My friend Rep. Tom Tancredo is in hot water for his remarks about how we should react in response to an Islamist nuclear attack. Jack Kelly, Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt respond. Hugh says Tancredo’s statement “is the most irresponsible statement any American official can make.”

Rep. Tancredo’s remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly, but I do not agree that his words were “the most irresponsible” opinions expressed by any American official. Not compared to this or this or this or this.

The controversy does raise a very serious issue: What should we do to deter the jihadist threat, nuclear or otherwise? Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers his list here of things Rep. Tancredo should have said. Some of my preemptive measures are included here.

Update:

Juliette Ochieng listened closely to Rep. Tancredo’s remarks, which have been mischaracterized, and brings her trademark sensibility to the controversy here. Snippet:

[F]or knowledgeable commentators to act as though such options haven’t been considered and that everyone in the world doesn’t know it, is–to be kind–naive.

Update II: Donald Sensing with more thoughts on how both the U.S. and the Arab world should act. More at Andi’s World.

Update III: A Russian lawmaker has picked up on Rep. Tancredo’s comments.

Update IV: Strong responses in Rep. Tancredo’s defense from R.F. Laird at Instapunk and Lump on a Blog.

Update V: The Corner, as Rich Lowry notes, has had this very discussion before, along with similar distortions in media coverage and commentary.

comments (0)   trackbacks (35)