During a meeting with Iowa voters this week, Tancredo said the following:
If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. But as I say, if I am wrong, fine.
Reading that for the first time (and every successive time), each of his statements was like a bucket of cold water in the face.
Some outlets of the MSM have proclaimed that the statement is a ploy to appeal to hard-line Republican voters just prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. I live in Massachusetts and don't spend much time with diehard war-on-terror Republicans, but I can't imagine any sane person actually believing what Tancredo said...even Tom Tancredo.
Was it a slip-up? Hell no! Tancredo had a response for everyone who would undoubtedly attack him for his comments:
...in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended.
I was already mad enough when Rudy Giuliani completely discredited Ron Paul's belief of the "blow-back" theory when applied to the war on terror, but Tancredo's remarks make me as stark raving mad as he is.
If consequences don't matter in the real world (as our friend Tancredo apparently believes), then I'm sure Al-Qaeda wouldn't feel the need to strike back at say...EVERY JEWISH TEMPLE IN THE WORLD, right? Or better yet, why not send some of the million new terrorist recruits over to the Vatican and level that place too?
I can only think that after running through all the possible scenarios that could come as a result of his strategy Tancredo would have sobered up a bit and backed down, right? Wrong again!!
In the words of the man himself:
But as I say, if I am wrong, fine.
Oh my god.
No comments:
Post a Comment