Posted on 07/25/2005 3:22:39 PM PDT by Alex Marko
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.
You still haven't answered the question: What's the difference between bombing innocent civilians in Moscow, or bombing innocent civilians in Mecca?
We are not at war with Saudi Arabia, Einstein, while Mecca has no military significance.
We're not at war with the Soviet Union either, but we still announced the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction as a DETERRENCE. The policy of announcing the retaliation of bombing Mecca is as a DETERRENCE.
Thanks for the complement. Einstein is a hero of mine.
Correct. 1 billion angry muslims is nothing to sneeze at, it's something to aim at.
Secret tests at Area 51 have shown that sneezing in the direction of the enemy would be almost useless in an all-out total war, 2 megaton nukes are far more effective.
"King of the Quislings has arrived."
LOL!! How true
"If one were to tally the total number of words you've pounded out attacking Tancredo over the past few weeks and campare them to the number of words you've pecked out decrying the London and Egypt Islamist bombers, what would be the result? Do you have any idea?"
JCEccles, I'd be interested in that outcome. I assume the others who are tired of the quislings are as well.
There was nothing wrong with what Tancredo said.
No, first of all we would need to form a committee. A committe to reach out. A committee that would try to understand what we have done to make the Muslims mad and what we can do to change our ways.
I listen to him all the time, but I can't now. Does he need this kind of c*** to get his numbers up, or what? Give it a rest, Hugh.
My husband said the same thing. Normally he thinks Hugh Hewitt is okay, but he said he had to turn him off today.
In biblical Christianity, individuals are 'the temple of the Holy Spirit'.
They've been destroying our holy sites for some time now.
My husband said the same thing...
Hugh spent a couple of hours doing this on Friday, and when he did it again Monday I had to click him off. He 'knows many of his listeners are mad at him about it, but he doesn't care.'
Hugh Hewitt
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/07/24-week/index.php#a000013
Tancredo's Crusade and its Costs
July 24, 2005 08:36 AM PST
Congressman Tom Tancredo takes to the pages of the Denver Post today in an effort to resurrect his reputation. He fails because he doubles down on his absurd insistence that "bombing Mecca" ought to be "on the table." No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo's defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness. No serious Christian theologian can endorse what is obviously an immoral threat against another faith. Tancredo is drawing encouragment from the small percentage of Americans who have fallen into the erroneous belief that all of Islam is arrayed against the West.
Point number one. Tancredo's ego is really astonishing, attributing the widespread comment on and embarassment at his remarks to the veiw that they:
served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists.
Twice in the column Tancredo makes absurd leaps of logic in an effort to obscure the central issues of the morality or utility of a threat on Muslim holy sites. Here's the first:
[I]n this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.
In fact Tancredo is preoccupied with attention-getting statements that play to the frustrated edge of the conservative camp that sees any denunciation of "political correctness" as an endorsement of their desire for blunt talk against media elites.
But not threatening Islamic countries and populations with the destruction of the places they devoutly esteem is not p.c.-generated double-talk. It is sensible respect for a vast group of Muslims abroad and a few million Muslims who are our fellow citizens from whom we must ask cooperation and to whom we must pledge a non-bigoted appreciation for their religious choices.
The jump Tancredo makes from Americans disgusted with his foolishness to al Qaeda's reactions to American outrage is incoherent. Really, incoherent.
The next incoherence follows quickly:
People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements. Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves.
Tancredo's foolishness will no doubt be used, as was Dick Durbin's outrageous comparison of the American military to Nazis and Khmer Rouge, by propagandists for Islamist extremists. But Tancredo's attemp to hide himself under the wings of John Howard and other eloquent spokesmen who reject the dangeorus idea that the West is generating the attacks on itself overlooks Howard's --and Blair's and Bush's-- refusal to be drawn into Islam bashing or incediary rhetoric like Tancredo's. On Thursday, Howard bluntly stated, again:
"[T]his is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder."
Serious leaders in the West refuse to indulge the hatred for a different religion that is implicit in Tancredo's frothings. No doubt Tancredo and his supporters deem Howard, Blair, and Bush "soft" on terrorism.
Tancredo then quotes a couple of extremist Islamists and/or apologists for such extremist Islamists before finishing with this flourish --a libel on every Muslim who has indeed condemned terror and especially on the between 5,000 and 10,000 Muslims serving in the American military:
Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.
