[TheCrusader]

I take the reason for Tancredo's constant thrashing on FR threads to be that he holds the unmitigated audacity to disagree with the President on the dangerously pourous southern border.

Frankly, I don't think bombing Mecca would be an unreasonable retaliation for a nuclear holocaust on our soil set off by Muslim terrorists. The only thing besides their bloody faith these folks hold as valuable is their oil, and I don't think we'd commit economic suicide by bombing their oil wells.

But then I suppose we could go and liberate another Muslim country in response to the nuked US cities, and tie up the rest of our military and remaining resources so that China could start an aggression against us while we're still dropping like flies from the radiation.

I wonder if people really understand that Tancredo was asked for a possible, (as in NOT A DEFINATE), response to a massive Islamic attack against multiple American cities using nuclear weapons, which would almost certainly mean that hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans would have been murdered in one fell swoop of the Islamic scimitar? What in blue blazes is everyone's problem with his response, is it fear?

[Chgogal]

I totally agree with you. It's OK for FASCIST MUSLIM TERRORISTS to threaten. But making our position clear if attacked is a big NoNo.

I'm glad Puny Brained Pitts doesn't negotiate my deals. Idiot that he is.

[bayourod]

Well your praise of Tancredo is wasted because he has already retracted his statement and said he was misquoted.