Mullah Tancredo supporting our troops
Posted on 07/19/2005 5:13:41 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Tancredo's "off-cuff" talk off the wall
By Diane Carman
Denver Post Columnist
Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo was just talking "off-cuff." It was "an extremely hypothetical situation." Everybody knows he's the kind of guy who "thinks out loud."
I was positively dizzy from the spin.
It was as if press secretary Will Adams was channeling Scott McClellan.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," the WFLA-AM talk-show host in Florida said to Tancredo on Friday. "Yeah," said the Littleton Republican, who's never been accused of sensitivity.
Adams tried to equivocate: There's a "widespread misconception about what he said. Congressman Tancredo is not advocating bombing Mecca or Medina or anybody's holy site."
Next up: a discussion of what the meaning of "yeah" is.
Still, rumors aside, Tancredo reportedly was not sharing a bunker with Karl Rove. Officially, he was unavailable to comment because he was on a plane.
"He'll be circling Denver," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, who was livid about the congressman's remarks.
The liberal media, meanwhile, stretched to its limits by the demands of saturation coverage of the release of a new Harry Potter book, has been slow to pick up the story.
But the interview can be heard on the WFLA website. Tancredo clearly told a conservative talk-show host that if terrorists attempted a nuclear attack on the United States, "and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites."
Rafaat Ludin, president of the Colorado Muslim Society, said his organization sent a letter to Tancredo demanding a meeting.
"I think an apology is due to all Muslims in America and around the world, and particularly to the Muslims he represents," he said.
Tancredo's statements are "very serious and can cause significant hazards to all Americans," Ludin said. "We would like our representative, the person who represents a significant portion of our community, to pay special attention to the words and policies he puts forth."
Hooper called Tancredo's comments "irresponsible and inflammatory."
"They only serve to fuel the negative perception of the U.S. in the Muslim world," he said.
He described Mecca as "the spiritual focal point of the Islamic faith." While some terrorists may claim to be acting in the name of Islam, "99.99999 percent of Muslims don't even come close to an act of violence" unless it is as victims. To threaten to attack a symbol of peace and holiness to millions all over the world is "unworthy of an elected official," Hooper said.
He wants an apology. "Clarification through a press secretary is woefully insufficient."
But Adams said not to expect an amends anytime soon.
"The statements understood in proper context don't require an apology," he said, "and we're not going to give one."
It's a rather belligerent stand for a guy who on Thursday, the day before his "take out their holy sites" remark, issued a press release in which he "demanded an immediate apology and unequivocal repudiation" from the Chinese over loose-lipped nuke talk from a government official.
Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, dean at China's National Defense University, had told a group of reporters: "If the Americans draw their missiles and position- guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons. If the Americans are determined to interfere ... we will be determined to respond."
Tancredo didn't just criticize the official making the comment, he ridiculed the whole country.
"For a senior government official to exhibit such tremendous stupidity by making such a brazen threat is hardly characteristic of a modern nation," he said.
Next up: a discussion of what the meaning of "tremendous stupidity" is.
Congressman Tancredo has the right enemies.
"very serious and can cause significant hazards to all Americans,"
Oh, piss off.
What Tancredo did is make the most irresponsible statement I've ever heard a Congressman make during the time of war.
He is doing more to assist the Muslim terrorists in recruiting suicide bombers than all the Mullahs combined could do on their own.
President Bush, the Cabinet, all officials and all American Congressmen, both Republican and Democrat have been very specific and vocal that we are not at war with Islam, but rather only the minority terrorists that threaten us and the regimes that sponsor them.
Now a loosed lip wacko scam artist announces to them that we are really at war against the Muslim religion by threatening to bomb their holy sites.
Tancredo has the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and anyone who posts similar statements on the Internet that can be shown to Muslim school children shares his guilt.
Tancredo ROCKS!
...Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, who was livid about the congressman's remarks.
**
Anything Tancredo or anyone says that makes that blowhard America hater livid is fine with me.
These people are full of false outrage over Tancredos remarks. The real issue is border control. Liberal style smear tactics at thier worst.
Thanks.
two words you won't see together again:
tancredo
presidential
Yep. ...Ibrahim Hooper and Cultural Jihad.
CJ can't give anything a rest.
So, what should be our response if we are hit with a WMD in the US? And we can prove that fanatic Muslims planned, financed and carried it out?
Conduct a police investigation?
He sure does. Including the person responsible for posting this piece of left wing dreck. I see his fellow travelers are already swarming to this thread. Mere mention of "Tancredo" draws them like bees to honey. Pure instinct only--no reasoning.
Diane Carman
(Liberal MSM Idiot)
What a screwball statement!
Yea, yea, you nuke one of our cities and we should really, really talk about this! Just what I want to hear.....
"scam artist"
I don't think he's trying to scam anybody. He means it. And it's about time an American official said it.
LOL! And oh so true.
Suppose a nuke attack is attempted or completed, on US soil, in the future.
Should we (a) talk about what we might do in response beforehand, now, in a calm and rational way, or (b) keep our heads in the sand until said supposed attack happens, and only then, in the heat of the moment, decide what we're going to do about 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.