[DVaut1]

I made an editorial comment about Tancredo being barbaric; putting (what I consider) to be his inhumanity aside for the moment, Tancredo unbelievably seems to think this is a legitimate option in the event of another terrorist attack. In other words, Tancredo seems to believe that, should America be attacked by terrorists -- an attack that would conceivably carried out by a handful of anational extremists -- a good idea to prevent more attacks would be to bomb places sacred to hundreds of millions of people which exist in an allied country. Seems absolutely mind numbing to me.

By his mere status as an elected federal official and candidate for President, he's already done severe damage to America's image by mere mention of such a "warning". It's not hard to picture various propaganda organs in the Middle East will print this comment and use it as a recruitment tool; does anyone disagree that messages like "US Presidential candidate will blow up Kaaba and the Tomb of Muhammad" will only serve to motivate and incite hatred against the Unite States? And understandably so. I'm ashamed that I live in a country where elected officials are so boorish and stupid, so I can only imagine how outsiders with little to no first-hand knowledge of the American political system may actually believe this a legitimate course of action endorsed by the government. The State Department official quoted in the CNN article is exactly right: Tancredo is [censored] insane.

I can only imagine how actually carrying out such a plan would (rightfully) inflame most of the rest of the world into frenzied opposition against the US -- if not compelling many Americans to turn against their own government. How Tancredo believes this would act is a deterrent is beyond my understanding.

Again, aside from the positively barbaric nature of his comment, it's absolutely bewildering to me that he considers this a serious policy suggestion. It's even more bewildering the leadership of his own party -- many of whom rose up to condemn Ron Paul for engaging in a legitimate debate -- are silent now. And aside from various blog posts at sites like CNN, most of the popular media in the US has remained relatively silent as well. Strange times, indeed, that Paul's comments draw vast amounts of ire and scorn in some corners, while Tancredo's draw mostly shrugs and apathy. Somehow, I don't think Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, and Joe Scarborough are going to devote much time to Tancredo's idiocy on their shows next week, although I hope I'm wrong. Had he suggested US foreign policy motivated 9/11 terrorists -- that would have earned furious condemnation from the Sean Hannitys of the world. Suggesting we indiscriminately bomb allies and innocents, however...that prompts only silence.