Oh My God

If the 2008 campaign seemed too scripted and smooth for any real news to jump out, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo's recent comments sure break that trend.

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.

Focusing the Frenzy: What's Best for the Troops

Let's be honest, there is no excuse for what has been exposed at Walter Reed these past few weeks, and there should be no tolerance for less than perfect services to be provided for America's servicemen and women. To that end, our soldiers in Iraq should receive all the necessary (and additional) equipment, armor, and vehicles necessary to ensure their safety. Hearing politicians argue that calls for increased funding of troop equipment are distracting us from the goal of the mission in the GWOT is one of the most misleading claims being tossed around Washington these days. It is our responsibility to react with anger whenever a soldier's death could have prevented with a hundred dollar flak jacket or a Hummer with reinforced armor. The key to continued success in the GWOT is keeping our soldiers alive and in allowing the focus of Baghdad patrols to conern the maintaining or order and security instead of searching for IEDs whose shrapnel could seriously injure or kill an unprotected soldier.

While America's leaders have been ignoring such issues, the Democratic Congress is doing America an almost equally appaling disservice in not getting their act together. The military is a world of composure, resolve, and responsibility. Not being a soldier, I can't tell you what the current political mess appears like, but I can tell you that the Democrats are having some serious trouble getting their act together. It is misleading to exploit the story of Speaker Pelosi's confusing at a recent press conference regarding the specific date of withdrawal for US troops this coming July, but there's a nagging disagreement among Democratic leadership that is hard to look around. A positive discourse in the discussion of plans to correct the situation in Iraq is one thing, but after two months the Democrats have done little but divide up and run to separate corners of the room. Whether you believe in the potential for success in the Iraq war or you believe in an immediate pullout, President Bush is an easy target for criticism or praise, but the Democrats' current strategy (or lack of you) allows for them to work aroung accepting any sort of responsibility.

I'm guessing that in the military, if your name is called and you're asked to step forth, you do. Well, Democrats in Congress, I'd like to talk to you about what your party's position is. Would you mind stepping forward?