Tancredo Campaign Clarifies Remarks About Attacking Muslim Holy Sites
Whew -- this is a relief.
GOP Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo's campaign today clarified his recent assertion that retaliating against terrorism with attacks on Muslim holy sites would be an effective deterrent to further terror. The campaign said that Tancredo's not committed to pursuing this strategy as President -- proving that he's "open-minded."
"He is open-minded and willing to embrace other options," senior Tancredo adviser Bay Buchanan told CNN today.
That is indeed reassuring. Still, it would be premature to get too relieved, however. Tancredo still thinks it's a good idea and has no intention of ruling it out, either.
“This shows that we mean business,” Buchanan said. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that.”
Fun postcript: A State Department spokesperson told CNN that Tancredo's comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”
Do you think Tancredo even knows that Medina and Mecca are in Saudi Arabia, our erstwhile "friends" over there?
August 3, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
not a chance
August 3, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He thought they were in Massachusetts!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" - Franklin Roosevelt
August 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it is reprehensible and absolutely crazy . . . Add heinious and rascist and you have Tancredo . . . CNN is a farging news station . . . They have been on the aire for two decades and are now just realizing that Tancredo is reprehensible and absolutely crazy. I believe that they have zero crediblity on everything now.
August 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't disagree more with Tancredo's position. Bullets dipped in pig's blood--that's the way to go.
August 3, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hope people don't think he's too crazy. The pundits (and Hillary) have been bashing Obama because he has taken Nukes off the table. These same people should be praising Tancreto for taking NOTHING off the table. I can't see why bombing Holy sights is more insane the using frigg'n NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
August 4, 2007 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Bush himself will not comment because ALL options are on the table....
August 4, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's like saying "If there's a bomber or serial killer from Colorado, we should take out Denver and Colorado Springs."
To spell it out, since no one has yet in this thread: Tancredo is endorsing collective punishment.
Before the Reign of Junior and the Rise of FOX, this would have ended his career.
August 4, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wackiness is symptomatic of the Republican field. What are they gonna say? most in their base still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at home..." The candidates are locked in this dreadful competition to demonstrate what passes as 'toughness' to the base - ie the last 25%. Anything but 'toughness' (or gung-ho jingoistic bull) will look girly. Problem is: obviously, toughness did not quite work out the way it was supposed to.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!
August 4, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, following this idiocy reasoning:
If Tim McVeigh were to have blown up a building in Russia (instead of Oklahoma City), then according to Tom Tancredo's thinking, ... Russia would have the right nuke the Statue of Liberty.
In other words, why should holy sites, or anything, of a particular culture be targeted for destruction when the individuals committing the crimes are just that, ... individuals!!!
August 5, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink