Skip to comments.Nonsense from the Idiot Department
Posted on 07/23/2005 3:40:37 PM PDT by bayourod
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.
Islam has one goal: the total submission of every living human to it. It is the Terminator of memes. It will NOT stop until it has achieved its goal- or it is totally destroyed. Your choice.
That's right bayou. You and Pitts make perfect sense for dhimmis.
In other words, the same situation we have now, except worse. Much, much, much worse.Great article until he hit this part. At least Tancredo flushed out some of our nuttier posters.
I think it's a fine idea.
Tancredo let slip what we've all been thinking, but, given his position, he should have used more discretion.
Leonard Pitts on the other hand, is just an affirmative action hire who doesn't realize that he was not hired for his brains. He was hired for how he looks in the group photographs.
And under all those names - he was right, and Leonard Pitts was wrong.
It seems to me that if we were to actually bomb Mecca and Medina, it would prove Islam is a false religion.
And under the name Dick Durbin he compared our soldiers to Nazis. Under the name Howard Dean he said he'd let UBL have his day in court while Tom DeLay and Karl Rove should go to jail without such consideration. Under the name Derrick Z. Jackson he's refered to "our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians." Under the name Molly Ivins he claimed and had to retract the "fact" that the US killed more Iraqis than Saddam. Under the name Hillary Clinton he held up a newspaper and insinuated the President of the US knew about 9-11 before it happened. Under the name David Corn he outed Valeri Plame and is the first to blame someone else for it. Under the name The New York Times, ABC and dozens of others he claimed there was nothing criminal done in the Valerie Plame story, and then demanded a member of the other political party should be fired for those same acts they said were not even worthy of further investigation. Under the name Dan Rather he invented lies about a sitting president during an election. Under the name Ron Reagan Junior (among others) he attacked Rove for criminal actions yet found nothing of interest when Sandy Berger confessed to destruction of classified materials.
I could go on, but you get the point. There sure are a lot of yahoos around, but you seem to have ignored a big ol' pile of 'em!
Mr. Pitts, your constant framing of issues in terms of
beer and alcoholic beverages indicates a serious problem.
This combined with your obvious leftist social bent and your
discrimitory remarks in regards to certain members of our society which show definite repressed hostility make you
a prime candidate for rehabilitation.
Please seek help soon, or hospitalization may be ordered
by this court.
I like this phrase - its true. But of course Islam, like Communism, also kills for real. "Islam is defined by the wholesale murder of masses of innocent people" as some Freeper said earlier today.
Pitts is just an angry black man. I've never read anything by him that I could even remotely agree with.
Sounds like he's a little jealous of others success, too. They must be racist that they make about 500 times more money than him.
Their blasts here will, for the most part, kill innocent people. Why should we be prevented from answering in turn?
Just as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan prevented what would most likely been horrific casualties on both sides, who can say that a small nuke device dropped on Mecca could not produce the same result?
I am not advocating anything. Just asking some questions.
Dr.Hilarious, you are on a roll! Well said.
Leonard Pitts - enough said. Automatic barf alert.
Frankly, I don't think bombing Mecca would be an unreasonable retaliation for a nuclear holocaust on our soil set off by Muslim terrorists. The only thing besides their bloody faith these folks hold as valuable is their oil, and I don't think we'd commit economic suicide by bombing their oil wells.
But then I suppose we could go and liberate another Muslim country in response to the nuked US cities, and tie up the rest of our military and remaining resources so that China could start an aggression against us while we're still dropping like flies from the radiation.
I wonder if people really understand that Tancredo was asked for a possible, (as in NOT A DEFINATE), response to a massive Islamic attack against multiple American cities using nuclear weapons, which would almost certainly mean that hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans would have been murdered in one fell swoop of the Islamic scimitar? What in blue blazes is everyone's problem with his response, is it fear?
Wouldn't need a small nuke really. A fuel-air bomb just to wipe out the big borg cube. That way we can savour the moment on camera.
Seriously: I get tired of real "lets just nuke'em" posters - who doesn't? But Tancredo was discussing retribution - nuclear weapons are our ultimate (mortal) sanction against the Ummah. We cannot rule out use of Nuclear weapons at the last extremity. Pitts doesn't think self-defence is moral: we do.
Me thinks you protest much;)
Follow the money...he/she/it has a financial interest....
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.