugh, he has a radio talk show on which he compared the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank. Under the name Ann Coulter, he calls for the racial profiling of travelers from the Middle East. And under the name Tom Tancredo, he is apparently a member of Congress.
What he doesn't get - what yahoos usually don't get - is that things that seem to make sense while you're hoisting a few rarely hold up in the sober light of day.
Tancredo has cast his refusal to apologize as a blow against political correctness. Which is silly. One can be plain-spoken without being reckless, blunt without being stupid, straight-forward without sounding like a fool.
Assuming, that is, you have something worthwhile to say. Tancredo evidently does not. Somebody tell him his beer is getting warm.
That's both sad and telling.
OK, I can understand how a person who isn't very bright to begin with and is accustomed to speaking to people even less intelligent could slip up and say something he regretted under the pressure of a live radio interview.
But when I say Tancredo has declared war on ALL Muslims, I'm talking about his carefully worded press release issued a week later in which he tries to justify his call for retaliatory attacks on Mecca and other Muslim cities by arguing that ALL Muslims are as guilty as the actual terrorists. For example:
"the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves. "
Do you think it's wise to declare war on ALL Muslims? Not since the Civil War has the United States declared war on its own citizens. Do you want to engage in a war with Muslims in your neighborhood? Put your family at risk?
I haven't shirked my duty to oppose the violent Tabcredo extremist. Isn't that his justification for killing innocent Muslim women and children? He doesn't think they have done enough to oppose their terrorists.
All civilized people in the world have a duty to shout down a man who declares war on 20% of the people on Earth solely because of their religion
yup, the creative writing classes at journalism school [!!!!] don'tcha just luv it! like Matt Cooper with his "ink stained wretch" self description last week
Perhaps some would be shocked to hear that I have many neighbors, some who are self professed liberals who are saying the very same thing. Enough is enough.
the difference between the summer of 2001 and the summer of 2005 is , back then we didn't know we were experiencing our last moments of normalcy ,... now, there is a feeling that these are the fleeting days of the New Normalcy
Do you believe that all MUslims everywhere should be killed?
What's the problem here? If Islam seeks our absolute submission, our answer is an unequivocal, no. Boom!
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.