Posted on 07/18/2005 8:15:32 PM PDT by Valin
Many people have been burning up the phone lines to the show today, and firing off e-mails, about a radio interview Tom Tancredo did yesterday with WFLA host Pat Campbell.
One of the main complaints made against Hugh today has been that Tancredo's comments were not made in context. Here's a link to WFLA's site, where the audio from the original interview is posted. Listen for yourself.
Here's the text of what Pat Campbell asked him, and what he said:
PC: Now here's the other thing, too, with the possibility of an attack. I had Juval Aviv on the program last Friday. He's a former Israeli counter terrorism expert. He's claiming that an attack on U.S. soil is imminent, like the kind we saw in London, within the next 90 days. And he said it's not just going to be one city like New York or just major areas, but probably six, seven, eight cities, some of them right in the heartland. Worse case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders, and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?
TT: What would be the response...um...You know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you may have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian.
PC: Such as?
TT: Well, what if you said something like if this happens in the United States, and we determine it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their Holy sites.
PC: You're talking about bombing Mecca.
TT: Yeah. I mean, what if you said, what if you said that this is the...we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States. Therefore, this is the ultimate threat...this is the ultimate response. I mean, I don't know. I'm just throwing out there some ideas, because it seems to me at this point in time, or at that point in time, you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. And...because other than that, all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.
I'm all for a swift and draconian response if an attack on our cities happens. But Mecca isn't and shouldn't be the target. It ought to be Damascas, or Riyadh, or somewhere else that's a strategic target worthy of a response. But vaporizing the religious center of a billion people ain't the way to win the war on terror.
And from Hugh Hewitt
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1811
The Tancredo Blunder
Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we shoudl bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.
Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.
The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.
I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.
Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.
Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.
Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.
Saying 'Tancredo gaffe' is to repeat yourself.
The man is a one-issue noise machine. He might be useful to get some folks to pay attention to the issue, but it's also important that he not be A. A serious presidential contender, B. Taken too seriously as a 'voice of the party'.
Saying 'Tancredo gaffe' is to repeat yourself.
I stand corrected.
A. A serious presidential contender, B. Taken too seriously as a 'voice of the party'.
According to some here he's the greatest thing sinced sliced bread.
Your other options simply are not. They are viewed as acceptable losses to most of Islam. You're really worried about enraging the Muslim world after they make NYC and LA smoking craters? Wake up.
Actually, just bloody ignorant. We are not in conflict with terrorists, or even, radical Islam. We are at war with Islam. These acts have the strong support of the vast majority of the Moslim population. This is Islam. Always has been. From the beginning. Wake up.
OK we nuke Mecca, then what happens?
How about Aleppo instead?
And a fine thread it was too. :)
I will not be surprised if a Motion of Censure is introduced in Congress against his remarks.
Durbin calls our troops Nazis and nothing happens to him, and Tancredo should be censured. ? :-\
Fine. But it begs the question, is congress going to put forth a Motion of Censure everytime some congressman says some really stupid? If so it's going to be raining motions of censure in DC.
"Radical Islam" = "the actual teachings of the pedophile muhammed (may he spend eternity encased in pigs' meat).
A few links:
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...
The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations (cease-fire tactic) <<-- THIS ONE IS REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!
I disagree.
I don't know who this guy is (sure, I have heard his name) but in the context of what he said, is it that wrong?
If a nuclear weapon were to go off in the center of New York City, how would our government, and the world react? I think the question is a fair one. What do you do?
Do you just pick out a city at random in the Mideast and drop one on it? Do you bomb Mecca as this guy theoretically proposed? Do you do nothing? Millions would certainly die, and do nothing but say "we are going to catch them"?
This guy did not just jump up and say "We should bomb Mecca", he was placing it in a framework of a theoretical situation.
If you think, for even a single second, that nobody in the US government is gaming those situations, you are wrong. Just because it is so horrible we can barely contemplate it doesn't mean it frees our government from the duty of planning for it.
Now, you may not agree with that, and maybe I don't either. But it IS a choice, one that you can be %100 sure SOMEONE has played out. And well they should. Would it be appropriate? I don't know. But I DO know destroying Mecca as an option, is no more or less palatable than destroying a city full of people.
As to the Isalmo fanatics, they would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat..no bleating about innocents because you and I are infidels and infidels can be killed without question and in fact "their god" tells them it is a glorious thing.
But the real point is pre-announcing our intention. It is the only deterrent we have. Unfortunately, it will not happen. At least not until the casualty count reaches a few million and then you'll see every liberal in the country screaming for blood. I would hate to be the President then.
I agree. The islamofacists need to know the consequences of a nuke going off in a US city. It won't be pretty
You misunderstand. I was not attempting to state a position. I was only trying to point out the persistent contradiction between the two articles!
-PJ
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.