It's Not About Being "Offended"

Tom Tancredo writes today in The Denver Post (HT: Real Clear Politics. Not surprisingly, he tries to reframe his controversial remarks from last week -- when he stated that an appropriate American response to an Islamofascist nuclear attack would be to bomb Mecca.

As James Lileks has noted, "Bombing Mecca to revenge the acts of maniacs is like nuking the Vatican to protest the pedophilia scandal in Boston." And the threat only assists the Islamofascist effort to portray our war on terror as a holy war against Islam (in the mode of the Crusades).

In his piece today, Tancredo writes the following:

But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.

And as I stated earlier this week, it is difficult to find any way to deter madmen who embrace death for themselves, and are completely unconcerned about inflicting it on the innocent.

But contrary to the premise of Tancredo's statement above, the "mere discussion" of nuking Mecca is less likely to deter a fundamentalist Muslim than it is to convince others -- who might remain otherwise suspicious about Islamofascist propaganda -- that it's important to destroy a country like America . . . whose own elected officials are willing to threaten their religion's most sacred and holy sites.

America is a country that embraces peaceful religion of all kinds. But that history and fact is lost in the controversy when someone like Tom Tancredo speaks with such recklessness.

Contrary to what he says, it's not about whether his remarks "offend" anyone. It's about whether they're strategically smart -- and whether they're right.