That's a real pity that he should say something that stupid, because he's been a voice in Congress for addressing illegal immigration.

When Hillary runs for President, one of the planks in her platform will be extending the little stretch of highway in San Diego that works as an effective barrier, all the way to Brownsville, Texas.

I've got to disagree with you on this one. The threat of massive and terrible retaliation MUST be out there for the Islamosavages and their enablers in the Muslim world to chew on. This is the very threat which kept the Soviets in check throughout the cold war. My only problem with Tancredo is that there should be no loose talk about target lists. Let them ponder where the hammer would fall in the event of nuclear attack on the U.S.
And really, what would our option be in that event? Politically speaking, could an American president who did not respond in kind survive? Just picture the news coverage after such an event, the physical destruction, the maimed American children... I believe that there would be an irrestible pressure for revenge, massive and final. That's what I tell people who doubt our Iraq policy, that it should be very much in the interest of the Muslim world and all who claim to care for humanity that we should succeed. Because the price of failure would be terrible for us, but would bring the wrath of God down on the Muslim world. Is this not a very good motivation for the Muslims to get a handle on their crazies?

Rick,

"The threat of massive and terrible retaliation MUST be out there for the Islamosavages and their enablers in the Muslim world to chew on. "

And I have to disagree right back. The vast majority of Moslems are peaceful (whatever their feelings about the US). Moslems in India and Indonesia get along in the 20th century fairly well. Moslems in Senegal and Mali have both created functioning liberal democracies.

Bombing their holy place for the sins of people whom 90% of Islam would probably disagree would have been like the Brits nuking the Vatican to get back at the IRA.

Mitch,

I've blogged on Congressman Tancredo's remarks over at RedState and included both a transcript and an audio file of his remarks:

http://thorley-winston.redstate.org/story/2005/7/18/193144/900

Just in case you'd like to give a buddy a link ;)

I'm so diappointed in you, Mitch. It is ok to disagree with Hugh Hewitt. In this case hugh has failed to recognize that there is not one Islamic cleric that has called for a Watwa on Osama AND that Iranian clerics have said that nuking Jerusalem would prove that Islam is superior to Judeism or Christianity. Why is that important? Moderate Muslims take their que from their clerics. There isn't even any American Muslims that are willing to step forward and condemn Islamic extremism. Intimidation by extremists are the reason why.
I have just heard Tancredo's comments and Hugh is distorting what Tancrado said and making way to much out of this. Tencredo was speculating because the moderator asked the question. (I think that Madinah would have been a better choice for him to have mentioned), but twenty/twenty hindsight being what it is, you can't go back.
The real question that needs to be asked is: What will it take before moderate Muslims get motivated and hunt down these extremists? Just like America ended ANY clout by the KKK, because the vast majority of Americans didn't want to be associated with that kind of thinking and co-operated with lawful organozations to end their tyrany.

I'm so diappointed in you, Mitch. It is ok to disagree with Hugh Hewitt. In this case hugh has failed to recognize that there is not one Islamic cleric that has called for a Watwa on Osama AND that Iranian clerics have said that nuking Jerusalem would prove that Islam is superior to Judeism or Christianity. Why is that important? Moderate Muslims take their que from their clerics. There isn't even any American Muslims that are willing to step forward and condemn Islamic extremism. Intimidation by extremists are the reason why.
I have just heard Tancredo's comments and Hugh is distorting what Tancrado said and making way to much out of this. Tencredo was speculating because the moderator asked the question. (I think that Madinah would have been a better choice for him to have mentioned), but twenty/twenty hindsight being what it is, you can't go back.
The real question that needs to be asked is: What will it take before moderate Muslims get motivated and hunt down these extremists? Just like America ended ANY clout by the KKK, because the vast majority of Americans didn't want to be associated with that kind of thinking and co-operated with lawful organozations to end their tyrany.

