Though I wouldn't put Tancredo's comments in the same category as Durbin's ... but it's up there with what Newsweek and Isikoff did
BS. Your argument is the same as the liberals'. You think we can modify our behavior to appease the terrorists. You think if only we acted a certain way they wouldn't hate us so much.
I disagree it will incite terrorists to do what they will do anyway, but that type of comment gives credibility to the lies they use to recruit youths.
I realize there are those that glory in the idea of nuking the entirety of the middle east on this board, but I do not. For one, it's short term thought with no strategy to handle the fall out. What would China's response be? Pakistan at an incoming threat? Russia? People need to think long and hard about the fact the world is not the same as in WWII. We are not the only power with the bomb any longer.
Second, are the Muslims in Iraq working with us to establish a democracy our enemies? The people in Afghanistan? Lebanon? How about the majority of Iranians held hostage by an oppressive regime that are very pro-American? What about the consequences to Israel? Let's say they don't retaliate by nuking us. Maybe they'll just nuke Israel as payback.
Tancredo's line of thought and those that embrace continually remind me that we are blessed to have G.W.B. in office. A man that will neither throw up the white flag or toss a few indiscrimate bombs as Clinton did, nor someone I need fear with his finger poised over the button.
I am no friend of Islam, I am under no delusions of a society still roughly in the middle ages, but neither am I afflicted with the sentimentality we should do the world a *favor* and rid it of an entire continent of people endangering our national security and allies in process. Thankfully, neither are the vast majority of the American people.