When Pat Campbell, of WFLA-AM in Orlando, interviewed Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Littleton, Colorado, he probably wasn't expecting the segment to receive national attention. My guess is Tancredo was expecting that either.
However, a U.S. Congressman suggesting that we could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists chose to use nuclear weapons in our country is bound to get noticed and be scrutinized.
Listen to what Congressman Tancredo had to say.
Transcript
Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that — what would our response be?
Tancredo: What would be the response? 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.
Campbell: Such as...
Tancredo: Well, 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, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites . . .
Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca.
Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said — what if you said that 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 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.
Tancredo's comments have been met with outrage. In his home state, he's been blasted for what he said.
Denver Post columnist Diane Carman writes:
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.
...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.
...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."
I think the context of Tancredo's statements is very important.
He wasn't making prepared remarks like Dick Durbin did when he took to the floor of the Senate to equate our military personnel with Nazis. Tancredo also wasn't issuing some sort of official U.S. policy statement. He didn't go on Campbell's show to promote America's "Let's nuke Mecca" plan.
That said, the suggestion that we could threaten to bomb Islamic holy sites does not help our standing in the Arab world.
Think about it. Riots erupted when the fabricated Newsweek story about the Koran in the toilet incident at Gitmo circulated. The violence resulted in deaths.
A look at the recent past shows that it's not a good idea to say anything that may incite such a reaction. Mentioning the possibility of nuking of Mecca, even as a response to a nuclear attack on the U.S., is irresponsible. Nothing positive can come of such comments.
Tancredo's words have already reached the Middle East. The Zaman Daily News, a Turkish site, has picked up the story. Other media outlets are sure to follow.
The Rocky Mountain News gives Tancredo's response to the uproar.
Tancredo released a statement Sunday evening in which he said he was simply trying to figure out what the United States could use as a threat to deter future attacks.
"Among the many things we might do to prevent such an attack on America would be to lay out there as a possibility the destruction of these sites," he wrote.
"I do not advocate this. Much more thought would need to be given to the potential ramifications of such a horrific response," Tancredo wrote.
His spokesman, Will Adams, said the congressman is a "free thinker" who was grappling with a hypothetical situation.
"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.
"What is near and dear to them? What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said Sunday.
Tancredo is not backing down from his remarks. He says he's not advocating the targeting of Mecca with nuclear weapons, but he doesn't rule out the option.
I think Tancredo would have been wise to apologize to anyone that may have taken his comments to mean that he believes we SHOULD nuke Islam's holy sites.
Although he was not talking about a first strike by the U.S., and he was throwing out an idea of how to respond to a nuclear attack on our soil, I still find his refusal to say "I'm sorry" to be a mistake.
Tancredo is only prolonging the controversy by choosing not to end it.
God willing, discussion of a U.S. nuclear response to a nuclear attack on our homeland by radical Islamic fundamentalists is purely hypothetical.
You do have to wonder how you would feel if our country came under nuclear assault.
If our enemies detonated a nuclear bomb in D.C., or New York, or LA, or anywhere in America, what would you suggest we do in response?
Should we prepare indictments for the terrorists and organize therapy sessions?
Let's pray that this hypothetical scenario never becomes a reality and civilization is spared a nuclear nightmare.
No comments:
Post a Comment