Hi Mitch,
Well, what I said was "savages and their enablers".
When you say "peaceful, (whatever their feelings about the U.S.)" you are talking about the same people I am. That is, Muslims who are nominally peaceful, but do not take an active part in defeating the terror. These are the enablers, along with their fellow travellers in the west.
What I'm trying to say is that whether they like it or not, Muslims must understand that their co-religionists must be reigned in, that if the terror goes to the level of WMD, they will be held responsible. That their civilization and culture are at risk. This is deterence. This is using the national power we have paid so dearly for to keep the peace. Ask the Russians. The thing that kept them east of the Fulda Gap was the threat that Moscow and Kiev might not be there when they came back.
Maybe I'm not catching something here. I usually find myself in agreement with you and Hewitt. Do you think we should renounce nuclear response? What would our other options be in this case? Put yourself in the President's shoes the morning after such an attack. Knowing that the entire world is looking for signs of weakness. Seeing the suffering caused by the attack, splashed on every media outlet in the country in bloody detail. There would be hysterical talk from the left of impeachment. This will be the worst crisis, domestic or foreign, since the Civil War. What are your options? The bill will be paid by someone. Who would you choose?
I look forward to hearing back from you. This is a hugely important discussion, and it should have happened years ago.
Thanks.

Tancredo's remarks may have been ill-considered, but if one believes that the nuclear decimation of an American city will not result in Total War, in which the entire populations of many, many, cities in the Islamic world are incinerated, along with all their inhabitants, one is not being realistic. WWII started with some being shocked by attacks which killed civilians. It ended with entire civilan populations dealt with like undesired ant colonies. Once what a WWI general called, just before the outset of that conflict, "the iron dice" are rolled, they don't don't stop rolling until the corpses are stacked as far as the eye can see, except the dice are now consumed with fire, and their are no corpses to see, they having been vaporized.

Trancedo should have sent his message in a more sober fashion, for it is sobering situation that the world now faces.

This does bring up the question of what the proper response would be to a nuclear attack on American soil. What would happen if we found out that the bomb had roots in Pakistan and the DPRK and the terrorists had roots in Saudi Arabia and Iran? We obviously can't go after all of these jokers, yet we would need to hit someone...hard.

I think Trancedo's remarks are scary for bringing this thing up to the level of an all out religious war between cultures, but what would we do, especially if the nuke had roots in more than one country? It's a tough question. Hopefully, we won't have to answer it.

I'm not entirely sure that 90% of Muslims are peaceful and moderate...I think that statement risks sounding like the leftists that denounce the war but "support the troops"...words that mean nothing. Do you know that for a fact, Mitch...or do you say it to sound like a reasonable, civilized, kind human being (which I'm pretty sure you are!)? The Japanese must've had the same sort of people in the midst of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (grandmas and grandpas, boys and girls), but all paid the price.

I see nothing outrageous about Tancredo's statement....except to agree that they should be kept guessing as to where the hammer would fall. In fact, in order to get this whole thing over with, maybe a smaller version of the scenario in question would be a good idea next week or so. It's like nagging a bratty kid to stop a behavior...nag and whine, nag and whine...of course he doesn't stop...why should he? But haul off and crack him one, with firmness and resolve, and you get his attention. Never fails.

As some wise person said today: Bombing Mecca is stupid. Saying you might is even stupider.

Dan,

I'm running out of civil ways to say this: Fuck off. Go pollute someone else's site with your puerile sloganeering tripe. You're an asshole, a crank, a dim-bulb verbatim recycler of talking points, a waste of cheap bandwidth. You never say civilly what you can say snidely and condescendingly - and you certainly haven't earned the right to condescend. You are, intellectually, something I scrape off my shoes.

I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of banning you, but I'm going to ignore you - as I'm sure everyone in your life does, with your attitude.

Just in case you missed this - fuck off. Go find a site where you can hang out with the other pinhead cranks. You are a waste of time and, if your written record is any indication, flesh.

In closing - fuck off.

Oh, yeah. And learn to spell. Any day now.

Did you catch Hugh's response when the first caller to his show tonight asked him what Hugh thinks should be done if Islamic terrorists hit New York and LA with atomic bombs? Hugh said, "I dunno." So six hours after he firts posts his negative reaction to Tancredo's off the cuff, rash statement the Harvard and Michigan Law educated Hewitt coughs up a well considered 'I dunno'. I hope someone in government is giving this more thought than Hewitt.

Re: Steve Krinkie at July 19, 2005 12:11 AM

It's called honesty. Hugh doesn't know because he's not a military planner or intelligence expert. Hugh's just not dumb enough to respond immediately by making it into a fight-to-the-death religious war with over one billion Muslims, when maybe only al-Qaeda and North Korea (as the arms supplier) are responsible.

RBMN, I quite agree and I'll just add that I don't doubt for a minute that there are probably several if not a dozen plans that have been drafted for just such an event by people with a lot more information and experience than Hugh, Tancredo, et. al.

I highly doubt that bombing Mecca is at the top of the list of what would be the most effective response.