Ed Morrisey sets the table—
We have enough problems fighting the war on terror in the measured, strategic method used by the Bush and Blair administrations without Republican Congressmen recommending the bombing of sites held sacred by Muslims across the political spectrum. Yet today, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested that a nuclear attack on an American city could result in a bombing run on Mecca.
The meat of the exchange:
Tancredo—"[Y]ou know, you could take out their holy sites."Interviewer—"You're talking about bombing Mecca."
Tancredo—"Yeah."
Hugh pulls no punches, referring to Tancredo's remarks as:
[T]he most irresponsible statement any American official can make.
As Michelle Malkin notes, Tancredo has some stiff competition in the realm of irresponsible statements, but clearly his quip about "taking out" Mecca wins at least a door prize.
The fact remains that Tancredo isn't a key official, just another congressman whose mouth has more power to do ill than anything else at his disposal. As Ed Morrisey observes:
Besides, who is Tom Tancredo [...] anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President ...
In terms of foreign policy and power to direct military assets, Tancredo’s a nobody ... but with a mouth.
Hugh corrently cites Tancredo's quote as a potential PR bonanza for the head-choppers:
It will be on al-Jazeera within the hour, and it will be used by jihadists against us.
It's also fodder for the open-borders, backdoor-amnesty crowd that has long sought to portray Tancredo as an unhinged champion of those 'vigilante-minded wingnuts' whose opposition to illegal immigration is taken to evince a hatred of Mexicans, et al.
This post may be dedicated to a well-merited roasting of Tancredo, but the fact remains that he has done inestimable work in the desperately needed cause of immigration reform. His stand on immigration has earned him a respect in some respects without peer within the halls in Congress, which only makes his current remarks about Mecca all the more unfortunate and distressing.
Michelle Malkin begins her post:
My friend Rep. Tom Tancredo …
That’s an important perspective to keep. Friendship and personal support should not be easily renounced. Hopefully Tancredo will retract his statement, and divest himself from whatever personal philosophy gave foment to the statement in question.
Tancredo must also understand certain political realities. Standing up against illegal immigration draws lots of fire from all quarters, inciting deeply visceral opposition not only from libs of virtually every stripe, but also from the highest members of the current administration. In light of all of this, he’s in maybe the worst position imaginable to offer up this current grist to the ‘Tancredo’s a nut’ caucus.
In a practical more than a philosophic sense, it's the sheer stupidity of Tancredo's statement that may ultimately prove more unforgivable than the sheer wrongness of it. As we have seen time and again in the field of public relations, speakers are undone much more readily by the stupidity of their statements than the wrongness of them, no matter how great or slight the wrongness may be.
As far as targeting Mecca, let our threat of reprisal be nothing more than this: The day a missile strike on America follows a trajectory traceable to a silo in Mecca is the day we will visit upon Mecca the same.
And now for what really matters—
Talk of what won’t work in effectively combating radical Islam is a vain exercise in comparison to a serious and ongoing discussion of what should be done—and what may soon be made imperative beyond all question. Let none consider themselves well-read on the topic until they have availed themselves of the following post [Hat tip Michelle Malkin] and article.