Posted on 07/26/2005 9:59:01 PM PDT by EveningStar
Hugh and I have been trading emails on this the past couple of days, and even though I’m not sure if we have reached an accord, he and Frank Gaffney took down the CAIR shill today piece by piece. I give credit where it is due, and the difference from yesterday to today was a matter of preparation.
The underlying purpose for yesterday’s interview with Ayloush was to discredit Rep. Tancredo’s “nuke Mecca” threat by offering the point of view of a “moderate” muslim from a “mainstream” organization. Ayloush is not moderate, and CAIR is not mainstream...
(Excerpt) Read more at froggyruminations.blogspot.com ...
ping
Hugh has shot the pumpkin. His know it all ignorance of Islam is breathtaking and he has too many "very good friends" of his who are leftists. It is sad that he had to toaddy up to CAIR in order to gain street cred amoungst the lefties.
I heard him and Gaffney today. They exposed the CAIR fool as an extremist. What more do you want?
ping
I missed it. Thanks for the info.
Froggies blog states this foolish lie: "...Rep. Tancredo’s “nuke Mecca” threat..."
And then goes on to write that he "refuted" it, no mention of the fact that he's refuted a lie.
Tancredo was on FOX this evening (Hannity & Colmes), who provided him the opportunity to clear this whole thing up (and he did).
He was asked on a radio guest spot, a hypothetical: consider this, that the U.S. had suffered a sizable terrorist attack, perhaps even an atomic bomb detonated in the U.S. by terrorists, and if that happened, what would you (to Tancredo) do, would you consider, say, responding by launching a nuclear attack against offendors?
Tancredo says that he responded (I'll paraphrase, although I encourage anyone/all to try to view his statements in first person on FOX tonight), he says that if it was proven that an effective response included an atomic response, that he'd do that and that he'd, hypothetically, attack whatever target in offender's territory would make for an even greater trauma/impact to that offending group/nation/location/population responsible, that would meet and exceed damage done to the U.S., which would be, hypothetically, a mosque or other valued location.
But he never said that he'd promote or actually launch nuclear weapons against mosques, as some patent act, without provocation or even after provocation, but offered up the premise foremost that the U.S. response if ever attacked by some horrible act such as a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil, with some response that would equal and exceed what had occured here, upon whoever attacked us.
This is exactly the same premise and reasoning that made the atomic weapons attack upon Japan possible to bring about the end of WWII.
Thus, what Tancredo said was very reasonable. All the excess and distortions about his reasonable statements seem insane, by comparison, to well reasoned comments by Tancredo.
I listened to most of his show today. I thought he was nearly always right on about Islam. What ignorance are you speaking of?
Thanks for the ping ES
You're not supposed to inject facts into this debate. It makes the stooges job of handing out the Tancredo-is-a-Madman koolaid much too hard.
Thanks for the ping. I need to get to Hugh's blog and read the transcript. JUST missed the show...
Hugh Hewitt allows people to speak and to disagree. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I do appreciate a chance to hear what he says and hearing more than one perspective on an issue.
Exactly. Hugh believes we need to know how the other side thinks and argues and what we're up against. And I agree. Just because you hear the other side's view on his show doesn't mean he agrees with it.
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.