Get It Right (UPDATED)

Even hawks are distancing themselves from the remarks of Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) regarding a theoretical nuclear strike on Islam’s holy sites and a theoretical nuclear strike on our soil by Islamists. It shouldn’t surprise readers of this blog, however, that I disagree. First, let’s examine what I'm disagreeing with; I do not disagree with Mr. Tancredo's remarks, but the characterization of them. Let's see what he said on the radio show in question, the Pat Campbell show.

PC: …what would our response be [ as a result of a nuclear attack on our soil by Islamists]?

TT: 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, such as?

TT: Well, what if you said something like, um, if this happens in the United States, um, and we determine that it is the result of, um, extremist fundamentalist Muslims, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites.

He did not say that’s what we should do in all cases; he said that’s what we should threaten to do before it happens and what one of our options would be afterward. If you listen to the rest of the audio, he also gives the other option of merely tightening up security.

As for a real nuclear option, for knowledgeable commentators to act as though such options haven't been considered and that everyone in the world doesn't know it, is--to be kind--naive.

Hugh Hewitt is setting up the comments as though the congressman is calling for the nuking of Mecca. Sorry, but it isn’t what the congressman is saying. Mr. Hewitt says also that nuking Mecca would hurt us in the War on Terror with peace-loving Muslims. That is, however, true.

Problem is that, in such a situation, many Americans would be past the point of caring. And we have a lot more nukes than any entity on Earth, governmental or otherwise. And that is why a dirty nuke in DC, New York, here in LA, etc. would hurt Muslims far more than it would hurt Americans.

Both Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed are mischaracterizing Representative Tancredo’s words. Unfortunately.

(Thanks to Northeast Intelligence Network)

UPDATE: I wonder what the black Sudanese Christians, Animists and Muslims said to make the Islamists mad?

UPDATE: Belmont Club, two years ago:

The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.

I think we have it worse now.

And, also from the Belmont Club, this is what one finds when one is looking:

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

Mr. Tancredo said nothing new or unknown or classified.

(Thanks to Donald Sensing, who, nonetheless, disagrees with me.)

UPDATE: See Froggy's missive.