Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Speaking Of Dead Candidacies ...

Not that he had a chance anyway, due to the fact that he is not raising enough funds, and barely ranks in single digits in most polls, but Tom Tancredo did not do himself any favors with this statement today:

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“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,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

While he does not say whether it would be a "first strike" or a retaliatory strike, the idea that he would directly target holy sites is reprehensible. Even during World War II, we took steps to minimize the damage/destruction of any churches or holy sites in Europe. Harry Truman agonized over dropping both atomic bombs on Japan, knowing full well the devastation they would cause.

If the launching of nuclear weapons were in retaliation for a nuclear attack on the United States, that I could see. But if it is Iran that launches at us, the response should be to bomb Mecca and Medina. It should be to turn Iran into a sheet of glass, and a quiet little neighborhood for a few hundred years.

Just as he was criticized in 2005, he is about to face it again. This is lovely. On the Democrat side, we have a man who refuses to have the nuclear option on the table, and on our side, we have someone seemingly all too willing to use them.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home