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.
Tancredo's statement was a tactical and strategic mistake. It would have been better to let the muslims worry about mecca and medina rather than have all of these official statements condemning the idea. Also, it makes us look weak if we don't attack the next time a bomb goes off, which we won't. The guy acted foolishly and put us all in a tougher position for no apparent gain. That's a fool in my book
No, just you. But it's natural for certain type people to believe that everyone else secretly agrees with them.
I don't bother reading anything from him anymore, either. He just never seems to add anything to the conversation, IMHO.
Well your praise of Tancredo is wasted because he has already retracted his statement and said he was misquoted.
Oh, I got it long ago.
Are you willing to persona;lly kill the Muslims in your neighborhood? Or do you want to make our soldiers kill innocent women and children on the other side of the world just because of their religion?
Exactly we should be rooting them out and draining thier swamps, not giving them propoaganda ala tom tancredo.
Go upstairs and take a bath. It's Saturday night for gawdsakes.
Dane, trolling again?
You should know since you are the self proclaimed expert on the subject.
"If you want to exact revenge on people simply because they are Muslims, why don't you just go to your local convience and blow the head off the clerk."
You're quite bigoted, bayou.
Go troll with your quislings somewhere else.
where are the other quislings? :)
is really thinking,
"please don't upset the muslims, they're crazy, vengeful and murderous, and I don't want them to kill me."
I believe youve hit the nail on the head.
They also seem to believe that if we are nice to the Fanatics their fatwas will be found to be written in disappering ink.
If you are sincerely concerned why don't you join in the efforts to prevent such attacks.
Last week the Secretary of Homeland Defense testified before two Congressional committees that the Southern border can only be secured against terorists if they enact certain immigration reforms.
But Tancredo has sworn to block those reforms because he wants to keep the hysteria alive for money raising purposes.
Where do you stand? Are you really serious about defending against terrorism in America or are you willing to sacrifice American cities for Tancredo's fund raising operations.
The time top choose sides is now. Whose side are you on?
No, just you. But it's natural for certain type people to believe that everyone else secretly agrees with them.
Not everyone, but a lot more than you obviously believe. Realistically, most of us probably feel we'd very much *like* to nuke Mecca under those circumstances, but know that it would not be the thing to do. But some seriously heavy handed retaliation would certainly be in order
During the Iranian hostage incident in 1979 it was my opinion then that we should have made it clear we would take out (I mean level) a section of the city, or another suitable target, unless the hostages were released. I have never wavered from that belief.
I suspect the Soviets were not subjected to similar humiliation because it was believed they would willing do just that.
You ridicule our Commander In Chief and oppose our war in Iraq, yet have the audacity to call yourself a patriot?
Many American soldiers have lost their lives because people like you demand blood from the safety of your living rooms.
Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
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.