Sunday, July 24, 2005

Tancredo Knows The Enemy, But His Aim Still Sucks

Just surfed to Hugh Hewitt's redesigned site. Makes me wonder what took him so long to redesign it, him being the Blogfather and all. Heck, even our humble abode left Double-H's old digs in the deep, deep shade.

Hugh's newest post regurgitates his tiresome naivete and personal attacks against Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, this one in response to the latter's guest column in today's Denver Post. If you want to know my thoughts, you can find them here, as I don't feel like reinventing that wheel again.

Or, better yet, read Tancredo's essay, which is pretty much spot on except for this particular passage:

Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.

That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.

Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.

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.
If Tancredo doesn't believe that we should target Mecca and Medina now as part of this "intensified approach," why does he suggest that it be "left on the table" as a viable option? If doing so would "dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack," doesn't the logic of his argument require that we deliver an ultimatum to the entire Muslim world tomorrow: "Surrender or your holy sites are ashes in thirty minutes"?

The only rational purpose of apocalyptic threats is to deter apocalpytic actions from your enemies. Tancredo seems to be suggesting apocalyptic actions as post-apocalyptic reactions, at which time they would be essentially pointless.

But, of course, they're pointless either way because the jihadis have demonstrated quite convincingly that they not only don't fear death but actively embrace it, which means they cannot be "dissuaded." And since the tactical or strategic military value of dusting two towns in western Saudi Arabia would be ludicrously elusive when any terrorist WMD strike here would almost certainly have had its principle backing from the Iranian mullahgarchy, it earns Tancredo, at minimum, the nickname "The man who couldn't shoot straight."

Unlike Double-H, I have no antiseptic illusions about the nature and breadth of the enemy we face, and no squeamishness about doing what's necessary to defeat them. But unlike Congressman Tancredo, I am also relentlessly practical, which in this case means not doing anything more than what's necessary. And the latter has not demonstrated how threatening or carrying out what amounts to retaliatory terrorism would bring us any closer to victory, if not complicate its realization dramatically.

Tom Tancredo is not an "egomaniac" or "incoherent" or "foolish." He gave utterance to a single dumb idea. And by so doing he has tainted all the other eminently commonsensical counsel he offered today, and diminished the near-term likelihood of public consensus behind the hard-headed mindset that winning the GWOT - and perhaps survival itself - requires.

Don't believe me? If so otherwise a level-headed right-winger as Hugh Hewitt is fleeing for the PC tall grass, what does that tell you about the predilictions of the general public beyond?

UPDATE 7/26: Imagine my surprise when I tuned in Double-H's radio show Monday and found him wasting two full hours of his valuable air time on apologist for Islamist terror Hassam Ayloush, the Southern California head of Council on American-Islamic Relations. It didn't take my thirty seconds to discern where this interview was going, so I switched it off so as to spare me the unwanted hypertension.

But Froggy Ruminations, as befits a warrior of Klingon repute, stuck it out, and gave the Blogfather the dressing down he's been deserving for his Tancredo obsession:

Hugh unwittingly turned the keys of his radio show over to an organization that has a long track record of apologizing for islamic terror. I’m not sure if Hugh was simply unprepared for the interview, or in his zealousness to deconstruct the Tancredo Option that he decided to swing the conversation in the opposite direction. At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Toward the end of the first hour he had Duane working the phones desperately to get Frank Gaffney on the show to bail him out. What he got was some guy named Dr. Morey (?) who was as much a moonbat as the CAIR guy. Throw in a couple of hillbillies getting past the call screener calling for the US to nuke the muslims and you have yourself the show that should never have happened. [emphasis added]

I don't believe Hugh was unprepared. I think Hugh was doing exactly what he wanted to do - distance himself from Tom Tancredo and his "bomb Mecca" gaffe by bending over backwards to pander to supposedly "responsible" Muslims. And he got used like a three-dollar whore.

It's not unlike the way that Ed Morrissey bought into Clintonoid, New York Times-disseminated propaganda about Ed Klein's book on Hillary Clinton and got duped into defecating all over a book that has become both a NYT best-seller and, perhaps, a valuable piece of ammo in the uphill fight to deny her the presidency three years from now.

Beats me why two otherwise reliable, dependably conservative bloggers could suffer such sudden and virulent attacks of RINO syndrome. Maybe it comes from their growing notoriety, but I can only hope that if I ever reach that level, I'll continue to look before I leap blindly at the opposition's behest.

Meanwhile, Hugh should peruse this post cited by Froggy before ignorantly shooting off his mouth ever again about "literally hundreds of millions of Muslims opposed to bin Laden's fanaticism."

Oh, and Mr. Hewitt: I, too, have "the right to slam you all day and all night" - thanks in no small part to Froggy and his honored comrades.

And you have the right to take it, and hopefully emerge the wiser for the experience.

You won't find a better bargain anywhere.

FURTHER UPDATE: I wonder if Hugh thinks that Brother Trunk has the right to slam him as well?

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: Hewitt has Ayloush back on again today!

At least he's got the aforementioned Mr. Gaffney on to sit on this grievance-group Saladin.