(All right, that's not fair. Hugh has had points before. So maybe "twice.") But this one is pretty big.

Hugh was one of the first to jump on Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) for his hoof-in-mouth suggestion that if America is nuked by some militant Islamist group, we should increase the danger to the United States by orders of magnitude by bombing Mecca. (Michael Medved was also quick off the mark.)

Here's Hugh:

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT. Yoni Tidi is a frequent and popular guest on my program, a deeply religious Jew and a retired major from the Israeli security services. On the program tonight he condemned the idea of attacking Mecca or any other target that is "Muslim" as opposed to "terrorist-supporting." We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

Hugh's last sentence -- "we are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers" -- is fascinating... because if we were to follow the Tancredo Credo, that is exactly what we would be doing ourselves: killing 350,000 people for no other reason than their religious faith.

Our faith would be compelling us to go to war with all believers in Islam. Heck, even Ann Coulter, right-wing extremist extraordinaire, the fox of Fox, only "advocated" killing the Islamic leaders!

Huge calls the post The Tancredo Blunder, harkening back to the famous quotation by Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe on Napoleon's execution of the Duc d'Enghien on trumped-up charges: "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder." (Some attribute the saying to Tallyrand or to Fouché, but I'll run with Bartlett's.) And indeed, the Tancredo utterance may turn out to be even worse than the imbecilic ramblings of Dick Durbin, which had the virtue of being so preposterous that even his friends were embarassed, even as they tried to cover his tracks.

Here is the problem: Tancredo has no authority to decide on military responses... but the fact that a powerful politician of the president's own party -- the darling of a certain nativist segment of the right -- has called for America to attack Islam itself (which is how even our Moslem allies will see it) plays directly into the hands of our enemies. They have argued ever since the invasion of Afghanisan that we may say our response is measured and focused, but what we "really" want is to go to war against the entire Moslem faith... that is, to become "Crusaders" in truth.

We are not helped by the mentally negligent Kool-Ade drinkers who pound the table and demand exactly that. But at least they can be dismissed, because they're not in the government: they're just morons with very unsatisfactory sex lives.

But this stupidity from a national politician -- a man well-known for acting globally while thinking locally -- is a very different thing. Rice, Rumsfeld, and probably even the president himself will now have to personally reassure our allies and the rest of the world that we're not gearing up for the "final solution" to the Islamic problem.

It's a load of offal dropped on the Commander-in-Chief's head that he needs like a mountaineer needs an avalanche. As Hugh rightly demands, what conceivable strategic purpose is served by bombing Mecca, under any circumstances? It's hardly deterrence, since the terrorists would probably welcome such a response -- because they would imagine it meant that the apocalypse was upon us, where Allah would reveal Himself, destroy the Jews and Crusaders, and restore the world-wide Caliphate.

The Left, to paraphrase Churchill, swim in currents of hate so strong it sears their very souls. We on the right must not dive in to drown alongside them.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dafydd: Hugh's Got a Point, For Once:

» Gynecologists React to Tancredo's "Nuke Mecca" from Point Five
After Congressman Tom Tancredo stated on Florida talk radio that he thought an appropriate response to another attack against America might be to nuke Mecca, gynecologists are reporting record levels of new pregnancy among their red-state clients. It... [Read More]

Tracked on July 19, 2005 10:02 AM

» Tancredo Is Right On Nuking Mecca (We Are Not At War With Islam) from tdaxp
"What Difference Do Nuclear Weapons Make?," by Max Singer and Aaron Wildavsky, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil, revised edition published 1996, pg 66. "Revisiting Questions on Deterrence and Nuclear Terrorism," by Mark Safranski... [Read More]

Tracked on July 19, 2005 2:11 PM

» Defending Tancredo from ThoughtsOnline
Maybe... all Tancredo was doing was promising the American people that, should the unthinkable happen, if he had his way, we would get our payback.... and we'd end the war. A bit late. But we'd end it. [Read More]

Tracked on July 19, 2005 4:57 PM

» Ultimate Responses from protein wisdom

It occurs to me that I've yet to comment on the now infamous (and oft misrepresented) Tom Tancredo remarks -- remarks that a number of rightwing bloggers (as well as just about every blogger on the left side of the 'sphere, given t...

Tracked on July 24, 2005 3:54 PM