Incorrect. He suggested that nuking Mecca might be an an appropriate response to a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil.
Quite a distinction, but one evidently lost on the author.
It's not lost on them, they need to leave that part out because the criticism is ineffective if the audience who the criticism is supposed to influence has the visual of their city destroyed and their family dead. And also because it begs the question of Tancredo's critics: "If Tancredo's response was extreme, what would the appropriate response be?" Democrats and other Tancredo critics will run from that question like they are on fire.
If forced to answer the same question that was posed to TT they know full well they can't just repeat the same tired old "we'd bring the terrorists responsible to justice." That won't wash after a nuke attack on American soil that racks up casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands (at least).
It's easy to say we'd sniff out the nation(s) responsible for helping out the terrorist org in question and then annihilate them (although many would still be reluctant to publicly say it), but there's a distinct possibility that the nuke(s) wouldn't have a return address. Then what?
The answer: Adios Mecca.