In many respects, 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.
Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.
This insult to every Muslim who has courageously stood up to Islamist terror should not be allowed to pass uncondemned by supporters of the GWOT. There needs to be more and more and louder and louder condemnation of Islamist terror from within Islam. There needs to be more and more cooperation from among Muslims in the identification of Islamist threats at home and abroad. But Tancredo's absurd hypotheticals injure that prospect. The Congressman needs to review the record, finding the good --not just the evil-- and praising it. He might want to start with the fact the Muslim community in upstate New York helped DOJ uncover and halt the operation of a cell there.
If you were a Muslim, would Tancredo's outrageous speculations make you more or less likely to assist in the GWOT? Obviously the latter. After braving Islamist threats to help the authorities break a cell, you open the paper and find that your holy places will be "on the table" if terror takes another huge toll in the United States.
"Being 'offended'" is not my worry.
Having progress in the GWOT compromised handicapped by a publicity-seeking Congressman is my worry. Handing propaganda to Islamists is my worry. Encouraging the wrong-headed belief that the world cannot be made safe until Islam is destropyed is my worry.
Here are some basic facts for Tancredo fans to ponder:
"Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, counting more than 1.3 billion believers. Americans have the misconception that all Muslims are Arabs and that all Arabs are Muslims. In fact, less than 20 percent of the Muslims in the world are Arab, and all Arab countries have populations that believe in other religions. The nation with the world's largest Islamic population is Indonesia -- 88 percent of its 280 million people are Muslims.
In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military.
Army Chaplain (Capt.) Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad is a Muslim Imam stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. In his chaplaincy, he ministers to all faiths."
The United State is locked in a deadly war with Islamists who would indeed use nukes against American cities if they could, or any other WMD for that matter. There are some states that support these Islamists, including the governments of Iran and Syria, and some of the elites in Saudi Arabia.
But there are also governments like those in Eygpt, Jordan, and Pakistan that are providing us enormously valuable assistance in the war, governements which come under huge pressure from their fundamentalist Muslim populations to stop assisting the "crusaders."
Tancredo made all of their jobs more difficult, and ours as well, by sounding exactly like a Christian jihadist would sound, even though it is clearly contrary to Christian teachings to threaten retaliation against non-combatants even in a just war.
I have repeatedly invited Congressman Tancredo on my show over the past week. He has declined every opportunity, and Tancredo fans have repeatedly asked me to "drop it." Well, Tancredo doubled down today, and his attempt to camouflage his inanity in a variety of ways does nothing but highlight again and again why he doesn't deserve invitations to GOP events or leadership positions in Washington.
"Supporting" Congressman Tancredo on this issue identifies you as an American interested in comforting noise rather than progress in the GWOT.
The first rule of any conflict is to unite your allies and divide your enemies. Congressman Tancredo's hypothetical has had exactly the opposite impact. It will be crucial that those allies understand what an outlier he is.
I am sure I will hear --again-- from all the "realists" who want to quote the Koran to me and instruct me on how blind I am to the threat of Islam. Look, feel free to write me, but try and find at least one quote from a serious conservative on the American or world stage to back you up. Dick Cheney's pretty solid, right? So is Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, right? O.K., then, send me some citations to their Tancredo-like remarks. There's a reason they are leading and Tancredo is simply milking rage and anger for personal benefit. They are interested in the national security and victory in the GWOT. Congressman Tancredo is interested in, well, Congressman Tancredo.
Libs aren't the only ones. Non feverswamp conservatives aren't real happy with him either, Those of us who REALLY understand what's going on, and who the enemy is, the President (I assume) really wish he would shut his mouth.
And many of us cheer him on. It's about time some national figure stood up to the rightwing fever swamp, nuke Mecca crowd.
This article takes Tacredo's comments out of context. Personally I think it is refreshing to hear a politician call a spade a spade. I am sick of all this 'religion of peace' crapola. The sooner we aknowledge the problem (Islam) the better off we'll be.
Of course, this article takes Tom's comments out of context. They ALL do. I heard the requisite quote in context, and they, including Hugh Hewitt and Medved, are all wet.
While the terrorists do not respond to logic, they would welcome an attack on Mecca to prove their contention to the Muslim world that the West is all against them as Muslims. That is why Tancredo's words were not helpful to our nation's war efforts, as he foolishly played into Al Qaeda's hands.
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.